1975-06-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on an important and urgent matter.
As many persons of 60 to 64 years of age, who are not married or recognized as spouses under Bill C-62, are experiencing hardships for lack of a job or adequate income to meet their needs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to introduce immediately to the House a bill authorizing the federal government to pay persons of 60 to 64 years of age not covered by Bill C-62 a guaranteed annual income and the equivalent of the old age pension plus the supplement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion required 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.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion arising from a number of representations from the area in which my constituency is located about the fact that federal parks are charging full fees to senior citizens whereas the government of Ontario is allowing senior citizens free entry to provincial parks in the same area.
I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government of Canada should follow the example set by the government of Ontario in regard to the admission of senior citizens to national parks in Canada, namely that the government admit all senior citizens free of charge to national parks similar to the complimentary entrance permitted by the government of Ontario to all provincial parks.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries) arising out of the apparent refusal of the ICNAF countries to accept the Canadian proposal for reducing the ICNAF quotas by 40 per cent. I ask whether the minister and his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, have any contingency plan to set in motion, in view of the rejection of the Canadian proposal.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, the officials attending the meeting have not had a chance to assess the consequences of the disappointing results of the conference. So far I have not had the chance to be briefed on the session. We are not satisfied with the results. We have asked for a meeting to take place early in the fall. We have obtained agreement for the meeting, which will take place very probably in Canada. We will be discussing this in the days to come, when the delegation returns.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister did not intend to leave the impression that he is a little casual about this. What does the minister propose to do to assess the matter immediately, and has he any reason to believe that a conference in the fall will be more successful than the conference which has just failed? Specifically, why does the minister think that the fall conference will be more successful?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I am not casual about this; on the contrary, I am deadly serious.
6990

June 23, 1975
Oral Questions
The request to reduce foreign fishing efforts by 40 per cent is one which some governments did not feel they could go along with right away. However, we made our case and we believe that when these governments have had a chance to reflect on it, we shall gain more support. There is already some support for our proposal. The conference was not a total failure; on the other hand, I would certainly not describe it as a total success.


SUGGESTED FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ON QUOTAS-POSSIBILITY OF UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF JURISDICTION TO 200-MILE LIMIT
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State (Fisheries).
Would he be prepared to call a federal-provincial conference now for the formulation of joint and common policy about the refusal of member nations of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries to accept a quota reduction as proposed by the Canadian delegate in Edinborough?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, we are not at variance with the Canadian provinces but with foreign countries. Besides, I do not see what would be the use of a conference when we all agree on the basic position which is priority access for the coastal state, Canada, to fish stocks off our shores.


Donald W. Munro: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to assure the minister of my full support in the forthcoming bargaining.
Does he intend to claim unilaterally for Canada a jurisdiction of up to a 200-mile limit along our three coast lines or over the continental shelf, whichever is greater?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if I felt that a federal-provincial conference could help us achieve our purpose, you can be sure that I should not the least hesitate to call one together. As to the second part of the question dealing with a unilateral claim, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is absent from Canada just now. It would be totally irresponsible on my part to recommend such action in his absence. Also, we have indicated that we are looking into all possible options, including this one.


Donald W. Munro: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister sought the co-operation of the Minister of National Defence to impose stricter controls in the sea area over which the ICNAF has jurisdiction?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, foreign countries which operate fishing fleets off our coasts will realize, as they certainly do already, that the Department of National Defence has been asked to take part in this control. We even asked them quite recently to intensify their efforts.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of reports of serious policy disagreements between the minister and the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will the minister advise whether he shares Mr. Teron's irresponsible view that the government should take no action to bring down the current high level of mortgage interest rates.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it perfectly clear that there is no such disagreement. The president of CMHC and I are working extremely well together. I respect this man who has come from the private sector into the public service. He cannot attend parliament to defend himself. He has done an excellent job. I hope that more people of his calibre will come into the Public Service of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this testimony of personal support of the minister is touching, but I wonder if he could now answer my question. Does he share Mr. Teron's expressed view that the government should take no action to bring down the current high level of interest rates on mortgages?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the president of the corporation making such a statement. I would have to see a copy of it to see what it was. I know that the question of interest rates generally is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. We live in an interdependent world with rather difficult economic conditions. However, the corporation certainly takes direct action in reducing interest rates for those who need it by way of a subsidy. That is done particularly with regard to lower income groups in Canada as well as middle income groups, especially in the last year under the presidency of Mr. Teron and during my term as minister.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE GOVERNMENT WILL NOT FOLLOW EXAMPLE OF ONTARIO'S GRANT SCHEME
John Edward Broadbent: I see that nothing has changed. In view of the fact that the response to the Ontario government's homebuyers' grant scheme, to understate it a wee bit, has been limited with only 4,300 applications being received throughout the whole province for a program which sets no limits on house prices or incomes, will the minister assure the House that any course of action he takes to provide housing to those who currently cannot purchase it will not follow the unfortunate example of the province of Ontario in this regard?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Ontario does some good things. I do not follow it on all things.
June 23, 1975


MANPOWER
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
On June 18, I questioned the minister concerning the possibility of his department paying through its offices the travelling expenses of young people age 16 to 17 for the picking of apples, tomatoes and cucumbers, as has been the case in the past. Can the minister provide me with an answer today?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I do not have this information with me. I have initiated the inquiry. I hope to contact the hon. member with specific details of where and when this took place. I regret the delay. I will get at it as quickly as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the lead question to the Minister of State (Fisheries). In accordance with his reply to the Leader of the Opposition, is the minister now able to state how many countries refuse to go along with Canada's proposed role for a 40 per cent reduction? Will the minister name those countries? Will he advise the House whether Canada is prepared to enter into bilateral negotiations with them and ultimately use economic sanctions if they are not prepared to go along?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, that is why in answering the first question I said I had not yet been fully briefed as to the evolution of the conference. I certainly have no hesitation in telling this House which countries supported us and which did not. I know that some countries did. As for the business of economic sanctions, when I indicated that we might use some sanctions in relation to ports in cases of violations, the hon. member was the first to protest that this would hurt some of the economic interests in the area which he represents. The hon. member must make up his mind. He cannot have it both ways.


SUGGESTED CONFERENCE WITH PROVINCES IN VIEW OF FAILURE OF ICNAF CONFERENCE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the economic sanctions I have in mind-and the minister fully understood my question-are trade sanctions, and there are only seven or eight countries involved. Surely, he must know the countries which didn't go along. In the light of the failure of the ICNAF talks, may I ask the
Oral Questions
minister if he is now prepared to enter into discussions immediately with the five provinces concerned to acquaint them with the ICNAF situation and Canada's next move, whatever it is to be?


Roméo LeBlanc: The governments of the five provinces mentioned are fully apprized of the details we have. In fact, the Province of Newfoundland, in the person of its own Minister of Fisheries, was present for the first two or three days and, afterwards, continued to have its own observer at the conference. So this is not a single national effort isolated from the fishermen, the industry or the provinces. Obviously, we intend to keep them fully informed.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether it is his intention to bring in amendments to the Criminal Code in connection with evidence going before a jury in cases involving rape and other sexual offences and, if so, will such action be taken prior to the recess? Or is it the minister's intention to place a paper before the House, as was done in the case of the Privacy Act, setting out the philosophy of the proposed changes so that it could be considered immediately by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: It is my intention to put the draft bill forward.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did the Law Reform Commission approve the suggestion that a judge should cease to warn the jury in cases of rape and other sexual offences that it is dangerous to convict without corroboration? Does he approve that suggestion?


Otto Emil Lang: I do approve that notion, recognizing the ordinary concern and caution of the judge in criminal cases not to convict in the absence of adequate evidence, and this still applies. The Law Reform Commission in a working paper, indicated it was taking this position but, of course, the final report of the Commission on this subject is not yet in our hands.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether the Minister of Justice would not reconsider his position and place the philosophy of the amendments to the Criminal Code before the committee for study, in view of the fact that such a mess was made at the time the Bail Reform Act was passed, legislation which changed the whole set up and constituted one of the contributions to crime today.


Otto Emil Lang: I disagree completely with the last remarks of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
29576-29)6

June 23, 1975
Oral Questions


Mr. Liang:: As I have said in the House previously-and not surprisingly after several years experience with the legislation-we are proposing certain changes to the wording of the bill but we do not intend to change the basic principles of the Act that, generally speaking, a person who has not been convicted ought to be at large unless the public interest or the likelihood of his not attending trial require otherwise. This remains our philosophy. We will put the other amendments before the committee in the form of proposed legislation and, of course, at that point, the committee and the House will have full opportunity to debate the philosophy underlying the proposals.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: A question for the Minister of National Defence, Mr. Speaker. Has any further information been brought to light which would warrant the resumption of a full scale search for the helicopter which is missing in the Northwest Territories with two men aboard?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to the reply I gave last week or to the reply my parliamentary secretary gave in the House on Friday. I can assure the hon. member that if any new evidence is found the search will be renewed immediately.


Alexander Bell Patterson: It was brought to the attention of the parliamentary secretary on Friday that the helicopter has been sighted about 25 miles outside the area in which a search had been made. May I ask whether this has been brought to the minister's attention and whether consideration is being given to the matter?


James Armstrong Richardson: I have examined that evidence, Mr. Speaker, and also the search master has examined all the reports but has found that the area concerned was very thoroughly searched.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In light of language commissioner Keith Spicer's statements this weekend that the prerequisite for federal education grants to the provinces should be mandatory courses in both English and French, can the minister advise the House whether or not Mr. Spicer was enunciating government policy or government thinking when he made this threatening statement?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Well, Mr. Speaker, he was certainly not announcing government policy, but it is no secret that some members of the government, particularly myself, have expressed the concern that languages are an option in our schools, especially at university, and have raised the question whether this matter should not be reviewed.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Could the minister advise the House whether or not he is in agreement with Mr. Spicer's serious charge that the provincial departments of education are, to use his wording, "finking out" on their responsibilities in this regard?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I have been working rather closely with the provincial governments on this matter and, in general, I have to confess that they have responded positively and encouragingly to most submissions that I have made to them. I believe that they could do more and I think that we could probably do more.


Otto John Jelinek: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that Mr. Spicer has termed the 40 per cent non-utilization rate of language training graduates as unacceptable at a calculated cost of approximately $30,000 per person, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that the cost-benefit ratio of the bilingualism program improves?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I would judge the bilingualism program on criteria other than cost-benefit. I suggest this issue goes well beyond that consideration.


SUGGESTED EMPHASIS ON LONG-TERM LANGUAGE TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State regarding his answer to the second last question and the attitude expressed by the minister vis-a-vis the ministers of education. In view of the fact that that seemed to be the point Mr. Spicer was expressing as well, that he did have the co-operation basically of the provincial ministers of education, would the Secretary of State review the situation regarding language training in Canada, particularly as it affects the public service, bearing in mind what Mr. Spicer said about language training in the public service, so as to see whether or not the emphasis could be placed on long-term programs in Canada with respect to second language training, having regard to the fact that perhaps this is the best place to find the cost-benefit aspect that Mr. Spicer was speaking about in the program yesterday and about which reports were written in the press today.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, there are really two parts to that question. The first part deals with language training within the public service. That is the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board and it has a certain urgency to it. The second part of the question deals with what our school systems are doing or not doing in support of the broad objectives contained within the Official Languages Act. I believe that there, as governments, we would be doing a lot more, if we could develop in our school systems an
June 23, 1975

approach to language training that was effective and which was, secondly, available to all children who wanted it. That would obviously reinforce what we are trying to do here in the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. One of the things the minister said which I think has gained general acceptance on all sides of the House, as we can see from this demonstration today, has to do with the federal commitment. One of the criticisms to the minister by the commissioner of official languages is that the commitment thus far seems to be rather short term. Would the minister indicate to the House whether he would consider studying very carefully, and if possible adopting, the provision suggested by Mr. Spicer, that the commitment of the federal government be an eight or ten year commitment, something in the long term rather than the presently existing shortterm commitment even in the national capital area?


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, I am rather puzzled by the question because it was only last year that, on behalf of the government of Canada, I renewed the language arrangements with the provinces. In discussions I had with them there was no complaint registered about the 5-year formula. They generally agreed that was a reasonable time span. They also agreed that the situation was changing and five years would probably be enough, because beyond five years the needs would be quite different.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that on Friday the Pentagon told a Senate subcommittee that United States manufacturers of military equipment paid more than $200 million to sales agents in foreign countries over the last two and a half years, and in view of the fact the New York Times included in its reports on those sales references to military equipment sold to Canada, can the Minister of National Defence assure the House that none of those sales agents' commissions were paid to agents dealing with the Canadian government?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Defence is not in itself directly involved in the sale or purchase of equipment. This is handled through the Department of Supply and Services.
An hon. kember: Speak up Goyer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO SOUTH KOREA-SUGGESTED RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION IN VIEW OF THREATENED OUTBREAK OF WAR
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister regarding press reports that the government of South Korea has placed its forces on a special alert, an order which a government spokesman states "is issued when there are signs that a war might break out". In addition, President Park is quoted as seeing a "heightened" possibility of another war with North Korea. In view of this critically dangerous situation I should like to ask whether the government will reconsider its decision to sell a nuclear reactor to South Korea?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to refer to the quotation the hon. member has alluded to, but it would seem rather preposterous to me, I might say, in light of the circumstances. As to his precise question, I must remind the hon. gentleman that South Korea already has two reactors from the United States. I do not know if they are safeguarded as Canada safeguards ours, or if those safeguards are as high as Canada's safeguards, but in our case the position is the one I stated to the hon. member last week.


PROPOSED SALE OF PLUTONIUM SEPARATION PLANT BY FRANCE TO SOUTH KOREA-SUGGESTED DELAY IN SALE OF REACTOR PENDING VERIFICATION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is now almost 10 days since fairly authentic reports indicated that the government of South Korea was negotiating with France for the purchase of a plutonium separation plant which could be used solely for the purpose of making nuclear bombs. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government has made inquiries to ascertain whether these reports are accurate and, if it has not made such inquiries, is it prepared to hold up such a sale until the government has satisfied itself that such plutonium separation plants are not going to be used in conjunction with the Canadian nuclear reactor?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under our type of safeguards we intend to safeguard the material and the technology through the entire life cycle of the supplied fissionable material. Therefore, there is no possibility that the Canadian material would serve in the way the hon. member apprehends.


An hon. Member:: Like in India.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Unless, of course, other countries want to help Korea break its own undertakings, and the hon. member has sensed here the difficulty of the situation. It is not sufficient for Canada to have the highest safeguards in the world, it is also important that we get other countries with nuclear knowledge to adopt the same type of safeguards. Otherwise I agree with what the hon. member suggests, that there is a danger to world stability. That is what we are working at, and that has been the subject of my talks with other countries with nuclear capability, to

June 23, 1975
Oral Questions
ensure that if one country like Canada plays it straight the recipient country cannot make an end run by co-operating with a third country. This is the important thing, but this is not within Canada's sole power to redress. This must be done by convincing other countries to be as stringent as we are.


CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a little over a week ago a conference called by the United States, and held in London, of the various nuclear powers, of which Canada is one, met to do the very thing the Prime Minister has just outlined, I would ask the Prime Minister who represented Canada at that conference, what progress was made, what plans are there to meet again, and can he assure the House that when some policy decision is reached by the six nations concerned an announcement will be made in the House so hon. members can know what commitments Canada has made in respect of the sales of nuclear equipment and materials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the report on the conference yet and, therefore, I am not able to give the hon. member an answer. I must warn him in advance that certainly what would be public would be the end result, with other countries taking the position that Canada did in upgrading their safeguards. The negotiations, my own bilateral talks and multilateral meetings such as the one in London are certainly things that would not be made public. It is the results that will be made public and we hope that other countries will do as well as Canada in upgrading their safeguards.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice a question.
Does he intend to carry out the recent suggestion made by the Law Reform Commission that imprisonment should be a last resort, or does he not rather intend, as American President Ford has already done, to recommend in the near future more severe penalties for people committing violent crimes and thus proceed with the adoption of a more typical piece of legislation that takes into account our society's strong desire to live in peace and justice?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would be our intention to look very carefully at every sort of recommendation of the Law Reform Commission. At the present time we have the working papers on this subject rather than the final reports. However, we expect these within the next six or eight months, following which

we would examine what proposals we should put before parliament, and introduce the necessary legislation.


REQUEST FOR COPIES OF PLEADINGS AND JUDGMENT IN CASE SEEKING PROHIBITION ON PUBLICATION OF DIARIES OF FORMER BRITISH CABINET MINISTER
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice aware of the very important court action being started or being carried on in the United Kingdom in which the Attorney General is seeking to prohibit the publication of the diaries of a former minister of cabinet, now deceased, and does the government agree with that position? Because of the very great importance of the knowledge of government facts and government information, would the minister agree to obtain copies of the pleadings and reasons for judgment in that case and make them available?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess that I have not been following the case very closely and I have not really seen the direct relevance of it to our position.


INFORMATION
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I should like to address to the government House leader. In light of the fact that most of the diaries have already been published and, in the opinion of the British press, they show a picture of fallible men making factual decisions often in the dark or near darkness, will the government House leader instruct his colleagues, and their parliamentary secretaries, that this should no longer be the main criteria in respect of the publication of documents and the giving of information in this House?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that has never been a criterion on this side of the House, but I sometimes wonder about the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: You don't know if you are in the dark because you have never seen the light of day.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, but as he is not in the House perhaps his parliamentary secretary could answer. Has the minister's department had time to consider the request from the
June 23, 1975

territorial coroner for a federal inquiry into the Panarctic air crash off Melville Island last October?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question let me say I do not think there will be an inquiry from the point of view of the Ministry of Transport. The report of the Department of Transport, I understand, is nearly completed and is related to the cause of the accident. It will be released later on this summer when it is completed. It will not be for the Ministry of Transport to be involved with the coroner from the north who is inquiring into the cause of death. That really involves another department.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to the Prime Minister in respect of his pigskin hypothesis that if you take away the ball you do not have the end run and you change the whole complexion of the ballgame. However, I rose to ask a question of, and welcome back, the Solicitor General in a state of apparent health. I hope the proceedings tonight do not cause his relapse. While appreciating the fact that the minister has been incapacitated, I wonder whether he has had an opportunity to talk to the commissioner of the RCMP and the investigating officers about the story in respect of Montreal airport and allegations by Sergeant Leduc and another officer that at least 60 individuals were involved in the smuggling of drugs into this country.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for his kind words. I did follow up this matter while I was away. No complete report is yet ready but I hope to have further information this week and will be glad to give it to the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that information as far as it goes, but separate and apart from anything the minister can tell us about the actual investigation has he discussed the matter further with the Minister of National Revenue to try to clarify the part of the allegation that not only were other individuals allegedly involved but that perhaps officials of the Department of Transport and/or the Department of National Revenue were involved.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have been away for two weeks and have not had an opportunity to discuss this with the Minister of National Revenue in those two weeks, but I had discussed it originally. I have no further recent information.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


MEASURES TO INCREASE SECURITY OF INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Sometime ago in his absence the Prime Minister took as notice a question I asked him. I had inquired about what immediate steps the government intends to take to increase security around federal prisons in Canada so that people living in the vicinity of the prisons need not be concerned about attempted or successful break-outs and the possible threat to their safety.


William Warren Allmand: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the last year or so we have made considerable efforts to upgrade security in our medium and maximum security penitentiaries with the result that escapes are down 66 per cent from 1972. Although that is quite an improvement we are still not satisfied and will not be satisfied so long as there are any escapes. There has been a lot of effort and many measures were taken. It would take me some time to give the hon. member all the measures that were taken.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have one brief supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that since those actions were taken we have had the incident in British Columbia, may I once again ask the minister what steps the government intends to take now and in the future to prevent incidents such as this and future incidents where people may successfully get out and may threaten the well-being of people living in the neighbourhood of prisons.


Mr. Speaker:: Even in light of that specific incident, I still feel the hon. member's question is really much too general, as was the first one.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development responsible for Panarctic. In view of the concern of the relatives and friends of the 32 people who lost their lives in the Panarctic plane crash at Rae Point in the Northwest Territories last year and in view of the concern by the general public regarding that plane crash will the minister advise the House whether there will be a public inquiry and if so who will head it and when might one expect a report from such an inquiry?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the inquiry has been held by the Department of Transport. As I understand it there has been a deferral of the inquest. It is my understanding that it will go forward later in the year. The hon. gentleman suggests there is some road-blocking by Panarctic. I think I should mention that there seems to be some confusion in the press concerning the action being taken by the lawyers representing certain employees and

June 23, 1975
Oral Questions
Panarctic separately and distinctly. In fact my understanding is the request for the adjournment was made on behalf of one of the lawyers representing employees and not by Panarctic.


CRIMINAL CODE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Solicitor General.
Recently in Quebec, the members of the Quebec Provincial Police held a congress. Can the minister tell us if following that congress, the members of the Quebec Provincial Police sent him a resolution asking restoration of the death penalty, not only for the murder of police officers or prison guards, but for any citizen. In the affirmative, has the minister replied and if so what was his answer?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I have already said, I was away from the House for two weeks and I do not know whether there has been such a request as mentioned by the hon. member.
Canadian Olympics Association will see that the necessary steps are taken to make sure no prejudice is caused to our athletes.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I should like to address it to the Prime Minister. In view of the despotic and deplorable conduct of President Amin of Uganda, particularly at this time with reference to the British author and lecturer, is the government prepared to immediately withdraw CIDA's support pending the outcome of Uganda's decision with reference to the fate of Dennis Hills and if not, why not?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure of the extent of CIDA's program in Uganda, and I do not know whether it would be an appropriate kind of action for Canada to take when we disagree with the actions of the government. However, I will certainly look into the matter to see what might be done.


ALLEGATION OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP RESULTING FROM RELOCATION OF ATHLETES TRAINING FOR OLYMPICS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister recently announced further assistance to athletes training for the Olympics. I am particularly concerned about whether any attention has been paid to the relocation of athletes. For example, the mens' volleyball team is entirely located in Montreal and the womens' volleyball team is located in Vancouver. Over 40 athletes have indicated that relocation has proved unsatisfactory from a financial point of view. Does anyone in the minister's department have a specific responsibility for contacting the athletes with a view to assuring that undue hardship is not worked upon them with regard to relocation.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that when sports require the formation of teams, these teams must meet at some place to practice their sport. It is impossible to set up a national football or volleyball team with each player living in his town of origin. However, the case raised by the hon. member is one which we are concerned about. There is an employee of Sport Canada, a direction of my department, who follows the question very closely on a regular basis, and who is in communication with the athletes involved. As far as the training involved is done according to 1976 Games plan, either my department or the


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment who in October last year said her department was looking into the matter of aerosols and SST's. Can the minister advise the House whether her department has now stopped looking, particularly in light of the fact that the State of Oregon has already banned the sale after March 31, 1977 of certain aerosol containers, and whether we can expect a comprehensive statement by the government respecting spray cans and SST aircraft.


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, we continuously examined the issue of freon or gases used in all kinds of containers because our information on these substances are not yet conclusive. We participate in studies with the OECD and with American colleagues to establish if there are really dangers to the environment in utilizing these gases. If the Contaminant Act is passed, I shall be in a better position to get information on the quantity of these gases rejected into the atmosphere and into the environment, and I hope that in the very near future, we will be able to reach a conclusion on this very important matter.
As for supersonic flights, the hon. member knows naturally that there are no such flights over Canada.
June 23, 1975


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question. I wonder if, as well as continuing the study, which takes up time, the minister is engaged now in any specific action regarding the establishment of some kind of international mechanism to deal with this problem in the likely event that the research indicates dangers which can only be resolved by international action. Are specific steps being taken by Canada now to set up some international regime that would deal with this problem?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it is nothing other than joint investigations we are making with other countries having already information which we are also looking into now. Evidently, those who are inquiring about this matter also consider measures which could be taken eventually should we conclude that these substances are damaging to the environment.


WHEAT-OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCERS TO DELIVER TO MORE THAN ONE POINT
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (McKenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the changing patterns of grain deliveries to country elevators in western Canada, has the Wheat Board given any consideration to providing the opportunity for farmers to deliver to several alternate points, not just the two points, one being the main point and the other the alternate point?


Otto Emil Lang: The Wheat Board did that a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the wheat pool has purchased many elevators, thereby effectively reducing alternate points-farmers still have to deliver to the same elevator, there is an exchange between elevator agents at these points, and the farmers in many instances feel they are not getting a fair deal-is there an opportunity to deliver, for instance, to six alternate points?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, about a year and a half ago the Canadian Wheat Board in effect opened all delivery points to any farmer, and that has been the situation ever since.


POST OFFICE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General arising from the fact that postal services are being used at the moment by persons in
Oral Questions
the United States to mail to Canada, in apparently large numbers, a disgraceful item of anti-Semitic, racist hate literature which, among other, urges cleaning up politics by kicking a Jew out of public office. I should like to ask the minister if his department would undertake to investigate this matter and ban the mailing to Canada of any items of this kind from the source from which this hate literature has come?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look into the matter, to ascertain the facts, and take appropriate action.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Given the fact that the Prime Minister has expressed much concern about the possibility of an end run around the use of the Canadian reactor by some other countries, would the Prime Minister give consideration to the fact that the ultimate safeguard, so far as Canada is concerned, is not to sell the reactor in the first place, and to put a moratorium on the sale of reactors to countries where we are concerned there might be a possibility of misuse?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes
indeed, Mr. Speaker, the government has considered that. But I believe the answer to that has been given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself, namely, that we have the moral obligation not to keep our technology to ourselves and refuse to share it with other countries if we can find ways of sharing it and avoiding any destabilizing effect on nuclear explosions. We are trying to do both, Mr. Speaker. It would be easier, of course not to share our technology, but we prefer to find ways to share it and at the same time to prevent its use for explosions.


James McPhail Gillies: I realize the position the Prime Minister is taking, but given the fact that this subject has become a matter of such great importance to Canadians, would the Prime Minister be prepared to announce to the House of Commons those safeguards of which he is so proud so that the matter could be debated here to make sure that everyone ;.n Canada can be as confident as he is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that these safeguards were announced in December by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Members of the opposition had occasion to debate them just last week.
6998

June 23, 1975
Oral Questions


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman confirm whether an investigation is being carried out by his department into the recent suggestions of possible violations of the criminal laws with regard to illegal discounts, rebates and commissions between Canadian airlines and travel agencies?


William Warren Allmand: This has not been brought to my attention, Mr. Speaker, but I will look into it for the hon. member.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the travels of the Special Committee on Immigration. Is the Prime Minister aware of the disappointment and displeasure registered by many Canadians as the result of the downgrading of multiculturalism and, if so, what specific steps are planned to give this policy a greater priority and more credibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the priority which the government attaches to the program of multiculturalism is very high indeed, and the actions of the government testify to that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that this policy was extremely important before the last election, following which it became less important, and in light of the fact that this policy is now tucked under the armpits of the Minister of Labour-


An hon. Member:: Use Rightguard.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -would the Prime Minister now give an undertaking that he will make a statement in the House regarding what multiculturalism means to the Government, why he found it necessary to remove from office the former minister of state in charge of multiculturalism, and why he finds something that was important in 1974 no longer important now? Would he make that statement in order that the views of the government, and particularly of the Prime Minister, of this country can be registered for the edification of the people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I hope the Prime Minister will rise in his place and answer my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the
Opposition.


BILINGUALISM
Robert Lorne Stanfield: My question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and it arises out of a response given by the Secretary of State in which he said there was much more than cost-benefit involved in the bilingual program. In view of the importance of public support for this program, and in view of the possible interpretation that could be put upon the minister's answer-it might be interpreted to mean that expense is no factor in connection with this program-I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in view of the comments made by the Commissioner of Official Languages, whether the government is in fact reviewing the present methods to ascertain that they are the most effective in achieving the government's aim with regard to bilingualism in the public service, and whether the Prime Minister could assure the House that the government is concerned about the cost benefit of the various techniques being used?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. gentleman that assurance. As a matter of fact, a cabinet committee is convened for tomorrow to deal with this very matter and to look into certain aspects of Commissioner Spicer's report. I did discuss the matter with Commissioner Spicer some time ago and I have had correspondence with him since. The matter will be dealt with in cabinet committee tomorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, does the Prime Minister believe that he might make some report to the House before the summer adjournment with regard to any change of emphasis in the bilingual program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance but I would remind the hon. gentleman that the last time I had that subject debated in the House I was told it was very divisive and unnecessary. I am glad the hon. gentlemen opposite have come around to the government's point of view.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Prime Minister will recognize that I was trying to be helpful and correct a wrong interpretation to the response of one of his ministers.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to pay tribute to three men who are in the
June 23, 1975

gallery this afternoon who to me personify the true picture of labour in Canada, men who have served their fellow Canadians unstintingly and faithfully for more than half a century. The three gentlemen sitting in the Speaker's gallery represent over 170 years of rural mail service in Ontario. They are Mr. Joseph Stanley Ritchie of Grand Valley in the federal riding of Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo; Mr. Melvin Sheehy of Fenelon Falls in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton, and Mr. Peter M. Johnston of Lucknow in my riding of Bruce-Grey.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the Prime Minister wanted to answer my supplementary question, and I am sure that all members of the House would appreciate knowing whether the Prime Minister would give a statement on motions on these very pertinent questions in order that the people of Canada may understand. In this regard, I would hope my colleagues would give unanimous consent for the Prime Minister to answer that supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Whether or not there would be unanimous consent, the fact of the matter is that the question was both argumentative and one that had been answered; so for two reasons it is out of order. Whether there is unanimous consent or not, out of order is out of order.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order as a result of the answer the Minister of Justice just gave me. I sought information on whether the Wheat Board was making it possible for farmers to deliver to several alternate points. In the application for my permit book there is one main delivery point and one alternate point: it does not give me any option to deliver anywhere in the province at any particular time, although the minister seemed to intimate that I do have that option. I should like him either to correct the misinformation I was given or the misinformation he has provided.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to reconfirm, for the third time this afternoon, that since January or February of last year the Canadian Wheat Board has been allowing farmers to deliver to any elevator they wish. That is true whatever the form of permit or application. The hon. member can deliver his grain to any elevator in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There has been the suggestion that in view of the uncertainty of the length of tonight's proceedings, the ordinary adjournment proceedings at the close of this sitting be suspended. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in respect of today's proceedings, for the afternoon I believe there is general agreement-and I wonder whether an order of the House might issue-to limit the length of speeches on the first round to 15 minutes and all subsequent speeches to ten minutes.


Gerald William Baldwin: Agreed.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed and so ordered.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[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: 2,088, 2,189, 2,316, 2,336, 2,494 and 2,554.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 557 and 2,349 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Horner: 1.	How much money in the form of agriculture research grants were paid in the past year by the government?
2.	In what particular fields of the industry did such grants cover?
3.	Were any grants given for crop seeding by aeroplane?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as Agriculture Canada is concerned: 1. $850,000.
2.	Animal Research, $162,650; Food Research, $55,500; Plant Research, $181,150; Soil Science, $35,500; Entomology, $69,000; Engineering, $63,500; Economics, $83,700; Veterinary Medicine, $33,500; Environmental Quality, $65,500; Interdisciplinary $100,000; Total, $850,000.
3.	No.
In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: Agriculture Research Grants and Contributions paid in 1974/75: 1. (a) Grains and Oilseeds Marketing Incentives Program (GOMI), $228,318; (b) Agricultural and Food Products Market Development Assistance Program (AGMAP), $266,086; (c) Grant to the Rapeseed Association of Canada, Rapeseed Utilization Assistance Program, $300,000; Total Agriculture Research Grants and Contributions paid in 1974/75, $794,404.
2.	(a) Testing, evaluation and development of utility wheats, feed grains and rapeseed meal, (b) Testing, evaluation and development of field peas, Faba beans and other crops, (c) Research and development of rapeseed products for foreign markets.
3.	Nil.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What was the average price realized from the sale of federal-provincial family housing units in the (a) two-bedroom (b) three-bedroom
29576-30/4

June 23, 1975
Order Paper Questions
(c) four-bedroom range for (i) Napanee (ii) Trenton (iii) Brockville (iv) Goderich (v) Hamilton (vi) Kenora (vii) Lindsay (viii) North Bay (ix) Orillia (x) Prescott (xi) Renfrew (xii) Stratford (xiii) St. Thomas (xiv) Thunder Bay (xv) Windsor, Ontario?
2.	In each case, what was the date of sale?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1 and 2.
Table 1.
Sales of Federal-Provincial Housing Units, Ontario (Average Prices)
Prior to September	1, 1973 (1)	After	September 1	, 1973Sale	2	3	4	2	3	4Locality	Authorized	Bedroom	Bedroom	Bedroom	Bedroom	Bedroom	Bedroom1	*	*	$	$	$Brockville	April 22,	1971	13,107	10,222	17,500	19,000	19,000	Goderich	April 1,	1971	13,000	15,503	10,500	-	10,375	-Hamilton	March 18,	1971	15,857	10,818	21,113	8,200	9,571	-Kenora	April 1,	1971	10,950	11,880	14,100	Lindsay	February 9,	1971	14,000	15,289	-	-	16,500	__Napanee	January 28,	1971	13,000	14,000	17,500	-	-	-North Bay	March 18,	1971	13,807	14,500	17,300	12,500	15,500	Orillia	March 18,	1971	-	-	_	-	-	-Prescott	April 19,	1971	-	14,288	18,000	13,500	14,500	-Renfrew	March 18,	1971	12,500	14,000	10,500	13,300	15,330	St. Thomas	March 3,	1971	-	-	-	-Stratford	April 22,	1971	11,025	14,824	17,350	15,500	14,917	21,000Thunder Bay	February 11	, 1971	11,557	13,967	16,500	16,750	18,929	20,000T renton	January 28,	1971	12,500	14,200	_	-	-	-Windsor	March 18,	1971	10,100	17,100	-	14,300	15,606	-r-
(1) Sales prior to September 1, 1973, included land and buildings, while those subsequent to that date disposed of the land by leasehold.


Mr. Cossitt: What are the names and addresses of all persons who are not employees of Air Canada or members of families of such employees who have at any time held passes on Air Canada since January 1, 1974 (a) in each case, what are the reasons that such a pass was issued (b) in each case, was the pass requested by the holder or someone acting on the holder's behalf (c) have any passes been called in by Air Canada or returned by the pass holder since January I, 1974 and, if so, what are the names and addresses of such pass holders and, in each case, what is the reason for such a move?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: (a), (b) and (c): Air Canada issues a certain number of individual trip passes for commercial promotional purposes. For competitive and other reasons, the airline considers names and addresses of persons who receive these passes as proprietary information. As well, passes are issued as required for other non-company personnel such as Cabinet Minister, Ministry of Transport officials with aviation responsibilities, Canada Post officials, other airline employees for business travel purposes and to certain CN employees who also perform functions for Air Canada. Passes are not usually requested by the holder, but rather by the company, etc. involved. Also, passes are normally not returned except for rare occasions when they are not used. These policies are similar to those of other Canadian airlines.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Will the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation be "Broadcast Host" for the Olympic Games in Montreal in 1976 and, if so (a) what facilities will be erected to provide the necessary services (b) where will each be located?
2.	What costs are involved or projected for the provision of each facility?
3.	How many persons will be involved in providing broadcast coverage in each location for (a) radio (b) television and what is the projected cost in each case?
4.	What special facilities will CBC provide for foreign broadcasters and at what cost?
5.	What special equipment will be needed for the setting up of the necessary facilities and what cost is involved in each case?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. Yes. (a) Facilities required are: radio and television commentator positions; electronic and film camera positions; cameras; mobile units; communications circuits; lighting; air conditioning; conduits for cable; parking area for equipment and personnel; transportation and results distribution systems, (b) The facilities will be located at the 27 Olympic venues around Montreal and district, in the old Radio-Canada Building (1425 Dorchester Blvd. West), the International Broadcasting Centre at

June 23, 1975

Cite du Havre, and Maison de Radio-Canada. In addition, there will be a telecine installation at Kingston.
2.	With regard to individual costs, it has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration. The total cost for the provision of host broadcasting facilities is estimated at $50 million: $25 million of this is being provided by the federal government and $25 million by COJO.
3.	The number of staff required to provide coverage for radio, film and television is estimated at 1,106, divided as follows: 649 from the CBC, 140 from the private sector, and 317 CBC-trained students. These staff members will undertake the ordering, installation, control, maintenance and supervision of equipment, as well as the processing, distribution and recording of the signals. No breakdown between radio and television can be made.
4.	CBC/ORTO will provide facilities and services to 70 television and 110 radio broadcasting organizations. The cost of basic services-access to picture and sound from a comprehensive coverage of each event and access to adequate facilities for commentaries-will be covered by the $50 million budget: special facilities will be provided to foreign broadcasters upon request, but the cost of these services will be completely recoverable.
5.	Twenty mobile production units, 22 slow-motion units and ancillary equipment. Facilities provided in the old Radio-Canada Building are: a VTR room; a Quality Control Room; the Unilateral Master Control room; a maintenance shop; offices for participating broadcasters; 53 radio studios, a television distribution centre, an audio distribution centre; and nine television studios being either set up or modified in the three broadcasting centres (old Radio-Canada Building, International Broadcasting Centre and Maison de Radio-Canada).


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What grants were made in each of the past five years to the Vaudreuil Museum?
2.	What grants have been indicated for future years subject to the necessary approvals?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows: 1 and 2. As part of the financial aid programs of National Museum Policy, National Museums of Canada has approved a contribution of $80,000 to the Vaudreuil-Soulanges historical society for the Vaudreuil Museum. A first instalment of $20,000 was paid during the 1974-75 fiscal year. Subject to approval by parliament of the necessary funds, a second instalment of $30,000 will be paid in 1975-76 and the final instalment of $30,000 will be paid in 1976-77. No other contribution has been approved or is being considered.


Mr. Marshall: With reference to a news release by the Minister of Justice on April 10, 1975, concerning the awarding of a grant of $1,827 to a Dalhousie
Order Paper Questions
University professor to pay the cost of a summer research assistant (a) for what purpose was such assistance required (b) under what existing programme was application made (c) is such a programme available to all provinces and/or universities (d) what are the terms of reference of the programme?


Otto Emil Lang: (a) To assist in researching housing legislation and preparing a low-income cooperative housing information kit to be distributed to interested groups and organizations, (b) Grants for Research in the Legal Field, (c) The Treasury Board terms and conditions regulating "Grants for Research in the Legal Field" provide that grants may be made to: "bar societies; law professors, lawyers and other persons doing research in law; storefront legal offices and other organizations seeking to deliver legal services; associations engaged in innovative legal developments; and associations of law professors", (d) The purpose of the programme is to encourage research in the legal field. In assessing applications the Department takes into consideration the following guidelines: the subject matter must lie in an area of federal concern or must be of general application in the Canadian legal system; the publication for which funding is sought must not be commercially feasible; and the project must help solve some of the problems connected with access to information about the law.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Symes: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



NATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMME FOR STUDENTS

Mr. Elzirtga: 1.	In 1974, what amount of money was spent throughout Canada in the National Exchange Programme for students?
2.	(a) How much was spent in each province (b) which schools received such grants (c) how many students were involved from each school?
Return tabled.

June 23, 1975
National Capital



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to review and report upon matters bearing upon the development of the national capital region, including the programs and operations of the National Capital Commission;
That 15 members of the House of Commons to be designated by the House at a later date be the members on the part of this House of the special joint committee;
That the said committee have the power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses; to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House; to report from time to time; to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be deemed advisable; to delegate to sub committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House; and to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that House to unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed special joint committee.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the support of the opposition. I want to hear the views of as many members as possible during this rather limited debate. I should like to thank all members of parliament from the national capital region and, I might add, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), for their general support of our objective of creating a capital of two official languages where Canadians will feel at home no matter what their cultural or regional backgrounds might be.
The government welcomes the establishment of this committee. It looks forward to the results of the committee's studies and the committee's recommendations. There are several reasons why the committee study is important and timely. For one thing, the deliberations of the committee will focus national attention on the capital itself. Parliament itself, rather than the government or some branch or branches of it, should be the judge of how the capital should be further developed. This committee will represent both Houses of Parliament and, more than that, all regions of Canada. The national capital must be a place for all Canadians; therefore we want the views of all Canadians, not just those who represent residents of the national capital region or even those who represent the two provinces which contain the capital geographically, though members from the region have a special responsibility as the daily lives of their constituents are intimately affected.
The government is looking for recommendations from the committee which will provide a consensus on and impetus toward what our capital should look like 25 years from now. We are looking for fresh and lively ideas on

how to enhance the magnificent setting around us and to try to make it reflect to the world and to ourselves what Canadian nationhood means. Still another reason for looking forward to this study is that we have not had a parliamentary inquiry on the capital since 1956. The parliamentary committee of 1956 made significant contributions to the development of the capital and consequently, I submit, to the nation as a whole. The committee's recommendations led to passage of the National Capital Act in
1958.	This act provides the authority for the National Capital Commission to develop the capital as the guardian of and spokesman for the national interest. The committee of 1956 also made recommendations which resulted in increased financial backing for the commission's activities.
Perhaps I might remind the House of some of the major projects which the 1956 committee helped to bring about: the greenbelt around Ottawa, the expansion of Gatineau Park, the exercise of federal policy through the ownership and use of property, the construction of major traffic arteries, the addition of more bridges across the Ottawa River, and the continuation of the railway relocation program. The results of the committee's work are all around for us to see today.
I think that all parliaments and administrations since before the Second World War have been committed to the building of a capital befitting this country. Moreover, they have provided the support, financial and political, to the National Capital Commission and its predecessors and other departments and agencies concerned in carrying out this commitment. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's government established the Ottawa improvement commission in 1899 and it built the driveway beside the Rideau Canal. The driveway exists today almost in its original form. This commission was replaced in 1927 by the old federal district commission. It is interesting to note that even then the commission was given authority for a district spanning both sides of the Ottawa River.
In 1958 the federal district commission was replaced by the National Capital Commission and parliament renewed the authority for the commission to take responsibility for a national capital region taking in parts of both Ontario and Quebec. The boundaries of the commission are set out in appendix to the National Capital Act proclaimed in
1959.	Twenty-five years ago Jacques Greber produced his commissioned plan for the national capital. I think it stands as a tribute to Greber, parliament and governments since then, that his plan has been substantially implemented. We now have the greenbelt, parks and parkways that Greber said we could have if we worked at it.
The capital has grown faster and farther than Greber foresaw. Greber anticipated a population of 700,000 in the national capital region by 1990. We are just 40,000 short of that figure now, 15 years before the predicted date. The National Capital Commission now foresees a population of about 1.4 million by the turn of this century. We now are at the point where we need a new concept, a new thrust, a new development plan for the capital in the next 25 years. What better place to find solutions than in the body which is central-I use "central" in every sense-to the capital, parliament itself?
June 23, 1975

The National Capital Commission has prepared a concept for the development of the national capital region during the next quarter century. The regional municipalities in both Ontario and Quebec have prepared or are preparing their own plans. The cities of Ottawa and Hull are advancing their ideas. The special task force on the governing of the capital has publicly reported its recommendations. Citizens groups are making suggestions. I particularly welcome this examination of the governmental structure of the region as well as the examination of the physical environment. I believe that the involvement in the governing of the region of two provinces, municipalities and the federal government is unique. As Minister of State for Urban Affairs, I think my first responsibility is to make sure that the national capital region is a good place in which to live and work. I have a special responsibility for Ottawa as that is the capital of all Canadians.
We must resolve the difficulties of what may be termed a truncated government structure. I especially look forward to the committee's recommendations. Incidentally, not one of these jurisdictions is working in secret or independently. The National Capital Commission, for instance, has held briefings for provincial authorities, regional authorities, members of parliament and citizens groups. I think the commission has briefed everybody in sight who would sit still for a few minutes. The commission and all these other jurisdictions and groups are, I am sure, ready to put their views before the joint committee.
I hope that all members of this House and of the other place will take an interest in the deliberations of this committee. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the cabinet and I, as the minister responsible for the programs of the NCC, all look forward to the recommendations of this committee. If it builds as well as the last committee we will not need a motion like the one before the House for another 18 years. In conclusion, may I quote what Bruce Hutchison said about capital cities:
A nation lives largely by symbols, which represent feelings too deep, subtle and sacred to be uttered directly or framed in words. And of such symbols, a capital city is one of the most profound. A great nation will have a great capital, not necessarily in bulk, expenditure and ornament, but in quality and atmosphere; while a mean nation will display its character by the same outward signs.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) paid tribute to anybody who had been in any way, directly or indirectly, involved in the establishment of the capital of Canada. However, he did not mention Queen Victoria who chose this magnificent site on the banks of the Ottawa River for the capital of Canada. I hope this omission was made from a sense of delicacy he might have felt for the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).
Today parliament has embarked upon a study of this area encompassing 1,800 square miles, with a total population exceeding 600,000 people, according to 1971 figures. I am looking forward with considerable interest to the results of the study. Let no one forget, once the euphoria and romance has been forgotten, that the problems of the national capital are complex, difficult and involve conflicts of interest. Consider the area about which we are talking. It straddles the boundary between two provinces, contains two regional governments, two major cities and a
National Capital
minor city, a large number of smaller municipalities which are growing and in various stages of development, a number of major school boards, planning boards and even conservation authorities. Land division committees are applied in the area. In addition to the multiplicity of governing bodies, certain aspects of administration are divided between the National Capital Commission and the Department of Public Works. Moreover, in addition, community associations compete for different interests of different areas. As if this were not enough, one finds two cultures in the area and an increasing interest in multiculturalism.
It is true that considerable difficulties lie in the way of achieving a satisfactory system of government for the region. Difficulties confront us, but that does not mean we do not attempt to deal with them. That is the spirit in which I am speaking this afternoon. I say that it is time for us to approach these difficulties openly; let us discuss them openly and fearlessly. If there is truth to the cliche we have heard expounded by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others, including the minister, to the effect that our country is strong by reason of its diversities, I venture to suggest that the national capital area, by reason of its diversity, must be one of the strongest areas of Canada. We are diverse and we shall be vitally affected by the outcome of that upon which we are embarked today.
Into the middle of this diversity has jumped Douglas Fullerton, the former chairman of the National Capital Commission and a distinguished Canadian with whom it has been my privilege to disagree violently and whom it has been my privilege to know. No one who has ever known Douglas Fullerton and has disagreed with him- and there are many who have disagreed with him violently-can deny that he had the interests of the area at heart. He did perhaps more than any one person to give the National Capital Commission some life in the sense that it is known in the community as a vital force. In terms of ski trails, bicycle paths and Rideau Canal skating, the NCC and the position of the federal government became known to the average member of the general public. However, if he had a weakness as a man and as a viewer of governments, it was his passion for efficiency. It was this view of our area as being faulty because it was, as he put it, over-governed that lead to his view of the National Capital being inefficient in the governmental sense.
If one reads Douglas Fullerton's report, which is basically only one of the working tools of the committee, he will see that it bears the imprint of his conviction for efficiency and his basic distrust for elected municipal politicians. If one probed his heart of hearts, one would find that Mr. Fullerton would rather see national capital government vested in this area in an organization that was federally dominated. He took great pains to say that would be impossible, but I think if you looked into his heart of hearts you would find that is what he would like to see. Mr. Fullerton was wise enough to know that the public would not stand for that. Therefore, what he advocated in terms of his proposal for a supracouncil is really an attempt to allow the federal government to do indirectly what it cannot do directly. That is the danger of the

June 23, 1975
National Capital
acceptance without question of the Fullerton view of local government.
I am not gainsaying in any way the value of his report: it does have validity as a study of the area. However, his recommendations are suspect. I should mention that it suffers from a weakness that he himself admits. At a time when there is a desire among the general public for more responsiveness in government, he is advocating a system of local government for this area which is even less responsive than the opponents of our present system are prepared to suggest about the system we have at this time.
What about this business of efficiency of government: how should we approach it? I suppose one could say, if we want efficiency, let's do away with government altogether in a local area. We ought not to approach efficiency in the industrial sense. Whether or not governments are efficient cannot be measured in the mathematics of the balance-sheet. The efficiency of government, particularly local government, is measured in intangibles-the goodness of the service provided, the needs that are satisfied, the social objects that are attained, and the matter of responsiveness and accountability. It is measured in the ability of the individual to participate in local government; it is based on the decision that the ratepayer makes as to whether, on balance, the government he has, such as it is, reasonably supplies his needs and makes the place where he lives a good place to live, work and raise his family.
There is a danger when we talk about efficiency in government. Governments do not exist for the convenience of the governors or the administrators; they exist for the people they are supposed to serve. That is how we should measure efficiency, whether talking about the national capital or anywhere else but particularly when talking about the national capital. This does not exclude the recognition in this particular area of other elements that ought to enter into any discussion of the nation's principal city in terms of its symbolism and, for that matter, the sense of patriotism and feeling for country that it can engender.
Having said that, I am not suggesting that we ought not examine the governmental structure from time to time. Of course we should. However, we are doing our country a disservice if we advocate radical change for the sake of change. We ought not to throw the baby out with the bathwater; we should examine the baby very carefully.
Using the definition of "efficiency", how are we doing in the national capital area? There is certainly no euphoria about this report. If you examine the national capital area in terms of the approach I have taken to efficiency and the proper definition of that word, I do not think we are doing too badly. The proof of the pudding is perhaps in the difficulty in enticing public servants to leave this area. It is in fact a good place to live, a place where most wants and needs are properly satisfied. Work is available. Some say there is perhaps too much work here, but nonetheless it is here. We have the amenities of recreation and a meeting of the two major cultures of Canada.
The job of the committee must be to examine this report realistically. We must not tilt at windmills or advocate what we know will be unacceptable. Any changes that we advocate must be to make local government more responsive and accountable. Surely we must emphasize the na-

tional capital as a place to live and a place to reflect our nationality. If we approach this question from the point of view of fostering co-operation and compromise, and at the same time make the area a place which visitors from other parts of Canada will leave believing that it was worth the cost, then this government and the committee referred to in the motion will be able to say they have accomplished a worth-while task.
There has always been an upper and a lower Canada. There is, and hopefully there will continue to be, an Ontario and a Quebec. There is, and there is likely to be, an expressed unwillingness to cede territorial rights. There will be the basic linguistic and cultural differences between Ontario and Quebec, at least in our generation and perhaps in the generation to follow. As time goes on, this will be complicated by emphasis on the multicultural aspects of Canada. There will be different approaches in the law, the operation of the courts, the educational system and a host of other things. There are bound to be differences in the national capital such as there were differences in 1867 when this country came together.
The problems that we face in the national capital are really the problems that we face on a daily basis in our country. This does not say that we cannot approach them. As the minister said, we must be conscious of the varying provincial reactions and their points of view. Mr. Fullerton's main theory is that the federal government wants a place at the table. I think I am quoting him when I say that. I do not say they ought not to have a place at the table, but I want no one in this House to think they do not now have a place at the table.
We have to be very careful about how we approach this matter. The NCC, the federal government, is the largest landowner in Ottawa-I think the figure is about 29 per cent-and it is the most strategic land in the city. They have the power of expropriation, the power of the largest purse, and can place government installations wherever they want. They can reflect upon the development of the community and they can deny or grant corridors for infrastructure and the development of communities at will. That is their presence. They have a place at the table right now; the federal government is at the table, with its napkin tucked under its chin, a fork in one hand and a knife in the other.
In all these discussions we ought not to succumb too easily to the theory of a place at the table without examining whether local government ought to have a place at the federal table. That is one of the discussions we will have to enter into very carefully. Perhaps we ought to ask ourselves, why not a representative of the local government in some form or another at the NCC table? The government has steadfastly refused to do that.
One could expand on private theories about the national capital region and be quite romantic about it. But there are certain basic problems that we have to deal with in this area, whether it results in a new structure or whether it results in a continuation and improvement of the existing structure. We have to rationalize, somehow, the differences between the NCC's concept of development for this area and the concept of the regional municipality on the
June 23, 1975

Quebec side and the regional municipality on the Ontario side. There is a basic difference, and if the committee can resolve that difference it will have done a signal public service.
We have to look at the studies going on at the present time in the regional municipalities on both sides of the river which are relatively new and relatively untried. On the basis of that, we must decide whether or not we have a duty to go any further at this point to put some other structure in when those are not already tried. We have to canvass the views of the local municipalities; we have to do a comparative analysis of other capital cities; we have to get the views of Canadians who do not live here. I think it important that this be done, because they are paying part of the bill and every person in this country has to accept the concept of a national capital.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We must rationalize the whole issue of the centralization of the industrial plant of Ottawa, and that is the government buildings. Are we to continue the foolishness of the fifties by centralizing, centralizing, centralizing and putting more and more buildings and more and more people into fewer and fewer acres of ground in the centre of the area? Or are we to consider decentralization? That is basic to our capital. That is basic to the municipalities which lie around us. It is basic to many of the wishes of members of parliament in this area who represent the people of this area. We have to take a long, hard, honest look at the linguistic and cultural realities of this area and not be afraid to face them. We should not be afraid to touch the question, and I do not think we have yet done so.
The National Capital Commission has made some progress in terms of linguistic training in this area but, with respect to the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner), he has barely touched the problem in this particular area. How far ought he to go, not only in the national capital but beyond in terms of making this capital a place of symbolic importance to Canadians? I said at one stage, Mr. Speaker, that this area is a microcosm of our confederation. In our national capital we have all the strains and all the divergencies of our country. We ought not to assume that a federal presence means that it follows there must be a direct say in the government of this area by the federal government, any more than there ought to be a direct say in provincial government affairs by the federal government.
Our country has flourished and confederation has flourished despite the differences, and as long as we evidence in this country a willingness and a desire to consult, to co-operate and from time to time to improvise, whether we are talking about Canada or about her capital, our city and our area will continue to flourish. Perhaps that will be the only result of this committee. If it is, we ought not to be disappointed. If a new structure is not developed for the national capital area out of this, we ought not to be disappointed if there is some basis found for reasonable co-operation. We want to make-as I think every member of this House does-the national capital representative of Quebec as well as Ontario, the east as well as the west, the English-speaking as well as the French-speaking, the mul-
National Capital
ticultural groups represented in this country as well as others.
I think that if this committee has any function at all, it must do all these things within a framework of protecting the vital interests in the democratic process and the participation in the democratic process of the people who live here, because long after we are finished our tinkering as a committee, whether this year or 25 years from now, people are going to live here and it is important that we create an atmosphere where it will continue to be a good place to work and to raise one's family and to suggest that others do the same.
This will be a very important committee because, perhaps, of the way it zeros in on some of the difficulties of our confederation. I hope this exercise will add to the unification rather than the diversification of our country, and I hope we will not be too disappointed if we approach it with practicality and nothing that is disturbing or shocking comes out of it except a desire to move closer together. I think that would be a great result for the work of this committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we warmly welcome the motion to set up this joint committee. I am particularly pleased to note that although the terms of reference call in particular for a review of the programs and operations of the National Capital Commission, they also call for a review and a report upon all matters bearing on the development of the national capital region.
I join with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in suggesting that one of the main purposes of the committee is to try to do a job of reconciliation. There are conflicting points of view and conflicting approaches which need somehow to be brought together, and I believe that if the committee sits down quietly and takes its time it can do a good job in this area. I note that the motion establishing the committee goes out of its way to give the committee authority to sit during adjournment of the House. I suggest this is precisely what the committee ought to do, because it does have a very important problem to consider.
There can be no gainsaying what the NCC has done for this city, and in doing what it has done for Ottawa it has done it for Canada. There was a reference a moment ago to the fact that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) had forgotten Queen Victoria's part in choosing this city as the capital of Canada. I was not here when she chose it, but I did make my first visit to Ottawa in 1924, and I have been here most of the time since 1942 and I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is a different city today from what it was half a century ago. One of the reasons it is so much more beautiful, so much more attractive, is the work of the NCC. Reference has been made to the green belt, to the parkways, pathways, cycle tracks, skating on the canal in winter, skiing, and so on. There is no doubt that the NCC has done good work for the national capital region and that in doing so it has done a good piece of work for Canada as a whole.

June 23, 1975
National Capital
At the same time, those of us who are interested in matters relating to this area-and this includes both sides of the river-are aware of a failure to get together. For example, during the past several years there have been studies as to what should be done or taken part in by the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and other bodies, but with no input from the National Capital Commission. There have been studies on the other side of the river, both at the regional district level and among the various communities on that side. Plans have been produced by the local groups on both sides of the river which, as I say, not only had no input from the National Capital Commission, but parallel with the publication of their reports there has been the publication, for example, of the National Capital Commission's report produced by Mr. Douglas Fullerton. There are suggestions in the one report that certain areas are areas for development; in the other report some of those areas are played down, at least for some time to come. There are suggestions for rapid transit proposed by one group that do not fit into the proposals made by the other groups.
One can understand the intense interest of all those concerned, of the local people on the north side of the river, the local people on the south side of the river and those who work in the National Capital Commission; but it seems to me that more of an effort than has yet been made should be put forward to try to achieve some reconciliation and understanding of the various points of view. Indeed, I would say that here is a tremendous example of the need for co-operation rather than confrontation and it arises out of the conflict between two interests, both of which, in my view, are thoroughly genuine.
On the one hand, there is the interest of Canada, the interest of the nation. This is the capital city for all the people of this country. All the people of this country have an interest in it or in its being a beautiful and attractive place, in its being a place that somehow symbolizes what Canada is. I think it has moved in that direction a great deal, if I may say so again, even in my lifetime. When I first visited it as a schoolboy, to me it was almost a symbol of a colony of Britain. Today it has become the symbol, to a very large extent, of the Canadian nation; some of the trappings and aspects that were evident a half century ago have been changed. It is a capital that belongs to Canada as a whole. It is Canada as a whole that has to pay for most of the cost of the development of things that relate to the national capital characteristics, but that is appropriate. Because Canadians as a whole pay the cost, because Canadians as a whole think of it as their capital, they have the right to have their national representatives, through the National Capital Commission, have a good deal to say about what goes on in the development of this area.
I think that the establishment of the Greber commission back in the days of Mackenzie King, and the consequent Greber report and plan were beneficial and that all the efforts that have been put forward since then under the aegis of the federal government have been exceedingly worth while. That is one side of the coin-the interest of the Canadian people in this place being their capital, the capital of the country as a whole.

We are conscious every day of people who come into this very building. Many of them happen to see the House of Commons in session on only one day of their lives. They see the city, visit the parkways and buildings which are attractive and beautiful, and they are proud of what they see. No one comes to Ottawa and regrets having seen this city, and I suggest this is due very largely to the fact that we have this concept of Ottawa being the national capital.
There is, however, another interest, Mr. Speaker, which my hon. friend and colleague from Grenville-Carleton has stated. It is also a place where people, hundreds of thousands of them, live. Though many of them may work for the federal government, they are people, they are workers, and have just as much right to all the trappings and aspects of democratic control of things close to them as people in any of the cities of Canada.
I understand the notion that it would be nice to do things efficiently, to lay down a master plan and just carry it through. But efficiency is not the only thing that counts in life; there certainly has to be a sense of participation and the practice of democracy. I very strongly urge that the federal government not put its weight behind any plan or scheme that would lessen the say of the people of this region in the governing of the area itself. As the previous speaker has pointed out, this has become a much bigger issue in recent years than it used to be. It used to be, for the most part, just a conflict between the federal government and the city of Ottawa, but now there is the whole area on both sides of the river, including two regional governmental areas, several municipalities, school boards and all the rest of it. I insist that the right of the people of those areas to participation in the democratic control of their own local affairs is one that must not be frustrated by a national desire to run things on an efficient basis.
There are some catch words and cliches and references as to how they do it in other places which one could trot out and evoke responses one way or the other, but I am trying to avoid that. I am simply saying that I think these two interests-the interest of our having a national capital that is the pride of all people of this country, and the interest of the people who live here, of having a city to live in that is theirs and which they run and control-are both legitimate interests. I do not think it is beyond the wit of human beings to reconcile these two interests, and I hope that the members drawn from both Houses who will comprise this committee will look upon their job not as one in which they advocate one or other of the various plans but, rather, as a job of trying to reconcile these differences and of bringing about the kind of basic understanding that will make the governing of this area the best it can be.
As I say, there is no question about the beauty that has been added to this city in the past few decades; I am going to say something on the other side in a moment. The problem, as I see it, is not just the development of the national capital region, to use the language of the motion, but how the area is to be governed and how we are to reconcile these two conflicting interests. One of the aspects that has to be considered a good deal, of course, is finance and how much the federal government will pay the municipalities of this area in lieu of taxes or in lieu of the services the federal government gets. There, too, I
June 23, 1975

hope there can be a meeting of minds. However, I emphasize the point that when the federal government has to cope with the problem of municipal finance in relation to the cities of this area, they are not the only cities and that the federal government should be thinking a lot more than it used to in terms of its responsibility for achieving some kind of relationship with the municipalities generally.
I was interested in a report that appeared in the Toronto Star on Tuesday, June 17, having to do with a meeting of municipal officials in this city. These two paragraphs in particular attracted my attention:
The cabinet provided little in the way of definite answers, but Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau said he hopes Finance Minister John Turner's new budget "will satisfy you in some areas" ...
Trudeau said the federal government welcomes further consultation with the federation. He invited the federation to arrange meetings with individual cabinet ministers.
That is not part of this issue. What we are dealing with here is the question of relationships between the federal government and the local governments in the national capital region. But it soon branches out into the whole matter of more satisfactory relationships between Ottawa and municipal governments across the country.
I see my time is about up. Let me say just two things before I sit down. I hope the committee will somehow have the right at least to hold consultations with or contact the members of the Abbott commission. I do not mean one named after the hon. member across the way, but the one named after his father. I am talking about the Commission on Parliamentary Accommodation. It seems to me any plans for changing the face of Parliament Hill should be considered in this whole review.


An hon. Member:: Like air-conditioning.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There seems to be a stranger in the House. The other thing I should like to say-I do so because my friends around would not think I had made a proper speech about Ottawa if I did not do so, Mr. Speaker-is that the hon. member who preceded me, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and I, as everyone must surely know by now, live on the same street here in Ottawa. I have the advantage over him. He lives on the south side where he cannot see very much. I live on the north side of the street out in Parkwood Hills, and from my bedroom window I can still see the Peace Tower. It is still my belief that in the beautifying and developing of Ottawa, the developers should be told to hold off. The day they put some building up between my bedroom window and the Peace Tower if they ever do, there will be a speech here for sure.
I said a moment ago that I welcomed the beauty that has been added to this city by the National Capital Commission. Let us not spoil it by too many of these high-rise buildings. Let us do some of the decentralization to which the last speaker referred a moment ago. Let us do our best to make this whole area the beautiful city it can be both for the people who live here and for all the people of Canada who are proud of this place as their capital.
National Capital


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the motion introduced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) which was very well defended and very well explained. I congratulate him on that.
Mr. Speaker, when I was student I remember that one of my professors who was showing me the whole span of the Canadian territory on a large map on the wall indicated to me a point in particular which he described as being the capital of Canada, the capital of all the vast territory. I was fascinated by the explanations he gave me at that time. I was imagining a bit what Ottawa, the capital of Canada, could be. And when I was told about Parliament Hill I used to think: Maybe one day I will have the opportunity to visit the capital of my country, that Parliament Hill. I had the opportunity while very young to come and visit the capital of my country that I had liked much at first glance precisely because of those buildings, the Peace Tower that could then be seen from very far.
This morning, when I entered the capital of our country I had five young girls in my car who are coming to live in Ottawa to learn the English language in English-speaking families. And I tried to show them from far away, coming by highway 417, the Peace Tower. Unfortunately, it was very difficult because of the many skyscrapers built close to Parliament Hill. So I regret that buildings so high were allowed to be built so close to Parliament buildings. I find that disguises the capital of our country.
When Canadians come to the capital for the first time they have the feeling of discovering an exceptional place because the capital of a country is an extraordinary thing for its inhabitants. And they hope to find here vast stretches of land on which are buildings different form any others and which are not hidden by the shade of these famous skyscrapers.
I do hope that the committee will be set up and I wish it will be made of representatives from every Canadian province, because the capital is for all Canada and not only for Ontario and Quebec. This is mentioned in a publication of the National Capital Commission. I approve that and I find it logical.
So, this is the place where both Canada's major cultural streams meet. The national capital area is a mirror reflecting the whole of Canada, a symbol of what we would like Canada to be. If French Canadians and English Canadians cannot live in harmony in the capital, where could they do so?
I feel these remarks are totally pertinent.
In passing, I would like to suggest, without any harm meant to anybody, that I always feel humiliated when, in this national capital of ours, I get this answer from a public servant whose duty it is to inform passers by, and especially a police officer: "I am sorry, but I do not understand". I say that in the country's capital, people should be able to answer queries both in French and in English, especially in the public service. In my view, this would be a tremendous step forward if this basic service could be provided to visitors.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I mean no harm. But I wish the proper means would be taken, and this does not need

June 23, 1975
National Capital
any special research because the means already exist, to train those charged with policing or traffic duties to answer visitors in the language of their choice. I believe this is quite normal, and not out of place to ask for.
A second point I would stress is that since the capital is developing on both sides of the river, it is becoming more and more of a Canadian capital in a true sense. Because there is on one side an English-speaking province and on the other one a French-speaking province. So both cultures are represented. This large area should be united to exemplify this country's bilingual nature, the community lives of two cultures cooperating in good harmony, in order that when visitors cross the river they would feel as much at home on one side as on the other.
The National Capital Commission has done some interesting work to date. But this is not completed, it is not enough. We must do more. I congratulate both the government and the minister for having decided to set up a special committee to control and assess projects, so that all projects may in fact be proposed and brought into being by Parliament, which represents the whole of Canada. It is of paramount importance that Parliament be advised of all decisions before they are finalized, options made or contracts entered into.
Therefore, I find it quite logical that this committee be made up of 15 members of the House of Commons and the Senate. I feel that this way we shall end up with a national capital we shall have more reason to be proud of, day after day, and that Parliament shall have had the opportunity to carry out its duties, not leaving to civil servants or bureaucrats its responsibilities to decide such an important question as the planning of the national capital.
This is why the committee-I also support this suggestion-should sit, not only when the House sits, but also between sessions, because people often take advantage of adjournment and the absence of members from the House of Commons to bring forward projects which they would be embarrassed to advance when members are in Ottawa.
This is why I believe that the suggestion of having delegates or representatives of Parliament come to Ottawa to sit on this committee between sessions, is a valid suggestion, and I support it whole-heartedly.
Third, I hope that the committee will also have some tools which will enable it to work in consultation with the members of the immediate area, those who represent Ottawa and Hull constituencies. We want to get a comprehensive picture. Therefore, those members, who are familiar with their territory, must also be able to give their views because they live daily in the area. It is important to consult people who are truly aware of the situation. These people will then be able to give more information in the committee and, after hearing and consulting witnesses. I believe we can do something valid, something we shall be happy to show to Canadians from all the provinces.
About two weeks ago, I think, two delegations from Quebec were visiting Ottawa. For most of these people, this was their first visit here. Since they were not sufficiently familiar with all the places they could have visited, they had scheduled their program only for the day. Everyone knows that a single day is not enough to see and

visit everything. When the visitors leave, they want to come back. If this committee could also plan a program which would enable visitors to Ottawa to discover more about the Canadian capital in one or two days, it would be of great service to them. They would leave Ottawa happy and with the satisfaction of having really visited the Canadian capital.
Mr. Speaker, it is in that spirit that I wish to support the motion which has been introduced and I hope that the committee will carry out responsible work which the House will follow through its regularly tabled reports. If the committee remains inactive, it will be lost time. Let it be an active committee so that it will render a valuable service to all Canadian provinces.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to take part in the debate on the motion dealing with the national capital area, its administration and everything which may be included in the National Capital Commission.
In the ten minutes allowed to me, Mr. Speaker, I hope to draw the attention of the House on the very important problems existing within the National Capital Commission. It is very well to say that as a rule we are in favour of some kind of amalgamation on both sides of the river. I always advocated such an amalgamation. But mind you I have always advocated some kind of federal district so that we may represent our most valuable asset-the Canadian capital. We are lucky and proud to have in this Outaouais region the representatives of both of Canada's founding races. And I might say that for a long time, we have been working together on both sides of the river and that we have always gotten along well.

The problems came about only with the arrival of petty politics racism. And I do hope that once and for all we shall be able to sit around a table together and have logical and intelligent discussions to establish structures that will enable Canada's capital region to be Canada's true capital. And that is what I want to stress mainly, without regard to the problems of language, race, religion or what have you. The federal government, I hope, will never allow unilingualism to enter the region of the national capital, be it on the French or English side of the river. Mr. Speaker, I declare here and now that we shall have to be bilingual from now on and this is not for tomorrow. For the past ten years, I have been attending different seminars where the national capital, the region of the national capital, as well as the capital itself, were always a topic. The federal government has been blamed for having developed Hull. The opposition has always blamed the government to a certain extent in that regard. They were for it in principle. But when the time came to lay the cement and bricks and to mount structures and buildings, then they were no longer in favour. If this is the way things are going to be within the commission, what a lot of fuss for nothing! What pleases me especially, and I should like to repeat it for the opposition, is that what we have obtained thus far from National Capital Commission, the establishment of a national capital region, is due to the fact that Mr. Robert Borden decided in 1914 to appoint Sir Herbert
June 23, 1975

Holt to prepare a development plan for the national capital area.
As far as I know, Sir Robert Borden never voted for the Liberals and never was a Liberal, but I admire him for the action he took. And it was the Conservative government again which, in 1958, had the legislation adopted. I hope this will continue and go beyond the stage of rhetoric, because the legislation which governs us now was proclaimed by the government in power in 1958, and it was not a Liberal government. I wonder why today there is so much hoopla when the elected federal Liberal government has decided by mutual agreement to do something. They did not do so unilaterally, they held consultations at the 1969 conference on the constitution. All premiers agreed on the fact that henceforth Hull and Ottawa would be Canada's national capital. We must therefore continue in that direction. In my opinion, the rest is simply automatic, technocracy, a kind of technique. Transport, roads, parks, land development, are all only technicalities which can be discussed and developed by others than the Commission or under the act which will come out of this committee proceedings.
What I mean is that it is often all very well to say: the provinces must be consulted, and so forth. The provinces have already been consulted. This leads nowhere. Here is an example of this: if the federal government had not made the decision to build Portage Bridge and had waited for the Quebec government to meet with the Ontario government and for Ontario to meet with Quebec, this bridge would never have been built. We would have roads but no communications over the river. Thus, I hope that we will shall down at the table quietly in order to discuss sensibly and logically and that we shall remove the blinkers that have obstructed the view of some of my colleagues. Do not worry, those who say that Ottawa is the capital of Canada are wrong. In theory it might effectively be the capital of Canada. When Queen Victoria decided that Ottawa would be the capital she made a random choice because she was afraid of Americans. She did not want the capital to be Kingston to avoid that Americans take the capital first. Then, a place more in the interior was chosen. I am sure that it was to please everyone that neither Quebec, nor Toronto nor Montreal were chosen.
Kingston had the preference but, because of the circumstances I just mentioned Ottawa was chosen. But Ottawa in 1857 is not Ottawa in 1975. If you wish to get into geography and history and be more precise I would say that Ottawa, the capital chosen by Queen Victoria has geographical limits dating back to 1857. Then, today, with the assent of various committees, and I should say the intelligence of parliamentarians, from any party, we succeeded in getting the present National Capital Commission structures, that saw to the development and the improvement of the area for so many years. In fact, the cities of the national capital region did not have the means to pay for urbanists and even less for planners.
I hope that now we shall be able to study the problem, and maybe to improve the structure of the present National Capital Commission because it has changed and that is what we did in 1957. We passed the law that governs the National Capital Commission we have today. I hope that we shall not stick to narrow structures. Do we want the
National Capital
national capital region, as stipulated in the 1957 legislation, to be the capital of Canada? If not, let us say so and we will take the necessary measures. I do not see why we should establish structures as the National Capital Commission for the development and the improvement of the national capital if we do not intend to follow some guidelines for the future of the national capital region.
It is a pity, Mr. Speaker, that time is running short, since there are so many other topics to develop. I could talk about different things, but I am short of time and I hope that in committee we will be able to put questions to the witnesses, the group representatives who will come and testify, in order to achieve a consensus. I note that everybody in this august assembly, Mr. Speaker, seems to be in favour of what the hon. member for Genville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) referred to a few moments ago, that is the get together. So I hope that once for all we will say to the people concerned: "Here is what we want for the National Capital area, what we learned from the witnesses". We will try to follow that policy which will certainly lead to a legislation that might be in the best interests of those who have been victimized for more than 100 years and who live in the National Capital area, both Ontarians and Quebecers.


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is with interest that I enter this debate, particularly because of the fact that the national capital region comes within the boundaries of my constituency but also because for a long time before becoming a member of parliament I was interested in the national capital. I believe that the minister in his opening remarks-perhaps I heard him wrong-said we must look into all aspects of the national capital. With reference to the remarks of the last speaker, it is still under the constitution of the city of Ottawa, not that it should not be, but I understand that a recommendation might be made that it be amended if necessary. I suggest that we should look beyond the national capital to the national capital region.
I hope that this committee will not face the problems which many committees of the House are facing, and I hope it will be a completely non-partisan committee where people express their feelings and their thoughts so that we can get to the very heart of the problems and set out where we might go.
I know this is an emotional topic with a number of Canadians. People ask: What is the capital? Should we be spending money within this territory, within this boundary, or outside? There are also other questions. We must try to diffuse any emotionalism, racism or partisan emotion so that we can come down with a practical course as to where we should go. I enter this debate with no preconceived ideas and I hope that if I have the honour to be on this committee all its members will have no preconceived ideas. I believe we should consider each option open to us. Even today I felt that certain people were trying to back away from certain options. We may be faced with an option which at first appears to be preferable, but then for different reasons we may find we cannot adopt what seems to us to be the ideal solution and we will end up with a compromise which is a little short of the ideal solution but which in fact will do the job remarkably well.

June 23, 1975
National Capital
One of the options which is being spoken about with a great deal of emotion, because regional and provincial governments are involved, is the matter of the national capital territory. Some people say we should have one that is similar to Washington, D.C. Others say we should model ourselves on Brazilia or on Australia. We do not have to copy anybody. Let us look at all the options and explore them. We might want to reject the option presented to us but I think the committee would be a good forum in which to consider all possibilities. If we decide to reject it, then let us reject it. We do not have to look at it in terms of what is done in Australia, Brazil or the United States; we have some ingenuity and can come up with what we think is the best form if we take the option, but whether we take it is an entirely different matter.
I hope we will go into each and every aspect of this question so that we will be set for at least 25 years. We must also look at some of the more mundane things, such as recreation, transportation, parks, bridges crossing the Ottawa River, decentralization of services, and so on. We must look into the questions of bilingualism, multicultur-alism and the cultural facilities in Ottawa. We must consider these not just for the residents of Ottawa-Hull and environs but for all Canadians and give them what they want in their capital. This is the capital of the whole of Canada and we must respect the views of others, at the same time making it liveable for those who want to live here.
We must consider very seriously the question of decentralization. The city of Ottawa has certain boundaries, and although it has been designated as the capital there are people who are very upset that some of the buildings of the national capital region are across the river or that a museum is going to be built there. They are upset that buildings pertaining to the national government are outside the boundaries of Ottawa. But Ottawa is only so big, Mr. Speaker, and buildings cannot be stacked one on top of the other. Maybe a few more of the facilities of the national government should be put into Hull, Aylmer, Pontiac county, Gatineau, West Carleton, Nepean and Goulburn. In that way we would not be trying to bring everybody into a few acres in the centre of Ottawa between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. and get them all out again between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.
I applaud the moves that have been made in recent years, Mr. Speaker. I know there has been criticism about buildings going up in la belle province and the city of Hull which is in the national capital region. But we have to decentralize and it was a logical decision to put some of the buildings there. If we can get rid of emotionalism and make it work over the years the workers will be better off. As we decentralize, however, we must acknowledge that a number of people will have to work in the core of the metropolitan area and commuter services will have to be improved.
On a recent visit to Europe I was impressed with the mass rapid transit services that I saw and think there are many examples that we could follow. Studies are being made by the Outaouais regional council, the Ottawa-Carleton regional council, the municipality of Ottawa, the municipality of Hull, the province of Quebec, the province

of Ontario, the federal government and the NCC to move people whether by subway, bus service, fast commuter trains, existing railway lines, and so on. We cannot wait another ten years until we have had innumerable studies and discussed them? The problem is here and now, Mr. Speaker. We should have commuter services from Arnpri-or, Almonte, Carleton Place, Rockland, Pointe-Gatineau, Aylmer, Lucerne, Deschenes: these should be in place now.
This committee would be a logical place to bring forth all the views of multigovernment committees at all levels. There must be parks and recreation for people who live in the centre of this area as part of the over-all scheme. A great deal has already been done by the NCC in this regard. I hope that in an unemotional and hard way, without turning away any of the options but looking at them all, we will come to a rational conclusion to expand our national capital and, if necessary, make a national capital territory.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this committee is being established today. Much necessary preparatory work can be done during the summer recess to ensure that it will be in full operation when parliament reconvenes in the fall. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) observed, the committee may sit during the recess.
This committee's mandate is to review the future form of government in the national capital region. The growing federal presence in decisions which affect the local government of all residents of Ottawa must be analysed in detail.

Mr. Speaker, sometime ago, I was a member of the Ottawa city council. I remember how, on several occasions, the mayor of Ottawa and the chairman of the National Capital Commission solved many problems themselves and quite efficiently. I remember the time when the mayors of Hull and Ottawa were members of the National Capital Commission but because of the conflicts between Miss Whitton and the chairman of the NCC the mayors are no longer members of the commission. Since then, the population of the city of Ottawa and neighbouring municipalities has grown quite considerably. Urban and planning problems have increased but, to my mind, communications and relations between the federal and the municipal governments have not improved. That is not entirely the fault of the municipalities whose elected councillors have the right to be consulted.

The federal government is one of the biggest landowners in the national capital region, owning over 25 per cent of the land. At times the federal government has used this lever of land ownership to shape or to block proposed developments in this region. Sometimes, other levels of government were fully consulted in advance on projects and most were satisfied. This was the case in the development of the Ottawa River Parkway which is used by residents of both sides of the Ottawa River to get to and from work and to bicycle on Sundays.
At other times, as in the case of the Portage Bridge, the federal government has acted unilaterally without adequate consultation with the local residents or their elected
June 23, 1975

representatives, or in some cases provincial authorities. The federal agencies did not make submissions on the regional plan until after it was developed on the Ontario side. Subsequently, the federal government made some blunt interventions.
Unilateral action on the part of the federal government without full, prior consultation is no longer acceptable. Sometimes the feeling exists that appointed bureaucrats have more power than elected representatives. People, through their elected representatives in this area, must have some say in the future. I was particularly intrigued by the support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this regard. Negotiations which are conducted privately amongst administrators at different levels of government must become public negotiations in which the residents of the area have a direct say in what is going on, so that they in fact know what is going on. How this is to be achieved will be a major responsibility to be examined by this committee.
This region, as many have said, is unique in that it is the capital of Canada. It must continue to reflect the cultural heritage of all our founding cultures as well as the two official languages. It must be a place where all Canadians can feel comfortable. It must continue to be a showplace to the world of Canadians from many cultural heritages living and working together in harmony. The federal government, in my opinion, should be free to suggest innovations in urban policies for the national capital which would be of interest to all Canadians. The region could be used for pilot projects in areas such as water pollution, public transit and new, satellite cities.
I am reminded particularly of the job done by the national and municipal governments in London, England, which had a much worse pollution problem in the Thames River. In fact, many people said it could never be cleaned up. About 12 years ago nothing lived in the Thames River; then the governments got together and said, "Let's make the clean-up of the Thames a demonstration to the world." A recent survey shows that 66 species of fish are now living in this river. I think, this is an excellent example of the kind of positive project that can go ahead when different levels of government are working with each other rather than at cross-purposes. This is the kind of co-operation that must be assured in any future form of government for the national capital region.
Some people argue that the federal and provincial governments have the constitutional power to impose any form of government they choose. In a legal sense, this is so, but I would hope they would not act this way. A major purpose of this committee is to open up a dialogue with the people of this region and the people of Canada and to ask everybody, "What kind of national capital do you want?" I have already done this in a limited way with the constituents of Ottawa West and propose to continue doing so. The 36,808 households of Ottawa West were sent a questionnaire asking what kind of government they wanted for this region in the future. About 9 per cent responded. The questions were based on the much publicized, two-volume Fullerton report entitled "Governing Canada's Capital" released last fall. I enclosed a one-page resume of Mr. Fullerton's findings to aid constituents in
National Capital
answering the questionnaire. Some of the answers showed a very good knowledge of the complex relationship between elected local and provincial governments and the National Capital Commission as well as several federal departments of government.
The core of Mr. Fullerton's recommendations, namely, a proposed supracouncil with representation both elected and appointed from both sides of the Ottawa River, was rejected by almost two-thirds of respondents; only 34.2 per cent agreed with this proposal. Over 75 per cent rejected the idea of a federal district similar to that in Washington, D.C., which has proved so cumbersome and ineffective for dealing with the vital day to day concerns of residents. Only 23 per cent agreed with this suggestion. The largest group, 42.6 per cent want to leave things basically the way they are. An overwhelming 88 per cent of respondents want to continue electing their local representatives.
People want to make sure they have a voice in local government by electing councillors. They want to be able to throw the person out of office if he or she does not do the job; they do not want to be ruled by a faceless bureaucracy or a committee of MPs from all across Canada who are unfamiliar with local concerns. In the closest result, almost half favoured having some appointed federal and provincial officials on a new council, while 46 per cent disagreed and 4 per cent were undecided. This is the first survey of this type done in the Ottawa area since Douglas Fullerton released his report in the fall of 1974. The results of this survey indicate to me there is no clear consensus on the future form of local government for this region; the core of Mr. Fullerton's proposal was rejected in the replies.
This committee has a major job to do. Voters in this area are less than satisfied with the existing structure and are prepared to look at a wide choice of alternatives with open minds. Almost 50 per cent of the questionnaires returned had comments written on them which were quite useful. In addition, I received over 50 letters and briefs which I am prepared to make available to the committee. Also, I have had communication with university professors and citizens groups and it was suggested that they prepare briefs for submission to the special joint committee to be set up by today's motion.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a joint committee with representatives from the Senate of Canada. MPs may come and MPs may go, but senators stay to the age of 75 years. We look to them to provide continuity in the study of our national capital, just in case this committee, however competent and however hardworking its members may be, leaves a few tasks still not finished when it discharges its terms of reference.
May I say that I have been most pleased with the interest expressed by opposition members and senators, and with the lack of political partisanship in approaching the issues. The integrity and competence of many who expressed their interest is most reassuring to members who, like me, have the honour of representing the national capital in this House.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the minister's motion which is

June 23, 1975
National Capital
quite important. I am pleased that a special committee will be established to consider the matter and make recommendations to Parliament.
I would like, Mr. Speaker, to comment on the statement made a while ago by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) who said that consultations with the provinces are not very effective. I would like to say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the consultations with the provinces should be continuous and very realistic. We could not be fairly sure of attaining that objective if we do not believe, as members of this House, in consulting the persons involved. I am not referring only to the provinces, but also to the city of Hull and the municipalities concerned.
Therefore, I think, we must first believe in constant consultations and being aware of the needs, the ideas and demands of the persons involved, we could attain that objective advocated by the hon. member for Hull which is the establishment of a guideline. Now I believe that a guideline for that project cannot be developed in a practical form without more realistic consultation than the one we had with the persons concerned. Having said this, I would like to reassure the hon. member for Hull by saying that we appreciate this project, and the statements made by my colleagues are positive evidence of that.
May I add that I believe the national capital development plan is a very noble and practical objective. There are at least four interested parties: The federal government, the Ontario and Quebec governments, the city of Hull, and very likely a few municipalities. This plan will compel provinces, and mostly municipalities, to talk about renovation, road systems, public services, influences and the impact of such a project on the life of every citizen.
One cannot neglect the cultural aspect of two societies as well as the forecastings, projections and planning of these cities, municipalities and provinces, which have to think of their future. These are the numerous considerations to be given in respect of this plan if we want to make a success of this project we are talking about this afternoon. That is why I say and I repeat that first and foremost all the wishes and aspirations of those concerned will have to be made known through consultation. There is no other way.
Having said this, I think as the previous speaker pointed out, some responsibility might be left to municipal or other bodies with respect to this project. I think the federal government must act as a coordinator in that famous project. It has the responsibility of bringing together at the bargaining table all those concerned and make sure first that it is prepared to respect the wish of everyone as much as possible. I would certainly not want to see this project carried out unilaterally and without consideration for all the aspects, the factors as we now know them and the difficulties we will meet in establishing a guideline, a common line likely to please everybody. That will not be easy, of course.
I think that it is with such an open mind that we must go ahead, and I trust this special committee will meet those objectives, call all those concerned to its hearings so that the members of that committee will be better acquainted with the aspirations and the needs of every

level of government, and then submit a report which I hope again will command the attention and respect of the government and Parliament. Thus, I think we can go ahead with this project or consider it with a great deal of optimism, and I suggest that in a democracy that is the only way that might be beneficial. We must consider that bilingual and bicultural nature which, I think, could set an example in the national capital for the whole country.
It was suggested earlier that the national capital must reflect the ideas, the aspirations of all Canadians. There is no doubt that this national capital must welcome all visitors to Canada, and I must say right now that I will not hesitate to denounce any unilateral decision. I think this should be pointed out immediately because the impact of such a project will be tremendous and it is highly important. There will be as many different arguments for as many different reasons. The bilingual character is to be emphasized. We recognize that Hull is a largely French city. We know the opposite to be true in Ottawa and we accept it. I think we should not lose sight of these realities. But I believe, nevertheless, in the orderly functioning of the special committee, in the goodwill of those who will have submissions to make-and I hope these will be brought in a very positive way-and also in the responsibility to negotiate, to seriously discuss with the Ontario and Quebec governments as well as in all the reasons I mentioned earlier. There are also of course these pieces of land which will some day, I suppose, become part of this project and be integrated into the national capital. Serious bargainings and dealings will have to take place with the present landowners.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall confine myself to these remarks. I shall probably have the chance to sit on this committee and I hope I shall be provided with all the necessary data and information from the interested parties, so that we may-


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: You
forgot to mention your limited contribution to the committee on immigration.


Roch La Salle: I should like the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to repeat his comment.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If you are asking a question, I am willing to reply.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Does the hon. member agree to receive a question?


Roch La Salle: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, he mentioned that he would like to work on the committee we are now discussing.
In the inquiry he asked me about, I suggested that hopefully he would work harder on the committee we are now talking about than on the one he was a member of previously, that is the committee on immigration, because, as far as I know, he did not do much on that committee.
June 23, 1975


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to explain right away the statement of my hon. friend from St. Boniface. I made two trips with the committee on immigration, and I think I made the representations I felt I should make. Then I gave my place to another colleague for the other two trips of the committee. As there are only three Quebecers on this side of the House, I feel we share responsibilities equally. That is why I deplore the interventions of the hon. member for St. Boniface. I would never be so bold as to chide the hon. member for being away from his committee, knowing full well that he has other work to do elsewhere as well. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that opinion is unfortunate, but I shall continue. I believe my time has almost expired-[DOT]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. I must inform both hon. members that they are out of order; they have not addressed themselves to the substance of the motion. We should return to that subject forthwith.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I simply conclude. My remarks are almost over and I trust the committee will make excellent work and receive an attentive ear from the government. I also hope the remarks I made concerning the provinces as well as all concerned will contribute to the success of that project. The government must know that the opposition will work in a most objective way toward the realization of that project for the benefit of all Canadians and particuarly of those who are directly interested in this area that will be called the national capital.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to correct slightly what the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has just said, that I agree with him that the city of Hull should negotiate with regard to all that is going on within the National Capital Commission. It should also enter into negotiations with the federal government regarding matters within the national capital region.
Unfortunately, and that is what I should like to point out, the province of Quebec has just taken away from Hull the right to negotiate any contract with the federal government or its official agency, the National Capital Commission. It has created for such a purpose the General Directorate of the Affairs of the National Capital. I do not know what it means, but in any event that is what it is called, and it comprises 21 civil servants all residing in Quebec City. This is what I call backwards democracy.


Roch La Salle: We shall have to mention the matter to Mr. Bourassa.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the motion under consideration is designed to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to review and report upon matters bearing upon the development of the national capital area, including the programs and operations of the National Capital Commission.
As we all know, the act now governing the National Capital Commission goes back to 1958, and since that time
National Capital
a great deal of changes have taken place on both sides of the Ottawa River, changes that call for amendments in the powers of the commission.
On May 17th, 1973, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced that Mr. Douglas H. Fullerton would be resigning his position as Chairman of the National Capital Commission to undertake a special study on the capital for the government.
The terms of reference were given in the press release as follows:
To undertake a study of the most effective arrangements for the future administration of matters directly affecting the national capital and its development, including the role of the National Capital Commission and its relation to other bodies concerned with the governing of the capital region and the coordination of those federal activities which bear upon the development of region as a national capital.
The Fullerton report, as it is called by the information media, was published in October 1974, and in certain sectors, it was not very well received. In its Speech from the Throne of September 30, 1974, the government thought it necessary to take new steps to promote its national awareness program and, to this end, it suggested several measures including the institution of a joint committee of the House and the Senate to study the issues related to the future of the national capital area, and this is the reason for this motion. There is no doubt that the Fullerton report, along with several other papers, will be referred to this committee. In its annual report, published on October 15, 1974, the National Capital Commission said, and I quote:
The NCC believes that its powers are diminishing. It therefore thinks that it is both timely and essential for the various political authorities of the region to find new grounds for agreement and to really act in cooperation as concerns planning of the territory.
In the document titled "The Capital of Tomorrow", the NCC made a number of propositions to achieve the government's goal of a capital city located on both sides of the river and to improve the quality of life and environment on the Quebec side of the Ottawa Valley. Here are three:
1-Using federal property to meet area population needs, especially in the fields of housing, transportation and green spaces; 2-Increasing the number of public servants by up to 25 per cent of the federal complement in the area, in 1985 (some 30,000 jobs); 3-Participating in the establishment of a modern and efficient public transit system.
Before 1969, the NCC was practically the only federal, provincial or municipal body doing planning and land use on the Quebec side of the national capital area. In the context of that bureaucratic vacuum, the NCC implemented the recommendations made by French town planner Jacques Greber in his land use scheme for the national capital, that is:
The reclaiming of Ottawa and Gatineau rivers; the consolidation of 88,000 acres in the Gatineau Park; the reserving of certain corridors for driveways; and the relocation of rail lines in the downtown area.
The NCC's document titled "The Capital of Tomorrow" will no doubt be referred also to the joint committee.
The federal government is criticized in certain circles for its participation in certain projects to improve the highway system on the Quebec side and the construction of public buildings in Hull. Those people imply that the federal government is not at home anymore on the Quebec

June 23, 1975
National Capital
side of the capital area, and that the construction of public buildings should be limited to the Ontario side.
At a constitutional conference in 1969, members elected by the whole of Canada and represented by all the premiers were those who freely chose to create a Canadian capital encompassing both sides of the Ottawa River. Since then, the federal government, through the NCC and the Public Works Department, has undertaken to carry out a construction program downtown in Hull and this is still under way. In recent years it has shared the construction costs of two bridges, one over the Gatineau River and the other at La Place du Portage, and for rebuilding the water and sewers service downtown. It contributes one third of the installation costs of the regional aqueducts and sewers as well as of the filtration and sewage system whose expected costs will amount to about $135 million. Besides, it has shared the costs of widening Greber Blvd. and of building highways A5 and A50 within the national capital area and of many other projects.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my remarks, there have been several changes since 1958, particularly with respect to the population following the merging, as of January 1st 1975, of municipalities on the Quebec side of the Ottawa area. Gatineau, now a new city of about 62,000 inhabitants and with a territory much larger than Hull, would welcome more intervention from the National Capital Commission and the government of Canada. It might be said, as it has been many times in the past, that the means of communications do not allow for heavier traffic and that Hull deserved priority. But the people in Gatineau do not readily accept such reasons. Even if they realize that the erection of government buildings in Hull has an important impact on the economy of their city, they expect, as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) mentioned when he addressed the members of a social club in that city, that the erection of government buildings is being considered within the city limits, which will allow a greater decentralization of government buildings, as the member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said. To improve the highway network, the construction of highway A50 and of a bridge over the Ottawa River maybe in the area of Kettle Island, should be speeded up.
Mr. Speaker, I expect to participate actively in the proceedings of the joint special committee and, in concluding, I urge municipal authorities, chambers of commerce, social clubs and other organizations of the region, to submit their views to the joint committee on the national capital of tomorrow instead of letting a few dissenters be heard.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on the draft motion introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), for the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons to review and report upon matters bearing upon the development of the national capital region, including the programs and operations of the National Capital Commission.
I sincerely believe that it is important that this House agree with this proposal and proceed as soon as possible to the establishment of such a committee, because in this way, the members of the committee will have time before

next fall to look fully into the material already submitted and other which will follow.
Those who, at the outset, decided to make Ottawa the capital of this country maybe did not consider that part of the urban population which lived across the river in another province. It was virtually impossible then to foresee that the whole area would become an interdependent urban complex and that the objectives of the federal public service would be as important as they are today.
It is only much later, when the federal government became interested in improving and developing the national capital, that they became aware of the problems related to the development of the national capital within the boundaries of a municipality subject to provincial legislation and adjoining another municipality subject to the legislation of another province. Today, the problems are acute and after 17 years of operation, it is only normal that a committee should review the program and operation of the National Capital Commission. The economic development of the national capital region depends greatly on the federal presence. For that reason only, the federal government should have its say in the development and the administration of the area.
But the federal government in addition decided that it was its duty to ensure that the capital, to befit this country, must reflect the bilingual nature of Canada, which had the effect of giving the National Capital Commission a leading role in the planning and development of the area. The action of the NCC in the national capital area is most obvious, and its results can be seen almost everywhere.
Whether one is proud of its presence, whether one wants increasingly more action and advice on its part, the fact still remains that the federal government and its official agent, the NCC, must take into consideration the regional municipalities that were set up on each side of the Ottawa River. They each have their own opinion on the way growth should be attained.
So we are at a deciding point in the evolution of the area. Urbanization of that territory occurred at a fast pace in the last few years but it remains possible to influence its shape and intensity. It is still possible to make the area a harmonious urban centre, a pleasant place to live in, a balanced territory from the linguistic and ethnic point of view. But that possibility only exists for a very limited time at the pace the population is increasing now. If we cannot quickly find new ways to administer the area, development might be anarchic, everyone looking after the problems of either his province or his city. That is not what the people concerned want, and I understand that is not what the federal government wants either.
So it is urgent that a parliamentary committee consider all aspects of the matter-and I stress all aspects. And in-depth study will have to be made, and not a phony consultation without any serious consequence. The Canadian capital area is a Canadian microcosm in evolution. As much as the Quebec side had been neglected in past years, all the more important was the action of the federal government since 1969 which showed its will to correct certain injustices.
June 23, 1975

May I be allowed, Mr. Speaker, to draw a parallel just as obvious when I suggest that the people in the eastern part of Ottawa, Vanier in particular, suffered the same fate with respect to the active presence of the federal government or the National Capital Commission. A great many people are French-speaking and I will spare you, Mr. Speaker, the story of the hard struggles which the Frenchspeaking people of Ontario had to carry on to avoid assimilation to assert their rights to use their mother tongue, to have their children educated in their schools and God knows how patient and persistent they were.
Much still remains to be done in communications and legal recognition, to say nothing of the basic right to obtain services and defend oneself in court in the mother language.
Without prejudicing the recommendations of the committee which will soon be sitting, I would like however to remind hon. members and the committee that the Frenchspeaking minority in the national capital, over 100,000, making common cause with their French-speaking brothers and sisters of Ontario, would never accept new structures which would legally or otherwise separate them from the rest of the Ontario community.
I do not think that the government should choose the way of confrontation and impose the creation of a federal district over which they would have supreme control. As a matter of fact, this committee will have to pay attention to those who will express the wish to be heard, and as the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) said, I invite all the socio-economic groups and others to bring forward to the committee serious and well documented reports.
The Committee will not have to give the impression to exist in order to defend the Fullerton report or to make on the account of the NCC a kind of popular consultation that this commission sometimes forgets to make. This procedure would be undemocratic and it would not take into account the validity of the reserves made until now by different groups.
It is therefore inspired by the necessity to respect the legitimate opinions of all concerned that the committee will have to find an effective and fair method to administer the national capital. According to the motion before us today, Mr. Speaker, the term of reference of the committee will include the review of the programs and operations of the National Capital Commission. The committee will have therefore to cast a critical glance over the internal organization and achievements of the National Capital Commission since 1958.
It might be useful to consider the possible integration in a much more concrete way of the National Capital Commission into the federal civil service. Such an integration of the National Capital Commission into the federal civil service would have as a significant consequence the fact that the appointment and promotion of its employees would be subject to the same terms and conditions as all other civil servants.
By way of a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I emphasize once again to the House how important I feel is the development of the City of Vanier. As a small community with a population of 21,000, it is entitle to a larger federal presence.
National Capital
Vanier is now faced with the challenge to eliminate inequalities and even chances of development; to achieve its purpose, Mr. Speaker, it is entitled to a federal presence which will allow it to assume the role it deserves within the national capital. The people in Vanier may be poorer and somethimes more heavily taxed, but they are intent on living and proud to belong as full citizens to the national capital region. As such, they want to participate in the progressing development of our fine national capital.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may my first words in this debate be of congratulation to the minister, who I think is taking charge of a most difficult portfolio, that of Minister of State for Urban Affairs, at a time of decline in housing starts and increasing unemployment in this country. From my discussions with municipal officials in various areas I can tell him that he has their confidence and that they are willing to co-operate with him in every way in the achievement of a most exemplary national capital area.
In the course of his opening remarks, the minister mentioned that we have a magnificent site here. Indeed, I think geographically speaking the good Lord has placed us on probably one of the most outstanding sites for a national capital in the world, certainly of any that I have seen. I saw some national capitals of the world recently as a member of the parliamentary advisory commission on accommodation. As a member of that commission, comprised of members of this House and of the Senate both present and former, we visited national capitals on two continents and I do not think we saw a site more suited to a national capital or more suited to expansion and beautification of a national capital area than the site we have here. I think all of us who visited these national capitals and benefited from seeing what goes on and the progress they have made in expanding their national capitals, many of which go back centuries before ours, would generally agree with that statement.
I would assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the members of this parliamentary commission would be very anxious to meet with the members of the committee now being set up in order to ensure that there is co-ordination of effort. While the former commission was set up to define the accommodation needs of members of parliament, this new committee is being set up to review and to report upon matters bearing upon the national capital area. I should like to make some general comments and discuss three specific areas respecting the national capital area. The first is the NCC and planning; the second is the NCC and bilingualism; the third is the NCC and decentralization within the national capital area.
Today's national capital region, a product of Canadian federalism, mirrors many of the familiar political, social, linguistic and cultural differences of Canadian society. It is something distinctively and recognizably Canadian. The region comprises the various jurisdictional strata which make up Canada. There is the federal presence, of course, and the provincial, regional and municipal authorities- that is, two provinces, two regional governments and more

June 23, 1975
National Capital
than two score municipalities, including three cities. There is also the important role played by the business communities and by community associations and groups throughout the region.
Moreover, the federal presence is not a single entity. A multitude of federal agencies, corporations and departments all exert some degree of influence on the affairs of the region and, up to now at least, have not always advanced the same policies. Among this multitude of authorities is the National Capital Commission, created in 1959 as the successor to the federal district commission to represent the national interest within the national capital region.
Through its act and programs, the commission seeks to create a capital as a national symbol for all Canadians. It does not seek to destroy or replace provincial and regional loyalties, even if that were possible. The commission undertakes works of its own, guides and co-ordinates other federal activities and assists the provinces, regional governments and municipalities in projects as varied as road networks and language instruction. Moreover, the commission is the only body with a planning responsibility for the entire national capital region.
The federal government reports to parliament on capital affairs through the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The commission itself comprises commissions representing all the provinces and the region. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, through you, to the minister that consideration ought to be given to enlarging the membership of that commission to include the chairman of the Ottawa-Carle-ton regional municipality and the Outaouais government so that they can be continuously represented on that most important body.
There was a federal-provincial conference in 1969 at which a declaration was made that a national capital region would be formed. With that concept, and with the progress that has been made since then in the national capital region, I do agree: I do not wish at this time to inject any degree of partiality into what has been up to now unanimous agreement. However, I would say that section 16 of the British North America Act provides that Ottawa is the capital of Canada. I think that these two concepts can be readily and easily married together so that we can advance and continue to improve both the north bank and the south bank of the naional capital region and continue to live in harmony to the benefit of both sides of the river.
The NCC was directed to help develop the national capital so that it would be a symbol of Canada's cultural and linguistic values, an efficient and aesthetically satisfying place in which to carry out the nation's business, and a model for urban planning and development that would benefit the country and be a source of pride for Canadians.
In short, what is required in a much broader horizon than tending the grounds of Parliament Hill, building parkways or even relocating the railways and acquiring the greenbelt. Implementation of the new policy has meant a massive injection of federal funds into Hull in this decade, but at the same time expenditures on national

capital projects on the Ontario side of the region have been maintained.
Provincial and regional government planning in the capital area has changed the relative position of the federal government in its development plans. This increased activity by other levels of government, that is, provincial and municipal governments on both sides of the Ottawa River, has required the federal authority to place increasing reliance upon persuasion and indirect strategies, through its use of federally-owned land, for instance, to implement its policies and planning objectives. The result is a growing discrepancy between the responsibilities of the federal government and its capacity to act effectively to carry them out. But this does demonstrate that it is timely and essential that a fresh basis of consensus be reached to guide governments to a common goal for the national capital region. It is my belief that the National Capital Commission should be the chief planner in general, and in particular for the expansion in federal planning on both sides of the Ottawa River, always in co-operation and in co-ordination with the regional governments and municipalities on both sides.
The key asset of the National Capital Commission is land. This asset originated in the authorization from the federal government to the commission to acquire real estate in advance of need and before speculative development could increase prices to the point where government projects, whether buildings or parks, would become far more expensive than they have. Of the 1,800 squares miles making up the national capital region, the federal government owns outright 190 square miles. In the urban part of the region, the federal government owns 28 per cent of the land. The commission has spent about $160 million for land. That land today is worth close to $1,000 million. A lot of this property is committed to long-term use such as parkland and any financial profit through sale could not be realized, of course. However, take the case of Lebreton Flats, one mile west of Parliament Hill. The cost of acquiring and clearing this land was about 5 per cent of its present day value. The original cost in 1962 was only a fraction of what it would be now to the public treasury as the NCC and CMHC start a major housing development there.
This brings me to the first particular subject I wish to discuss very briefly, and that is the NCC in respect of planning. I feel the NCC, as I mentioned earlier, should take the lead in general planning for the national capital area, and indeed, as it has up to now, in the development of both sides of the Ottawa River. The Ottawa side is broken down into a plan for the Ottawa area generally and then one for the core area. I also feel that the position it has taken in respect of the southeast part of the city and the acquisition of land around the Carlsbad Springs area is a forward-thinking and forthright one which should be encouraged.
It seems to me that we do have a conflict here between the wishes of the regional government on the one hand and the wishes of the NCC on the other. It seems to me, however, that the NCC has carried out a number of studies of this area and has provided reports in respect of the suitability of this land, whether it can be used for this type of housing project or whether it should be developed
June 23, 1975

along the Rideau River as suggested by the regional municipality. It seems to me that this is prime land to be used for parkland and agricultural purposes. The report indicates, as far as I can read it, that the type of construction which is now being build in the Carlsbad Springs area can indeed be accommodated there.
I would also suggest that the National Capital Commission, in addition to the general area of planning, should take a stance in the particular area in respect of projects which affect the federal interest. I am speaking specifically, now, of the Ottawa centre town planning proposal. It seems to me that the NCC should have a position it can take in the federal interest on lands which are being rezoned by the municipality, without interfering, by providing advice and direction on those lands which are really within the shadow of Parliament Hill. I suggest that the NCC should do that, not only in respect of the Ottawa side but in respect of those lands which figuratively can be said to be within the shadow of Parliament Hill on the north side of the Ottawa River.
I should like to speak for a moment about biculturalism within the national capital area. I might say that the National Capital Commission has been doing a great deal to co-ordinate the bicultural efforts in the national capital area. It is the duty and the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Canada to deal with provincial governments in respect of biculturalism across Canada and also here within the national capital area. The NCC has been taking on a great deal of this work and responsibility and has been doing it well. However, I have to interject, for a moment, a partisan tone in what has been a non-partisan debate and I trust that this committee will be non-partisan. I think it is time the provincial government of Ontario began to realize and accept its responsibility regarding bilingual education in the national capital area. Bilingual education has been funded here with millions of dollars.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has now expired.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a brief opportunity this afternoon to say a word about the national capital of Canada and the work of a special joint committee of this parliament to help draw up proposals for the future development of this small vitally important piece of geography on both sides of the Ottawa River.
As the minister pointed out in his opening remarks earlier today, it has been almost two decades since parliament was seized with the initiative to study the method of government for this area and to make recommendations for enhancing its future. The good and productive work done in the meantime is all about us to see every day. The national capital area is better today because of the constructive efforts of those who worked on this subject 20 years ago. I hope the undertakings of this new committee which will soon be established will enjoy as happy a fate as its predecessor.
Today we have heard a great deal about the local concerns of this area, about technical problems this committee will have to grapple with and about jurisdictional issues which will no doubt play against the deliberations and
National Capital
cause answers to be less than easy. All of this is very important and no doubt will occupy much of the time and attention of the committee as it goes to work.
I should like to address a few remarks during this debate, as a westerner who is a relative newcomer to this central region of Canada, to this particular place and to this city and region. As such, I welcome the comments I have heard from many quarters today about ensuring that the national capital of this country is a place which reflects the real character of this land-the national character-where every Canadian can feel at home and feel proud.
I trust the committee will safeguard the interests of bilingualism and biculturalism about which my hon. friend, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) was just beginning to speak. What is important is making safeguards in this regard because of our national commitment to ensure that Canadians may deal with their national capital in either of the two official languages. That is always an important factor in helping; all Canadians feel at home in this area. I have been happy to hear references by many members this afternoon to multicul-turalism and the need to make all Canadians, despite their nationality or heritage-indeed, because of it-feel happy and proud about this place as their national capital. Those are important factors on the cultural and linguistic side.
I should like to speak of another factor which is of particular interest and concern to me because of the place from which I come. I think now of that part of Canada which is my home, the west, and the way westerners feel about our national capital. It is no secret-there have been many speeches delivered in this House and elsewhere on this subject-that there is an uneasiness in the western part of this country which some have labelled as perhaps blatant western alienation, a feeling that in many respects the western viewpoint and legitimate western interests are not afforded adequate attention and concern in a parliament which, for population distribution reasons, is dominated by non-westerners.
There has been a great deal of discussion about why this uneasiness or this feeling exists. A great many very good proposals have been put forward concerning how this feeling might be eliminated, proposals suggesting how we might deal with this problem. I think some of the reasons given are artificial, without any real basis in fact. However, a good many reasons for this situation are very real, they are important, they are there, and they are divisive. Those of us who sit in this place should, without partisanship, endeavour to eliminate these reasons wherever possible. Some say that the reasons to a great degree are symbolic. Perhaps one could describe the feelings behind this uneasiness as symbolic. That is not to say they are not real, important, and a challenge which should be met and solved.
May I, in a brief moment, express the hope that our national capital will in the future become an even greater symbol of our nation and of our unity east and west. I hope the work of the committee will help us move in that direction. This could be a positive step toward having a greater Canada. I hope that after the committee has gone

June 23, 1975
National Capital
to work and has tackled the problems, it will look at this issue, among many others, and that those who sit on the committee will be proud of what they have done and those who look at that work will be equally proud.
I hope the committee will deal with the subjects of jurisdiction, property ownership, who owes what to whom, and so on. When the committee gets to the jurisdictional problems, which are very important, I hope among the accomplishments will be listed, at least in small measure, a success which demonstrates that the national capital has become to westerners not a symbol of something foreign or divisive but, rather, a symbol of our strength in all parts of Canada, a symbol of which they can be proud in the knowledge that this place is their capital, too, and that they want it to be so.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, rising as a representative from even farther west than my predecessor in this debate, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), I wish to express my general agreement with the scheme put forward by the minister to establish a parliamentary committee to examine the current situation within the capital region and to make recommendations concerning the future of this area. We have already expressed our agreement with this course of action but have done so, let me clearly state here and now, on the understanding that it will be the committee that will make the recommendations and there is not already lurking in the wings a bill or a set of plans ready to be brought out and presented to parliament no matter what the committee says or recommends.
Unfortunately, this has happened in the past. It has been brought to our attention that this government does proceed in this fashion, going through the motions of consultation but all the while having made up its mind exactly how it plans to proceed. We must, therefore, be on the look-out for all possible signs of a predisposition on the part of the government to move this way or that way despite the findings and proposals of the committee.
In this connection I am reminded of a procedure practised in the British House in respect of their select committees, which correspond more or less to our standing committees. The select committees at Westminster are empowered to investigate and report with recommendations. The important words here are "with recommendations". At Westminster, the government within a specified length of time is obliged either to accede to or implement each recommendation or provide reasons for not doing so. This is a good committee system. The committee is empowered to recommend, after proper inquiry of course, and the government either implements the recommendations or provides reasoned argument why this or that recommendation cannot be or ought not to be implemented. That is real participatory government-something that I, for one, would like to see developed a bit more around here.
I agree that the capital should reflect-we have heard this from all speakers-the dual nature of our society, our culture and our linguistic inclinations.

But in this regard, one word of caution is indicated. To my mind, we must preserve the authenticity of our names,

thus encouraging wholesome reflection on the duality if not the multiplicity of our origins.
The most flagrant example of a lack of authenticity, from my point of view, is that of the "trans-phonetizing" of some names, for instance the name "Outaouais" which does not exist. That is an Indian name, and we see it everywhere. The name is "Ottawa", and that is a sure thing. We must keep it in its original form. For instance, we do not speak of "coque" in the case of Hull, which would really be an exaggeration, nor of "basketmaker" when speaking of Vanier. We should not therefore speak of "Outaouais". Does anyone claim that Rockcliffe, in the suburbs of Ottawa should be called "falaise rocheuse"? or that Deschenes should be called Oak Woods, or again of Pont Chaudiere "Teakettle Bridge" or "Cooking pot Bridge"? Really it is the Chaudiere Bridge. We ought to keep that name. And the Rideau River, is it the laughing water or is it "Curtain River"? No, it is the Rideau River. We must keep that name. The result of such procedure is a ridiculous situation, even nonsense. If we keep on like that, for instance, we will have site and place names borrowed from every aspect of our history. Let us keep them in their original state, whatever the language they come from.

I simply make a plea, therefore, for good, ordinary, down to earth, common Canadian horse sense in this area. We have drifted too far away from some original designations. I am at a complete loss to understand why Nova Scotia, for example, a pure Latin term if ever I ran into one, should have to be translated into one or other of the official languages. The word "exit"-a means of getting out from somewhere-has been translated into another word. We all know what those words mean. Nova Scotia is Nova Scotia. I believe we should stick with the name the people who arrived there gave to a particular part of the country. I say that one of the working rules of the committee that is to be set up should be to examine the nomenclature of the sites, the mountains, the lakes, the rivers, the woods, the regions and the banlieues of the cities, and let us stay with those original names.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the motion to establish a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to study the various aspects of the National Capital Commission. I think that such a committee is badly needed. There have been many studies carried out in the past, such as the Fullerton report, and it is just and right that the elected representatives of the people should take all these studies to heart and decide what should be done for the future of our capital.
It has been said that this must be a non-partisan committee, and I hope that members will remember that in the committee. I do not know whether or not I shall be a member of it-I hope that I shall be. I will certainly want to encourage the non-partisan aspect. Our capital is of interest to all Canadians, and it has nothing to do with political parties. I think that we should approach it in that way. In fact I would even like to see members of the
June 23, 1975

committee not take sides but work together in a concerted effort to find the answers that we so badly need. [Translation]
In my opinion, the most important task for the committee will be to try to find a way to maintain and develop the bilingual aspect of the national capital. As others have said a few moments ago, it seems to me that it will not be possible to develop still more the bilingual aspect of our capital if the two provinces keep on having authority over education.
I think we in the capital should set the example for all Canada of full and integral bilingualism. In order to achieve this objective, it will be necessary that education be in the hands of the government which will exist here in the capital. I think that even if there are some who say that Quebec and Ontario would never accept to give up their powers, this is an aspect that must absolutely be examined by this committee.

This capital of Canada is, in my view, my capital, and I am sure that most Canadians feel that it is their capital. Certainly I have a love affair with this city. Many years ago I decided that I wanted to be here, and finally, 17 years ago, I took up permanent residence in this city. Since I became elected I have been spending part of my time in my constituency where I was born, and part of my time in my capital. So I have a very personal interest in this city and a very active interest in trying to help develop the best kind of future government for the capital of Canada.
Some hon. members have mentioned the buildings, the high rises here. I think it is indeed unfortunate that so much building has taken place in Ottawa to spoil the view particularly of this parliament building.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I believe that the original idea was to have a vista from Capital Hill right to Victoria Museum. I am sorry that idea was not put into effect so that we could have had a mall going straight up from the museum to Capital Hill. I do not know whether it is too late to do that, but perhaps in the years to come it may be possible. Unfortunately many expensive high rise buildings have grown up south of the tower. In any case if we wish to speak ideally-and we should speak in ideal terms from time to time-I would say that our aim should be some day to have a clear view of the parliament buildings.
I think we must examine all aspects of the future government. My ideas are different from those of others, but I am not rigid in them. I would like to be able to put forward some of my ideas in the committee. One of them, as I said a little while ago, is that provincial governments should no longer have authority in this territory because I can see no way of developing a national capital here for our people that will be truly a national capital in every respect, particularly from the point of view of bilingualism and multiculturalism, if the two provinces are to be included in the future government of the national capital. I see no reason for them to be there, other than a jealous desire to hold on to power, and I do not see that that should be necessary in this day and age.
National Capital
After all, the elected representatives here of the people do represent the same people that these other governments purport to represent. There are various ways in which it can be accomplished and I think we are all pretty well agreed that there should be a good portion of elected representatives in the future government. There should also be, of course, some appointed individuals so that there can be a continued effort, such as we have seen on the part of the NCC in the past.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to mention these few things. I hope that the committee will get down to its work very soon. Perhaps it can be formed over the summer so that it can start to plan exactly how it is to go about doing its work. I wish that committee every success.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on this motion on an issue which is obviously a motherhood issue for the House. It is a real pleasure to see members of the House in such a good mood about something that is being done, and to see everyone united along the same lines.
I am in total support of the proposal to set up a joint committee of the two Houses to decide on the future role of the National Capital Commission so that we can have some input into it and bring forward some ideas on what we will do in the future. I totally agree with those hon. members who have said today that they hope that the ideas that will come out of the studies of this committee will bring out the true national character of our capital, because I think that we who live in the Ottawa valley area have a tendency to regionalize the national capital, which really belongs to people right across the country. We, of all people in the House, must lend a sympathetic ear, and fully accept the fact that the input must come from all regions of Canada and from all ethnic groups in Canada. We must retain the dual cultural nature of our national capital and we must also recognize the multicultural aspect of our nation.
We in the upper Ottawa valley sometimes tease the people in the city of Ottawa and remind them that had it not been for those great timber areas in the upper Ottawa River area and in the area of the tributaries such as the Madawaska River, the Bonnechere River and the Petawa-wa River, Bytown might never have existed other than as a military post. We feel that we fed this area with its early industry in the lumber business, and to a large degree we are still doing that today.
The Ottawa valley is an area where you have a large dual culture which is very representative. I should like to bring to the attention of the House that the village of Wilno in Renfrew county is this year celebrating its one hundredth anniversary as the oldest community of Polish settlers in Canada. This community received a multicultural grant from the government to help promote this event.
To the people in the House today from various provinces of Canada I should like to say that I hope they will come forward with their ideas on what the national capital

June 23, 1975
The Budget
should be, and that they will make a contribution to this committee. I hope that any subcommittees or commissions appointed to carry out the work of the National Capital Commission after receipt of the committee studies, will be representative of all regions of Canada. If we are going to build a truly national capital we must use the history of the country to do so. Regionalism must go by the board, and pride in our nation as a whole must be the substitute for partisan politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps your view of the clock is not quite the same as mine, but could you call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 5.45 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance) moved:: That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this has been a tough budget to prepare. In working on it I have talked with and, more importantly, listened to a lot of people in all walks of life. Many members of this House have been helpful and generous in their advice. A budget is, of course, an economic document. In it a minister of finance should give an accounting to the country of the existing situation and propose his ideas for the future. But it also must be a human document. If its policies are to succeed, it must strike the right note and take into account the mood of the country.
When I brought down my budget last November I warned of the grave risks arising from the uncertain and precarious state of the world economy.
During the intervening seven months, the situation has become more difficult. The decline of world economic activity has turned out to be more severe and prolonged than we or anyone else anticipated.
At the same time the underlying problem of world inflation remains. The rate of change of prices in a number

of industrial countries has slowed significantly in the early months of this year, but there is a danger that inflation will re-emerge when the tempo of world economic expansion is restored.

The world recession has put a brake on our own economy and we have thus been compelled to scale down our projections for Canadian economic growth this year. But we have escaped the full impact of the deep recession in the United States. To a significant extent this is the result of the expansionary policies we have followed in the past, the effects of which are still working their way through the economy. Recent public opinion surveys suggest that most Canadians feel today that they are better off than they were a year ago. The disposable income of the average Canadian remains high. But we must look down the road to see the terrain that lies ahead. We have experienced a considerable increase in our costs in the last several months. This acceleration of our costs if it continues, poses grave difficulties for the future.
We are now faced with a dilemma. If we follow more expansionary policies at this time we run the risk of making inflation worse. If, on the other hand, we follow contractionary policies, we risk worsening unemployment.
In my November budget I spoke of the need for a national consensus about what various groups can safely take from the economy over the next few years. If such a consensus had emerged by now we would have been faced with a less difficult policy choice.
Since a consensus has not been reached, the government has had to examine a wide range of other options for dealing with the problems of inflation and unemployment. I propose to describe them fully. It is most important that the people of this country understand the nature of the economic problems which confront all of us and the hard choices which have to be made.

At the same time we are confronted with major problems in the field of energy. We are fully conscious of the short-term adverse effects of a sharp increase in the domestic price of oil and natural gas. We are, however, faced with a growing dependence on imported oil. We have to recognize the long-term need to develop new sources of supply in Canada and to promote greater economies in the consumption of these scarce resources.
Faced with these conflicting requirements in dealing with inflation, unemployment and energy, I have had to strike a careful balance in the choice of policies. Taking into account the climate of opinion in the country, the government must give a lead that will enable us to improve our economic performance. The faster rise of costs in this country than in the United States is casting a shadow over our economic future. Should this trend continue our prospects for the expansion of output, employment and real incomes will be endangered. Dealing with this inflation problem without adversely affecting our immediate employment prospects constitutes the heart of this budget.
June 23, 1975

International Developments
I should like to begin my review of the situation by referring to a number of developments on the international scene.
One of the brighter aspects of the global picture over the past several months has been the success of the international monetary system in coping with massive balance of payments problems created by the quadrupling of world oil prices. To date at least, the process of adjustment has worked much more smoothly than most observers had expected.
We are not out of the woods yet. Although the collective deficit of the oil-comsuming countries will be a little smaller this year than it was in 1974, large imbalances will continue. Unfortunately, the over-all deficit of the less-developed oil-consuming countries will be significantly larger this year than last, even if there is no further increase in oil prices. In these circumstances, wealthier countries will have a larger role to play in ensuring that financial help keeps flowing to countries facing the greatest difficulties. For the people of some of these countries, it's not just a question of austerity. It's a question of survival.
We made some progress this month at the meeting of the Interim Committee of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund-although not as much as I should have liked. We are seeking to resolve important issues in the working of the international monetary system. It is urgent, particularly for the developing countries, that we settle the interconnected questions of Fund quota increases, the use of gold held by the IMF and the exchange rate arrangements that members of the Fund should observe. The settling of these issues would facilitate several promising plans for opening further channels for the flow of assistance to developing countries. The settling of these issues will also permit the Committee of Ministers to tackle its principal continuing task. This task should be to maintain a surveillance over a volatile international economy and to achieve the essential co-ordination of national economic policies.
This can be done only by the collective political will of responsible ministers. Economics is too important to be left to economists. The choices to be made are essentially political decisions.
I have spent a good deal of time on behalf of Canada in the international sphere. It was time well spent. We Canadians depend for our prosperity on international trade and a stable world. Moreover, the economic posture I will announce tonight owes something to the insights I have received from my colleagues from many nations.
Countries of the Third World are themselves seeking new ways to improve their longer-term growth and development. Canada is prepared to join them in seeking out the areas where progress can be made. We believe that this search should encompass new measures to assist these countries in expanding their economies and raising the standard of living of billions of people. We are looking at the ways of financing international trade and of helping them expand their exports and increase their export earnings. But these new initiatives must be firmly based on economic realities, not empty rhetoric.
The Budget

In many countries the economic slowdown has generated pressures for increased trade protection. Producers inevitably seek to insulate themselves from the sharper winds of international competition. Fortunately, most governments have resisted the temptation to resort to new restrictives trade policies. At the recent Ministerial meeting of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, member countries reaffirmed their pledge against the use of trade restrictions in dealing with their balance of trade problems. Canada supported this extension of the pledge. We believe that if we can abstain collectively from raising new barriers to trade, we will all be better off.
The multilateral trade negotiations underway in Geneva offer the possibility, both of more liberalized trade and a more effective use of our resources. The negotiations are far-reaching. They will cover non-tariff as well as tariff barriers, and agricultural as well as industrial products. Canada is playing an active part in these negotiations.
At the same time, we are moving to strengthen bilateral economic relations with our major trading partners. We continue to place the highest priority upon the maintenance of our longstanding network of commercial and economic relations with the United States. But we are now trying to establish new and stronger economic links with other countries, particularly with Europe and Japan. The responses to the Prime Minister's initiative for establishing new relations between Canada and the European Economic Community have been most encouraging.
I should also report that I was particularly impressed during my recent visit to the Middle East by the opportunities there for new business. I have already urged Canadian businessmen to do more to take advantage of the rich and rapidly growing markets in that part of the world.

One of the most unfortunate of international developments has been the slide of the United States into the deepest and most prolonged recession since the war. The sharpness of the U.S. decline has been unexpected. This has adversely affected the performance of the industrial world. About 15 million people are now unemployed in 24 OECD countries. Partly as a consequence of this industrial recession, inflation rates have receded somewhat from the very high rates of 1974, particularly in the United States, Germany and Japan.
As the recession has deepened, the prospects for the future have been scaled down. Last December the OECD was forecasting real growth of 0.5 per cent for its 24 members in 1975. Now, in a sharp reversal of that earlier forecast, it is anticipating that total output will decline again this year. While it is widely expected that the U.S. economy will begin to move out of recession in the latter half of this year and some of the other major OECD countries by year-end, there is much less agreement about the strength and speed of the recoveries. The view most generally expressed is that a considerable shortfall of output and high rates of unemployment will extend well into 1976. For some countries the immediate outlook for inflation is encouraging because of falling of some world commodity prices, prospects for good harvests, and consid-
7022

June 23, 1975
The Budget
erable success in bringing costs under control. But in other countries the immediate outlook for inflation is much less promising.
The Canadian Economy
It is against this international background, Mr. Speaker, that we must assess the state of the Canadian economy and the risks that we face.
We should begin by recognizing the extent to which our recent economic performance has differed from that of the United States. As I pointed out earlier, the United States is going through its deepest recession of the postwar period, with an absolute decline in real output of over 1'A per cent since the peak at the end of 1973. On the other hand, Canada has experienced an absolute decline in real output since early 1974 of only 2 per cent. While unemployment has risen in Canada, it remains more than two percentage points below that in the United States.
It is difficult to disentangle the factors which have helped to shelter us from the deep American recession. In part, this resulted from the nature of the preceding worldwide expansion. Food and other primary products are very important in Canadian output, and the high world demand and exceptionally high prices for these commodities gave a strong impetus to Canadian incomes. Our position as a major oil producer enabled us to protect ourselves from the full shock of the increase in world oil prices. There has also been a stronger and more sustained increase in business investment in Canada in recent years, an expansion which has been encouraged by our manufacturing incentives. The rapid growth in employment, the increasing number of families with two or more pay-cheques, the indexing of personal income taxes, the increase and indexing of social security benefits-all of these have contributed to the expansion of income and expenditures and the confidence of Canadian consumers.
More recent expansionary policies in Canada have also helped to buttress the economy. Our measures of last November, which preceded the change in U.S. economic policy by several months, provided a significant stimulus. They have been supported by unemployment insurance and other features of our taxation and welfare system which automatically cushion the economy in periods of declining income. Further strong stimulus has been provided by the provincial budgets introduced in the spring. We estimate that their cash requirements will be up by something of the order of $1V4 billion this fiscal year. The general stance of monetary policy since the end of last summer has also helped to cushion the temporary weakness of demand. All of these factors and policy initiatives have helped to maintain spending, employment and confidence in Canada at higher levels than in the United States.

The fact remains, however, that the world recession has had a dampening effect on economic activity in Canada by restricting the growth of our exports. This is the main reason why our real output, after peaking in the first quarter of 1974, was virtually unchanged in the second and third quarters, and has declined somewhat since. At the same time, the volume of our imports has grown rapidly due to the continued expansion of domestic demand in Canada. While the prices which we received for our

exports continued to increase in the first half of 1974 more rapidly than the prices of our imports, more recently the terms of trade have moved against us. As a result of all these factors, the current account deficit reached over $6 billion at annual rates in the first quarter of 1975.
Certain sectors of the Canadian economy have been particularly hard-hit. While automotive sales have held up reasonably well in this country, the severe contraction of demand for North American vehicles in the United States has led to a major reduction in Canadian automotive production for sale in the U.S. market. The sharp decline in U.S. residential construction, which provides the most important single market for Canadian lumber, has severely curtailed demand for exports of wood products-a problem compounded by the decline in our own housing activity. Exports of a number of other primary commodities have also been cut back because of declining foreign demand.
Residential construction has been the major domestic source of weakness in the economy. The record levels of activity reached early in 1974 could not realistically be maintained. It was also to be anticipated that rising interest, land and building costs would lead to some scaling down of new housing starts. The decline, however, was sharper than we foresaw, with the number of starts reaching a low point in March before rebounding in April and May. The fall in residential construction has resulted in a decline in demand for a wide variety of household furnishings and appliances.
Business capital investment has continued to expand as work goes forward on projects that have already been started. But we must face the fact that the current economic slowdown, sharply rising costs and falling profits seriously jeopardize the continued strong growth of new productive capacity needed to increase output, employment and real incomes in the future.
The slowdown of the economy did not begin to have a marked impact on the creation of new jobs until the turn of the year. So far, employment has been relatively well maintained, but the number of Canadians without jobs has risen substantially as a result of the continuing rapid growth of the labour force. We need strong employment growth to get unemployment down. The key to this is a better performance on costs and prices. We have to remain competitive to sell, and sales are the only guarantee of jobs.
Up to now, Canada's price performance has compared reasonably favourably with that of most of the major industrial countries other than Germany. I have already noted that consumer prices in most countries have been rising less rapidly in recent months. The annual rate of change in Canada for the three months ending in May was 7.1 per cent compared with nearly 15 per cent in the three months ended in December. But these comparisons mask the reality of underlying developments in our cost-price structure. Wholesale prices are already moving up more rapidly again. The fact is that we have been building serious cost increases into our economy which threaten to
June 23, 1975

erode the competitive position of our industries both at home and abroad.
The major cause of this increase in costs has been the accelerating rise of wages and salaries, which account for some 70 per cent of our total national income. It is quite true that the rate of wage and salary increases in Canada has been exceeded in many industrial countries overseas. But we can never forget that the United States is our major competitor and our major market, buying and selling some 65 per cent of all the goods we export and import. And it is in relation to the United States that our competitive position is being most seriously undermined.
Mr. Speaker, some supplementary material that I shall table later provides a detailed picture of wage and salary developments in Canada and the United States. I recognize fully the defficulty of making precise comparisons of this kind. The preponderance of the evidence, however, is that wages and salaries, whether fringe benefits are included or not, are rising much more rapidly in Canada than in the United States.
In spite of this more rapid rise in wage and salaries, the increase in labour costs per unit of output has been only moderately higher in Canada than in the United States because productivity declined much less in Canada than in the United States. As the U.S. economy begins to pull out of its present deep recession, however, it is likely to experience a much greater improvement in productivity than our country. Under those circumstances, the gap between our unit labour costs and those in the United States will progressively widen and our competitive position progressively deteriorate.
It is perhaps not surprising that wages and salaries in Canada over the past several months should have been rising more rapidly than in the United States. Like the increase in our current account deficit, that is a consequence of the relatively much stronger performance of the Canadian economy since the beginning of last year. What is surprising and disturbing is the size of recent increases in Canadian wages and salaries and their continuing acceleration in a period of slow growth and high unemployment.
I very much understand the concern of working men and women everywhere to maintain and improve their standard of living. It was natural that they should have pressed for increased wages and salaries when faced with rapidly rising costs for almost every purchase and when corporate profits were apparently soaring to record levels. But the increase in corporate earnings, much of which was generated by temporary and illusory gains from inventory profits, has been sharply reversed during the past six months. The share of wages, salaries and supplementary labour income in the national output declined significantly in the earlier stages of the inflation, but the balance has since been fully restored. Wage and salary increases are now running well above the increase in the cost of living. These increases in large measure reflect the effort to restore or improve relative positions, and the widespread fear and expectation that inflation will continue or even accelerate. But a number of recent wage and salary demands appear to bear little relationship to economic reality.
The Budget
There are some who believe that the surge of wage and salary increases has crested and that we can now expect a substantial reduction in the rate at which we add to our costs. I very much hope that this will be the case, but there is little evidence yet that it is happening.
There are others who point out that we have a flexible exchange rate and if our cost increases continue to exceed those of our major trading partners, our resulting competitive disadvantage can be overcome by a depreciation of the Canadian dollar.
The weakening of our balance of payments has already produced some depreciation. But a continuous depreciation of the Canadian dollar over any length of time is no substitute for bringing the spiral of our costs and prices under control. Indeed, it would aggravate the inflationary process by driving up the prices of the billions of dollars worth of goods and services we buy from abroad. Further, depreciation of our dollar raises the domestic prices of some products which we both export and consume at home. Unless we as a nation are able to conduct our affairs in a way that will maintain confidence at home and abroad in the soundness of our economy, we risk paying a heavy penalty in terms of lower capital investment, lower output, lower employment and lower real income.
Thus we are brought back to the central question of the emerging trend in cost increases.
If the rate of increase in our costs does come down, we will be able to look forward to a sustained expansion of output and employment, supported by the major new investment projects which lie ahead of us. But I cannot overlook the danger that our costs may continue to rise both in absolute terms and relative to our major trading partners. In that event, growth and employment will be impaired. The outcome will depend on whether we are moderate in the claims which all of us will be making in the coming months.

Policy Choices
Let me discuss now the question of policy. In doing so, I recall that my first words to this House as Minister of Finance were that my most urgent priority was jobs. I continue to believe that our greatest challenge is the creation of productive and satisfying jobs for the rapidly growing numbers of Canadians who want to work. One million more Canadians are at work today than when I took this office. But statistics alone are not a measure of human fulfillment. This achievement must be measured by the new opportunities for our young people to pursue their chosen careers, for students to help pay for their education, and for increasing numbers of women to enrich their lives in a meaningful way.
The policies of this government have played a crucial role in making this happen. We have used fiscal and monetary policy, but have never believed this alone to be sufficient. We have stressed the necessity of a high level of business investment and encouraged it by tax incentives and a wide variety of other policies. We have launched new direct employment programs. We have broken new ground in the training of workers and in aiding those who have had to move to other parts of the country where jobs
29576-3U/2

June 23, 1975
The Budget
are available. We have introduced large new programs of regional development to bring jobs to people.
Today the task of job creation is made immeasurably more difficult by inflation. In its present cost-push form, inflation threatens to price our goods out of world markets and to lessen the capacity of our business firms to expand their operations. It disrupts financial markets and impairs rational planning by business and government. It undermines the effectiveness of the traditional instruments of demand management policy to keep the economy on course. When inflation reaches a certain point, the stimulation of spending may simply lead to higher prices rather than more goods and more jobs; in the longer run, it actually makes unemployment worse.
Not only that, but inflation ultimately inflicts grievous damage to the fabric of society. It lowers the living standards of those on fixed incomes, including pensioners. It leaves people without reliable, understandable guideposts by which to arrange their economic affairs. It injects grave uncertainty into decisions on family budgets, housing, savings and provision for old age. It provokes deep frustration, social tension and mistrust of private and public institutions. Collective bargaining is embittered. Industrial relations are damaged. We in Canada are already beginning to live some of these experiences.
During the past few months, I have had the opportunity to talk with many people all over the country-from labour, from business, from our farms, from the professions. I have found a widespread understanding of the risks to our country from persistent inflation. I now wish to share with the House and with the people of Canada the government's thinking as it has developed in the course of the consultations and during the intensive review we have conducted in recent weeks. If we are to find a way out of our present difficulties, no single step is more important than to promote the widest possible public understanding of our problems and the real choices which we have to make.
Among the various policy options open to us, there is one which this government has rejected, and rejects again, in the most categorical manner. This is the policy of deliberately creating, by severe measures of fiscal and monetary restraint, whatever level of unemployment is required to bring inflation to an abrupt halt. Such a course of action would be completely at odds with my own instincts. The cost would be much too high. The hard-won sense of security in our society would be replaced by a sense of fear and anxiety, and the cost in terms of lost output and lowered standards of living would be unacceptable. In human terms for me it would be unthinkable.
It was because we rejected this course of action that we launched the series of consultations with the leaders of labour and business, provincial governments and many other groups and associations in the country. Our objective was to seek a better solution to inflation and slow growth. We sought a consensus on a new framework to govern the setting of incomes and prices in a manner which would be fair to all.

Members will recall that my parliamentary secretary- and at this stage I should like to pay tribute to him as an outstanding member of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The hon. member for Sarnia (Mr. Cullen) has been invaluable to me in the discharge of my duties in this House and in the country. He tabled in the House the report I gave on this subject to the conference of first ministers. Let me now summarize the impressions we gathered from the whole series of meetings.
First, all those who took part in these meetings gave generously of their time, often at short notice. They spoke frankly about what worried them. They gave their opinions constructively. They helped me and my colleagues a good deal and I want to thank them.
Second, those who joined us at those meetings welcomed the opportunity to exchange views with the government on problems and policies. I think they have learned more about the problems we are facing. Certainly, my colleagues and I have greatly benefitted from hearing their views. We must find ways of keeping these channels of communication open and I intend to do so.
Third, there is now, I believe, a clearer understanding in the country of the fact that if each and every group tries to improve its position by pushing up its own money income, the total effort in the end is bound to be self-defeating. If Canadians generally come to recognize that moderation and restraint are in the interest of everyone-that will in itself dampen inflation. The most useful result of the consensus exercise has been increased public awareness and understanding.
Despite these positive aspects, consensus on a set of voluntary guidelines has not been reached. The impression was created that this has been due to an inability to formulate a set of proposals that were fair and equitable. I believe this is not so. The proposals were evolving, and I think we were on the way to rounding them out in a manner which would have met the main concerns of the various parties. But we had to struggle against a persistent doubt whether the voluntary guidelines would in fact be followed. Each group feared that others would be less exposed to the force of public scrutiny or less able to commit its membership. There was a general concern that the burden would not be shared equally.
Faced with the deadline of a budget and in the absence of a consensus, I had to consider other options.
We gave careful consideration to the imposition of statutory controls over prices and incomes. In contrast to the situation in 1973 and 1974 when our inflation primarily reflected international forces, and controls couldn't possibly have worked, we are now faced with escalating domestic costs in an under-employed economy. In these circumstances, controls could provide the most direct response to the problem. Thus, unlike our position on severe monetary and fiscal restraint, we did not reject controls in principle. Indeed, in one respect, they would have had an advantage over a voluntary consensus. By using the powers of the law to make all groups obey the rules, each would have had the assurance that all would be making a contribution.
June 23, 1975

But there would have been-and are-immense difficulties and disadvantages in such a course of action. Government would have to interfere in every type of business decision and wage settlement. To a far greater extent than in a voluntary program, a new bureaucratic apparatus would have to be set up. New types of inequity would be created. The flexibility of the market economy in directing resources where they are most needed would be impaired. Dislocations would occur.
These costs would be worth paying if direct controls could be successfully imposed. If this were the case, we might well achieve lower price and cost increases without higher unemployment. But the success of such a program would depend crucially on widespread public support. As I have said before, I believe that we can resort to direct controls only when there is a public conviction of the need for such action. That point has not been reached.
As another option, we looked at several alternative ways of using the tax system as a method of controlling prices and costs. We examined the possibility of taxing away all increases in income in excess of specified amounts. We came to the conclusion that this would provoke administrative nightmares, create massive inequities and yet would not ensure that the inflation of costs and prices would be effectively brought under control.
The policy I have chosen is to use our powers over taxation and spending to create the climate and set the example by which I believe we can still meet the interrelated problems which confront us. I would remind the House that the stimulus of the measures taken in the November budget was reflected in my forecast of cash requirements amounting to $3 billion. Because of the slowdown in the economy, and its unavoidable impact on tax revenues and social security payments, I now expect that our requirements will be in excess of $5 billion. I do not believe that this amount should be further increased. I believe there is enough stimulus already injected into the economy. There are, however, some areas in which further action is imperative. I will be announcing certain measures tonight to sustain business investment, to assist housing and to create jobs. But as I have said, our goals would not be served by a further net injection of demand. The government cannot underwrite-or appear to be underwriting-ever higher rates of inflation by further expansionary policies. It would be no service to the people of Canada to hide the underlying reality that unrestrained demands for higher incomes will sooner or later mean fewer jobs and lower living standards.
A further reason for not increasing the over-all expansionary thrust of our policies is that much of the slack in the economy is concentrated in our export industries. In spite of our best efforts to promote export sales, we cannot stimulate general demand in the economies of our trading partners. We can only try to check the deterioration in our international competitive position.
On the other hand, since unemployment is already too high, I do not see any justification for weakening the expansionary thrust which is already in place.
I have therefore decided to stay on our existing fiscal course in terms of our cash requirements and their impact on the economy. Within that framework, however, it is
The Budget
essential that the government should exercise greater restraint over its own spending. I will therefore be announcing a series of measures the government is taking to limit its total outlays and to reduce their growth over the longer run.
One thing we have learned from our meetings with labour and business was that if we expected restraint from the country, the country expected restraint from governments. We are determined that this budget shall show clear leadership in the exercise of moderation and restraint. We will thereby add force to our assertion that Canadians generally will have to moderate their individual claims against the economy if we are all to enjoy the benefits of a sustained expansion in output and employment.

The Control of Government Expenditure
I come now to specific measures. None is more important than the control of public expenditure. The outlays of the federal government, both budgetary and non-budgetary, have risen rapidly in recent years. So have the outlays of provincial governments. This rapid rise has occurred in response to insistent public needs and public demands. It has contributed to the achievement of the whole range of our objectives, economic, social, cultural and international. It has been mirrored in the experience of countries around the world. But the portion of the national income spent by governments on goods, services and transfer payments, and financed by taxation, has now risen to levels previously reached only during the Second World War. This rise is now causing concern in our inflationary environment. The competition for shares of the total national income has become intense. The government proposes to set an example of restraint in this regard by imposing strict control over its activities and programs.
Our budgetary expenditures and our loans, investments and advances this year are already coming under severe upward pressure, as a result of inflation, the growing cost of our statutory programs and the new programs and new commitments which have been pressed upon us from all sides. Unless we act now, the estimates I gave in my last budget will be exceeded by many hundreds of millions of dollars. Moreover, there are strong indications that the cost even of our existing programs will rise substantially further next year.
The government has therefore decided upon a wide-ranging set of measures, covering our statutory as well as our non-statutory programs, budgetary as well as nonbudgetary spending, our salary as well as our hiring policies. All are directed to bringing outlays under more effective control and to slowing down their rate of growth this year and into the future. Our target of cuts this fiscal year is $1 billion.

The first element in this strategy has been a careful scrutiny of all non-statutory programs authorized in the main estimates of expenditure or subsequently approved by the Cabinet for submission to Parliament. Under the leadership of the President of the Treasury Board, we have identified a series of items which, although desirable and important, must nonetheless be reduced or postponed.

June 23, 1975
The Budget
The Treasury Board has been successful in applying cuts to almost every department of government and to many of the Crown corporations. These cuts will cause distress and disappointment to Canadians in all walks of life. But they are required if we are to demonstrate responsible fiscal restraint.
Reductions totalling $100 million are being made to the planned capital expenditures of the Departments of Transport, Defence, Public Works, Environment and others.
Reductions totalling $250 million are being made in the planned grants and contributions of the Departments of External Affairs, Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Secretary of State and others.
In the non-budgetary field, planned loans, investments, and advances will be reduced by about $350 million, by cutting back on allocations and by deferring the start-up of some new enterprises. Crown corporations and agencies which will be affected include Petro-Canada, the Federal Business Development Bank, the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation and the Farm Credit Corporation.
Over and above these reductions, departments and agencies are being required to cut planned program expenditures by $130 million, and ministers are now directing changes in their programs in line with their reduced resources. The Treasury Board is also directing departments to restrict expenditures on travel and consultants' fees.
The second element in the strategy relates to the growth of the public service. The Treasury Board is directing departments to restrict their salary budgets. The effect of this restriction will be to reduce the rate of increase in man-years in the public service this year from 4.1 per cent to 3.1 per cent, a rate that is down substantially from the levels of six to seven per cent in each of the two previous years.
One significant exception to this plan for restraining staff growth should be noted. The Office of the Auditor General has long acted on behalf of this House to monitor and report to it on the prudence and probity with which the government has implemented its programs. The government has always recognized the vital importance of the work of the Office of the Auditor General in assuring this House, and through it the people of Canada, that the operations of the government are being conducted properly and legally.
However, the increasing complexity of government operations and financial transactions demands major improvement in the capacity of that office to scrutinize objectively and thoroughly all financial transactions and systems. The most sophisticated technical and professional judgment must be available to carry out this work. The Auditor General has submitted that he needs additional staff at the most senior executive levels to fulfil these responsibilities. The government accepts this position, and has already increased his executive complement. It will now accept a further obligation to more than triple that senior executive complement to give the Auditor General the staff he needs to do his job.
The third element of our expenditure restraint strategy concerns the wage and salary policy of the federal govern-

ment as an employer. The policy of the government is to compensate its employees by way of pay and benefits comparable with those provided by other Canadian employers. The policy of comparability is a demonstrably fair one and will be adhered to strictly.
The vast majority of our public servants are represented by bargaining agents, and their salaries, benefits and conditions of work are established by collective bargaining. The government accepts and indeed initiated collective bargaining in the public service. This democratic process provides great protection against unfair or arbitrary treatment. An essential element is the legal right to strike in all but the most essential occupations. But the government is not prepared to grant increases that are unwarranted by any reasonable standard. This may lead to legal work stoppages. The resulting inconvenience to the public will have to be accepted.
Beyond this, the government cannot condone and will use every legal remedy within its power to deal with unlawful deprivation of service to the public.
The fourth element of our expenditure restraint strategy relates to the two main statutory programs in the health field-hospitals and medical care insurance. Honourable members are aware that the federal government pays about one-half of the costs of these important programs. The provinces pay the remaining half and administer the plans. Total costs this year will exceed $6 billion.
These programs have been in effect for some time- hospital insurance since 1958 and medicare since 1968. The fundamental objective of providing comprehensive hospital and medical care services to all Canadians, regardless of income, has long since been met. But even after the development of these plans as mature systems, the annual increase in their cost has on average run well ahead of the growth of national income. These costs trends are due in part to the basic nature of health care; but the statutory rigidity of the programs, the lack of national standards, and the open-ended nature of cost-sharing arrangements with the provinces has made it almost impossible to achieve effective cost planning or control. Last year, for example, federal contributions to the provinces in respect of these two programs had to be increased by 19.8 per cent over the previous year.
For several years, the federal and provincial governments have worked hard to try to devise a more flexible and efficient system to provide better services at a lower cost. This applies particularly to hospital insurance, and intensive discussions are going forward to achieve this goal.
In anticipation of a successful conclusion to these ongoing discussions, it will be necessary to amend the existing Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act and costsharing agreements with the provinces. Under the act, the federal government must give five years' notice before the present agreements can be terminated and new arrangements undertaken. I therefore wish to announce that the government will give immediate notice of its formal intention to undertake these steps.
A second measure aimed at more effective cost control involves the establishment of a ceiling on the yearly rise in the contributions the federal government makes to the
June 23, 1975

provinces under the Medical Care Act. Since provincial administrations will need some time to adjust their planning, this ceiling will be made effective for 1976 and subsequent years. More specifically a ceiling will be placed on the per capita rate of growth of federal contributions to provinces. This ceiling will be 13 per cent in 1976-77, IOV2 per cent in 1977-78 and 8V2 per cent in 1978-79 and subsequent years. The per capita approach means that varying rates of population growth between provinces or from year to year will be automatically taken into account in total contributions to provinces. My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare Mr. Lalonde will shortly introduce legislation to effect this change.
The gradual diminution of allowable rates of increase will take account of the need to discourage unnecessary use of services, but will provide adequately for the servicing of a growing population. The continuation of the existing cost-sharing arrangements involving the same federal per capita contribution to all provinces and the territories means that incentives to keep costs down will remain. Lower-cost provinces will continue to have a larger proportion of their program financed by the federal government, compared with higher-cost provinces.
I want to make it clear on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the commitment of the federal government to share the costs of encouraging the development of less-expensive health care services still stands.
Unemployment Insurance
The fifth major element in the government program for expenditure restraint concerns the unemployment insurance system.
There is no doubt that the system, as expanded in 1971, has proved its worth in stabilizing the economy and in providing substantial support for those without work.
I fully support the principles underlying this system. It gives many breadwinners who have the misfortune to be unemployed, a steady flow of income. It helps relieve the anxiety arising from unemployment.
Honourable Members are well aware that some difficulties have been associated with this new program. The government has been reviewing it carefully and in the last Speech from the Throne announced its intention to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. This continuing review has already shown the need to strengthen certain elements of flexibility and fairness in the Act. It has also shown that some features of the new system have undesirable effects on work incentives. Moreover, both society and the structure of the Canadian labour market have been undergoing significant changes over the past five years. This has led us to review the application of the principle of self-financing.
It is well known that the costs of running the new system have proved to be very large. Total benefit payments amounted to $2.3 billion in 1974-75. They are expected to exceed $3.75 billion in 1975-76. Employer-employee contributions provided $1.6 billion in 1974-75 and are expected to provide $2 billion in 1975-76. The balance-
The Budget
$1.75 billion this year-has to be provided by the general taxpayer.
Important changes have already been made to ensure fair and efficient administration of the program. But there still remain a number of important areas that cannot be dealt with by administrative action alone. These require amendments to the Act itself. All Canadians want an Act which is not only fair but credible. The amendments will deal with the benefit features of the Act and the level at which Canadian taxpayers as a whole should be expected to pay for this program in conjunction with the contributions by employers and employees.
My colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will shortly introduce legislation proposing five main changes relating to benefits, and a number of technical and administrative amendments:
-first, the maximum period of disqualification from benefits for those who quit their jobs without just cause, refuse to accept suitable employment or are dismissed for misconduct, will be doubled from three to six weeks. This measure will create a greater incentive to remain at work or to search more actively for a job;
-second, the payments of premiums and the receipt of benefits will be terminated at age 65. Government-financed programs such as Old Age Security, the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and the Canada Pension Plan are now available to people of that age on a regularly indexed basis. Those 65 years and over who wish to work are able to do so without reducing their entitlements to CPP benefits under legislation recently passed by Parliament. Taking all of these factors into account, it is no longer appropriate that older citizens who choose to continue to work should be required to pay premiums for benefits which are already available to them under other government programs. The provision for the three-week lump sum payment for those qualified will remain;
-third, the special benefit rate of 75 per cent to claimants with dependants eligible for extended benefits, or who are so-called "low-income" claimants, will be brought into line with the standard benefit rate of 662/3 per cent. The recent tripling of family allowances and the many tax reductions I have introduced mean that a special benefit rate for this group of people is no longer required;
-fourth, the Act will be amended to recognize the special circumstances of certain workers now unable to qualify for benefits for reasons beyond their control-those suffering temporary disability or on special training courses. For these workers, the period during which a claim can be established and benefits received will be extended;
-fifth, the payment of the maximum 15 weeks of sickness benefits will be made more flexible by allowing eligible recipients to receive such benefits at any time during the first 25 weeks on claim rather than the first 15 weeks as now proyided.
These changes, along with others to be introduced in the legislation will increase the incentive to work, adapt coverage and benefit levels more to current social circumstances, and deal more favourably with certain hardship cases.
Finally, the proposed legislation will provide for a change in the method of calculating that part of unemployment insurance benefits financed by employer and employee contributions. The 1970 White Paper on Unemployment Insurance stated that program costs "over and above the self-financing aspects" represent a reasonable charge to the government. This basic position remains unchanged. The White Paper established a 4-per-cent benchmark on the basis of "long term average national unemployment". An updating of the benchmark used for measuring the self-financing part of the system is now needed. This new benchmark will be adjusted annually and automatically on the basis of a moving average of unemployment rates over the preceding eight-year period.

June 23, 1975
The Budget
The principle of an eight-year moving average is the same as that now incorporated in the Act to adjust the maximum level of insurable earnings. This will mean some increase in premiums.
I might note that had this formula been operative in 1975, the new benchmark would have been 5.3 per cent. This level derives from actual experience over the immediately preceding eight-year period. It reflects broad social and demographic changes in the structure of the labour market, such as greater participation by married women, young people, students and other secondary wage earners. The regular up-dating of the benchmark will relate only to the sharing of the costs of initial benefits payable under the Act. Extended benefits payable to those who are unemployed for longer periods will continue to be based on the existing 4-per-cent benchmark, and the cost of these benefits will continue to be financed entirely by the federal government.
Mr. Speaker, our five-fold strategy of expenditure restraint will enable us to meet our priorities without placing undue strain on the economy. While many of the particular economy measures will prove to be very painful, I am convinced that the package as a whole will be welcomed by the country at large. By giving a lead to others in the exercise of restraint, this strategy will help to break inflationary expectations and get inflation under control.

Measures to Create Jobs
Certain special problems in the economy require policy responses if we are to sustain the level and growth of job opportunities and of production. I am now going to propose measures, Mr. Speaker, to deal with these special problems.
Measures to Sustain Business Investment
If our economy is to remain productive and competitive and capable of providing jobs, we must ensure that we have modern capital facilities with which to work. We must guard against any slowdown in investment. I have been pleased that capital investment has continued to expand in present circumstances and I want to do what government can do to ensure that this expansion continues.
It is well known that our policies have sought to encourage a strong manufacturing sector. We have provided long-term tax incentives to assist our manufacturers and processors to compete in domestic and foreign markets. The evidence presented in the final report on these tax measures demonstrates their effectiveness. But new and broader initiatives are needed under current economic circumstances.
I am therefore proposing to introduce an investment tax credit as a temporary extra incentive for investment in a wide range of new productive facilities. The credit will be 5 per cent of a taxpayer's investment in new buildings, machinery and equipment which are for use in Canada primarily in a manufacturing or processing business, production of petroleum or minerals, logging, farming or fishing. The cost of new, unused machinery and equipment acquired after tonight and before July, 1977, will be eligible. In the case of buildings, the entire cost will
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).J
qualify for the credit if the building is commenced during this same period. For buildings now under construction, additional costs incurred during the period will qualify.
A simple illustration demonstrates how this credit will work. If a taxpayer acquires a machine for $10,000, he will be entitled to a credit of 5 per cent, or $500, which he can apply against his federal tax liability. In other words, the cost of the asset to the taxpayer is reduced by 5 per cent, and his rate of return on the investment is thereby improved.
The credit will be claimable to the extent of the first $15,000 of federal tax liability for the year and one-half of any excess over that amount. Any balance of credit not so claimed in the year may be carried forward against federal tax for the five succeeding years, subject to the same limits. It will be available to individual small businessmen, farmers and fishermen as well as corporations. The cost of the credit, which will be borne entirely by the federal treasury, will be about $200 million in this fiscal year.
A further measure will make it easier for all Canadian companies to borrow abroad to meet their investment requirements over the next several years. Earlier this year, the Income Tax Act was amended to provide an exemption from the non-resident withholding tax on interest payable on government securities issued before 1979. I now propose to extend a similar exemption for interest on long-term corporate bonds, debentures and other debt securities, including mortgages. The exemption will apply to all interest on securities issued after tonight and before 1979 paid to lenders at arm's length with borrowers.
Full details of these measures and a number of technical amendments to the Income Tax Act will be found in the Ways and Means Motions.
Measures to Stimulate Housing
In the November budget, I stressed the importance the government attached to residential construction for both social and economic reasons. Faced with the prospect of a rapid decline in housing starts, we announced a series of measures to improve the situation. These included a further expansion and adaptation of programs of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the right to deduct capital cost allowance on new rental units from other income, and reduction of the sales tax on building materials. As a long-term measure to assist people in acquiring homes we also introduced the Registered Home Ownership Savings Plan. There is every reason to believe that this plan will be an important additional source of funds for housing finance.
We have seen a large increase in the price of housing in recent years; construction costs have risen, land costs in particular have soared and mortgage interest rates remain high although they have fallen from the peak levels of last year. This is therefore an area where the effects of inflation have been felt with particular severity. Provincial governments as well as the federal government have taken steps to mitigate the problem. But more needs to be done.
The number of housing starts fell from an annual rate of 284,000 in the first quarter of 1974 to 161,000 in the first
June 23, 1975

quarter of this year. The rate has since recovered to a level of 213,000 in May. This recent increase has been welcome, but the level reached in May is still below what appears to be needed over the longer run to look after the housing needs of Canadians. Construction of single-family dwellings has increased, but activity in rental accommodation remains depressed. I believe that further action is appropriate in order to achieve an adequate recovery as soon as possible. On behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, (Mr. Danson), I wish to announce the following measures.
First, the government has decided to increase substantially the level of housing activity directly financed from public funds. The $1 billion commitment authority for housing already provided to CMHC this year will be increased by a further $200 million. This will permit increased lending to limited dividend rental projects, to purchasers of new homes under the Assisted Home Ownership Program and to provincial and other non-profit housing agencies. All these programs are directed towards meeting the housing needs of Canadians of modest means.
Second, I wish to announce a temporary increase in the grants available for housing financed by the private sector. Hon. members will recall that legislation was passed recently authorizing direct payments by CMHC in order to bring the cost of new privately financed housing, both rental and owner-occupied, down to a reasonable proportion of the budget of moderate-income families. This important innovation extended to housing financed in the commercial mortgage market certain benefits previously available only on housing financed by the government. We are now introducing a temporary increase in these grants from an annual maximum of $600 to $1200 for owner-occupied housing and from a maximum of $600 to $900 for rental accommodation.
These measures will stimulate demand and help make adequate housing more accessible to Canadians of moderate means. They will also give an important stimulus to a sector of the economy which has not in recent months played its full role in providing jobs for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the details of these new grant provisions and the increased lending authority for CMHC will be provided by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I estimate that their total budgetary and nonbudgetary cost in 1975-76 will amount to about $125 million.

Direct Employment Programs
In addition to providing for the continuing improvement of our capital facilities and the recovery of our housing industry, specific measures are needed to create jobs among those people and in those areas where the need for employment is greatest.
A further direct employment program will therefore be initiated immediately. The program is designed to act as a catalyst for governments, industry and private groups, enabling them to co-ordinate their efforts to improve the skills of our work force and to create useful jobs. The total program will involve a financial commitment of $450 million over the next two years and a disbursement this fiscal year of $150 million. It will consist of five distinct ele-
The Budget
ments: occupational training, manpower placement and mobility, a new local initiatives employment program, an employment program for students for the summer of 1976, and a federal program of labour intensive works and activities.
The additional allocation to occupational training over the next two years will be $70 million. Half of this amount will be available for training in industry and half for training in educational institutions. This will encourage and assist many unemployed persons to acquire specialized technical skills that have a continuing value, thereby increasing their employability and earning capacity. It will also provide employers with a substantial number of trained workers and assist them to make effective use of plant facilities. We will also be allocating about $10 million to intensify job placement and mobility programs of the government. These programs have proven to be a highly effective instrument in bringing together jobs and workers.
An allocation of $285 million over the next two fiscal years will be provided for a new local initiatives employment program. This program will operate from November to June in each of the two years. Our experiments in this kind of job creation have proved effective in expanding employment at the community level through a wide range of projects sponsored by private citizens and municipalities. Special emphasis will be placed upon municipal works and projects. The new program is expected to provide over 400,000 man-months of employment.
The federal government is already engaged in a substantial program of student summer employment this year and a further amount of about $60 million is being set aside for this purpose in the summer of 1976.
We are also proposing a temporary $25 million to finance labour-intensive federal projects, particularly in regions where unemployment is most severe. Based on previous experience, this program should provide about 30,000 man-months of employment over the next two years.
My colleagues, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), will elaborate on these measures in the next few days.
Mr. Speaker, I have been outlining measures needed in present circumstances to sustain and improve the pace of production and employment in the economy. They will cost money. This is the kind of cost government should be incurring in present circumstances. These additional costs, taken together with the expenditure cuts I announced earlier, give the kind of structure and balance to government programming which is needed today.

However, the general balance of ways and means which I shall summarize later tonight, does require some increment of revenue to help pay for these special programs. Under current circumstances this contribution should come from the higher income groups of our country. I therefore propose that the income tax reductions effected in my budget of last November should be changed in one significant respect.
Members will recall that as a result of that budget the federal tax cut was increased. At the present time every
7030

June 23, 1975
The Budget
taxpayer is entitled to a tax credit of 8 per cent of his federal tax, with a minimum reduction of $200 and a maximum of $750.
This evening I am proposing to roll back the increase in the $750 maximum to its 1974 level of $500. No change is proposed to the 8-per-cent rate nor to the minimum tax credit of $200. This ensures that taxes will increase only for those who are most able to bear the increase. For example, in the case of a married wage earner with two children under sixteen, his before-tax income would have to be in excess of $27,000 before he would be affected by this change. The increase in federal revenues in a full year will be about $50 million.
Tariff, Sales and Excise Tax Changes
There are certain measures relating to the Customs Tariff which I wish to announce. Many of the requests which have been received for tariff changes will have to be considered in the course of the negotiations now underway in Geneva. I am, nevertheless, proposing a number of tariff changes of a relieving nature. There changes will become effective tonight.
Free entry for petroleum products such as gasoline, aviation fuels, fuel oils and diesel fuel will be extended until June 30, 1977; this was scheduled to expire on October 23, 1975. Free entry for aircraft and aircraft engines of types or sizes not made in Canada, due to expire at the end of this month, will be extended for a further year. Dutyfree entry will also be extended to a number of other goods either by the amendment of existing tariff items or by the introduction of new ones.
I would also like to announce three sales and excise tax changes of significance. The first is a special step to assist in energy conservation. Effective tonight I propose to remove the remaining 5-per-cent sales tax on building insulating materials. It has been amply demonstrated that good insulation can effect savings of 20 to 40 per cent in the annual costs of space heating for homes and buildings. The complete elimination of the tax will affect all purchases of insulating materials as well as double-pane glass, storm windows and storm doors.
Second, I have also been persuaded by many representations that the increased excise imposed last fall on wine is seriously affecting the domestic wine and grape growing industry of the country. The excise will therefore be reduced to its previous level effective tonight.
Third, I propose this evening that the Excise Tax Act be amended to effect a modest increase in the air transportation tax to help lessen the heavy deficits in airport construction and operation. The increases, to be effective August 1 this year, are essential to reflect the general policy that those who benefit most directly from facilities provided by the government help to pay for them.
Full details of these and other tariff items changes will be found in the Ways and Means motions tabled tonight.
Further Steps in Tax Reform
Mr. Speaker, may I take a moment to speak about the next stages in the process of tax reform.

Last January, I stated in the House that a public review of the commodity tax system would shortly be initiated and that a timetable for public participation would be announced before the end of the current session. Tonight, I am formally initiating the review program by tabling a discussion paper on federal sales and excise taxation. The analysis and proposals contained in this paper are intended to provide a focal point for public discussion which ultimately should lead to significant improvements in the commodity tax system.
The discussion paper analyzes the major problems with the present federal sales tax. Our evaluation of alternatives leads us to believe that shifting the federal sales tax from the manufacturing to the wholesale level would have distinct advantages. I would like to emphasize, however, that the government is not committed to this course of action. Representations from the general public and from groups with particular problems on all aspects of commodity taxation, including alternative approaches, are welcome.
I am also tabling a discussion paper on the treatment of charities under the Income Tax Act. This paper had its genesis in the many letters I have received and public discussion about the role of charities in our society. The paper contains proposals dealing with such matters as fund-raising expenses, the public's right to know about the operations of charities to which they contribute, and the distribution of funds by charities. I hope that both individuals and charitable organizations will respond to the discussion paper by submitting their views. Once I have had a chance to assess the public response to these proposals, I shall proceed with the necessary legislation. Government of Canada Annuities
I turn now to the situation facing holders of Government of Canada annuities.
Hon. members will be aware that inflation and high interest rates in recent years have left holders of these annuities at some disadvantage relative to persons who bought private annuities having more flexible contractual terms.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the government will be introducing legislation to increase the rate of return on existing Government of Canada annuities, which are held by more than 270,000 Canadians. This will bring the rate of return closer in line with that in the private sector and increase benefit payments.
When combined with recent tax provisions for interest and private pension income, this will help to protect those who have been prudent and provided for their own retirement.
Sales of government annuities have been on a small scale in recent years in the light of attractive alternatives from financial institutions. I am therefore announcing that the sale of Government of Canada annuities will be discontinued.

Oil and Gas Pricing
I would now like to turn to the critical issue of oil and gas prices.
Honourable Members will be familiar with the events which have led up to our present situation. When interna-
June 23, 1975

tional oil prices rose sharply in the fall of 1973, most countries, particularly those wholly or largely dependent on imported oil, allowed their domestic prices to reflect fully those prevailing in the world market. This is what normally occurs in Canada when the prices of internationally traded goods rise. There are good reasons for allowing this to happen. If the price of a commodity is kept lower in our own market than in international markets, this discourages domestic producers from increasing supplies, and discourages consumers from economizing on the use of a scarce commodity.
In the case of petroleum, Canada took a different course. We concluded that if the full increase in oil prices were allowed to affect the domestic economy directly, this would raise serious adjustment problems. Very large shifts in income among regions, industries and individual Canadians would have occurred in one step, and those using oil and gas would have had to accept a harsh adjustment to the conditions they faced. There would also have been adverse economic effects of a general nature. A sharp rise in the price of oil and gas would have raised the cost of living and reduced the income people had available to spend on other goods and services.
The government's first response therefore was to effect a voluntary freeze on domestic prices and to impose an export tax as a necessary part of this policy. Then, at their meeting in March, 1974, the First Ministers provided Canadians with a further breathing space by agreeing to a single national oil price well below that prevailing in world markets. The federal government, acting in co-operation with the provinces, took advantage of the availability of domestic supplies and framed a policy which served our national interest well. We established a single national price for crude oil in Canada of $6.50 per barrel, plus transportation, which was substantially below the delivered international oil price of around $11. We succeeded in holding down the domestic price of oil, introduced an export tax and used the proceeds of this tax to protect consumers of imported oil in Eastern Canada from the full impact of the international price.
In my view, this was a very successful policy. As Honourable Members know, however, it was never the intention of the government to maintain indefinitely the present regime of cheap energy in Canada, while the rest of the world was adjusting to the new realities.

We must accept the fact that our existing supplies of both oil and gas from Western Canada are limited. They are so limited, in fact, that Canada's capacity to supply its own requirements will likely diminish steadily from now until the early or mid-1980s.
The National Energy Board has reported upon our oil prospects and will soon present a similar analysis for natural gas. The oil report has demonstrated, and by all available public evidence the gas report will demonstrate, that we face great difficulties in this country over the next decade in supplying established markets for Canadian oil and gas.
We shall only be able to increase our self-reliance if we are prepared to pay the prices required to meet the high cost of finding, developing and transporting petroleum from new sources of supply. Neither the tar sands nor the
The Budget
frontier will yield up their treasure without massive commitment of human and material resources.
We have no practical alternative to continuing a phased adjustment to higher energy prices. This is essential to provide for our future supplies and to conserve the use of this scarce resource. As the Prime Minister pointed out at the First Ministers' Conference on April 9: "We cannot go on year after year being extravagant in our use of oil beyond what every other country in the world consumes- mainly because it is being sold cheaply in Canada, a lot cheaper than our future supplies will cost."
There was widespread recognition of this hard truth by First Ministers at their recent conference. It was generally acknowledged that an increase in prevailing oil and gas prices was essential to ensure the development of the new petroleum supplies we require so urgently in the future. What First Ministers could not agree on was the extent and timing of future price increases. Subsequent bilateral discussions with provincial governments, between officials, ministers and most recently involving the Prime Minister and all provincial premiers, were helpful in shaping views. But these discussions indicated that it was not possible to reach a consensus on this issue.
Energy considerations alone indicate the need for a large upward adjustment in oil and gas prices this year. We have, however, decided that we should move cautiously. There is still a good deal of uncertainty about the future world price of oil. We have also been very conscious of the need to moderate the size of the adjustment which particular regions and the economy as a whole will have to make.
At the same time we have tried to meet the legitimate claims of the producing provinces. Without the co-operation of Alberta, the natural gas which Ontario so badly needs might not readily be released. Further, on the price side, we have been anxious to avoid the necessity of employing the federal government's powers in the Petroleum Administration Act.
In all matters, we have been anxious to avoid acting unilaterally. But we are confident that the decision we have ultimately reached will be supported by many provinces.
Against this background I would like to announce on behalf of the government and my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that on July 1 this year the price of crude oil and its equivalents will rise by $1.50 per barrel to $8 per barrel. We are again asking industry to refrain from reflecting this increase in their product prices until 45 days have passed. By that time inventories held at the former crude oil price will, on average, have been used up. This is our decision for the next year but we are committed to see the price of crude oil continue to move towards international levels in succeeding years.
Further, on November 1 next, the price of natural gas in Alberta will be established on the basis of an increase in the price at the Toronto city gate from the current level of approximately 82 cents to $1.25 per 1000 cubic feet. We are convinced that natural gas must be priced at parity with crude oil at Toronto within not less than three years, but no more than five years.
7032

June 23, 1975
The Budget
The new domestic oil price of $8 plus transportation may be compared with the present cost of imported oil of over $12 laid down in Canada. The new domestic gas price of $1.25 at Toronto may be compared with the recently announced export price of $1.60 at the border for natural gas sold to customers in the United States.
The limitation of the present increase of oil prices to $8 per barrel and the increase in natural gas prices to about 85 per cent of commodity value means, however, that we are still not conserving our non-renewable resources to the extent required by the rise in international prices and depletion of domestic supply. I shall propose a further step this evening to encourage immediate conservation where this will impose the least hardship, and to deal with the immediate financial problem which has arisen in the course of maintaining a single national oil price.
In recent months the gap between compensation payments and oil export charge revenues has grown rapidly. This has come about because the volume of our oil exports has fallen while our oil imports have risen. Moreover, mainly because of competitive factors in world oil transport and weakness in the American market, the average subsidy paid on each barrel of imports is currently higher than the charge we are able to levy on each barrel of exports. Although the increase in the domestic oil price and the forthcoming adjustments in the import compensation program will help, the gap will be substantial.
It is difficult to be precise about the figures because the amount depends upon international prices, export volume and a number of other domestic and international factors. The cost of the subsidy for eastern consumers will be about $1.3 billion this year. The gap between that cost and the export charge revenues is likely to be several hundred million dollars in fiscal 1975-76 and may widen in the future. We are compelled to take some action to meet this growing cost.
I therefore propose, effective tonight, a special excise tax on gasoline for personal use. The tax will be at a rate of 10 cents per gallon. It will be imposed on the producer or importer of gasoline in a manner similar to the general 12-per-cent manufacturer's sales tax. Provision will be made, however, to refund the full amount of the tax on gasoline used for farming, fishing, construction, mining and most commercial transportation. Refunds of the tax to such users will be provided on the basis of certificates supported by receipts submitted to Revenue Canada.
The tax will yield the federal government approximately $350 million in the current fiscal year. Further details concerning the tax are included in the Ways and Means Motion.
The increase in the price of crude oil is equivalent to about 5 cents per gallon in the wholesale price across the range of products. This will, of course, be reflected in the retail price of gasoline at the pump together with the excise tax of 10 cents.
The increased cost of gasoline resulting from these measures should encourage motorists to make their driving habits more efficient in terms of saving gasoline. This should not, however, be left totally to the price mechanism. Accordingly, the appropriate departments of gov-
ernment and the Office of Energy Conservation have already been meeting with the motor vehicle manufacturers of Canada and their association. Discussions are proceeding on alternative ways to improve the over-all fuel economy of automobiles sold in Canada, with particular reference to changes in design and the establishment of performance standards. Both improved driving practices and better operating characteristics can make significant contributions to needed fuel conservation. The increased cost of gasoline will also encourage the use of public transportation, thereby helping to relieve the growing congestion in our cities.
I recognize that it will not be easy for the average motorist to adjust to this new situation. I would point out, however, that the retail price of a gallon of gas here will remain far below the prices prevailing in overseas countries. For example, the price of an imperial gallon of regular gasoline in Paris is $2 and in Tokyo over $1.80, in London and Geneva around $1.70 and in Bonn and Stockholm around $1.60. The average price of gasoline in the United States has been higher than ours in recent months. In the United States the administration has adopted tariff surcharges and proposes measures for decontrolling domestic oil prices which would lead to retail prices roughly comparable to the new levels in Canada. I would stress that the government is continuing to hold the price of oil and natural gas in Canada well below international levels for industrial and agricultural users and for home heating.
The new arrangements which I have announced tonight represent what the government believes to be a reasonable balance among conflicting objectives. The measures will help in increasing the petroleum supplies we will need in the years ahead. They will assist in meeting the heavy financial costs of maintaining a single national oil price well below international levels. They will confront us all with the urgent need to conserve oil and gas.

Resource Taxation
During the past year, Mr. Speaker, the taxation arrangements for the petroleum and mineral industries have posed difficult and contentious issues.
Last November, in recognition of the financial requirements of these industries, I introduced major modifications from the proposals made in the previous May and invited provinces to follow suit. Relieving action by some of the provinces did indeed follow. I have been encouraged by this and by the sense of mutual concern evident in further discussions since with provinces and industry.
I propose tonight to make one further effort to resolve this matter, to the extent the federal government can do so. We must establish a clear and lasting set of rules upon which industry can rely.
My purpose tonight is to accomplish two main objectives. First, I wish to meet, at least in part, the request for some form of deductibility in the tax system for provincial resource levies. Provinces have been seeking a more direct and tangible recognition of their special position in respect of resources. Industry has been seeking recognition of such payments as a business expense. Second, I wish to offer more incentive to those who explore and
June 23, 1975

develop in Canada and to impose a greater tax liability on those who do not.
Under the present system, resource profits are subject to a basic corporate tax rate of 50 per cent. This rate is reduced by the standard provincial abatement of 10 points of tax and by a special resource tax abatement of 15 points, resulting in a net federal rate of 25 per cent on resource production profits. Under the system which I am now proposing, the extra 15-point abatement of federal taxes would be withdrawn, and the basic corporate tax rate applicable to resource production profits would be reduced to 46 per cent, the same as that applying to most other corporate activity. After deducting the standard provincial abatement, this would result in a net federal rate of 36 per cent on resource production profits in 1976.
At the same time, I am introducing a new resource allowance, which would be an extra deduction from income equal to 25 per cent of production income from petroleum, gas or mineral resources. For this purpose, production income would be calculated after operating expenses and capital cost allowances, but before interest, exploration and development, and earned depletion. This new allowance will be available to both corporate and individual taxpayers engaged in petroleum and mining operations.
All of these new proposals will become effective on January 1, 1976.

Let me explain how these modifications will meet my two main objectives. First, the new resource allowance is a practical way to recognize that provinces, in one way or another, impose taxes or royalties and to take that fact into account within reasonable limits in determining taxable income.
Second, the new system is even more favourable than our present incentives to those who continue to develop our resources. This arises from the simple fact that the higher the tax rate, the more valuable is a dollar of deductible expenditures. Under the new proposal, exploration and development expenditures and the depletion they earn will be deductible against a net federal tax rate of 36 per cent rather than the present lower rate of 25 per cent. This will augment appreciably the incentives already contained in the present system such as earned depletion and the immediate write-off of exploration expenses.
This improvement in the resource tax system can be achieved within the continuing constraint that a fair share of resource revenues must be preserved for the benefit of all Canadians. There will be some modest cost to the federal treasury, which I estimate for the years 1976 to the end of the decade to be about $40 million annually based on present forecasts. To the extent that these proposals have their intended effect and stimulate even more exploration and development in Canada than now envisaged, the cost to the federal treasury will be greater. But this additional loss of federal revenue would be well worth its cost if it brings in new reserves.
The impact of these proposals on provincial income tax revenues is more difficult to assess. Several producing provinces are already proposing to rebate to industry increases in federal and/or provincial corporate taxes resulting from the non-deductibility of provincial levies.
The Budget
Such arrangements will no doubt continue, although perhaps in modified form. Provinces with their own corporate tax systems, which now provide that royalties and/or mining taxes are not to be deductible, will no doubt wish to take these new federal proposals into account.
I believe that the measures I have introduced tonight represent a reasonable answer to the main arguments raised by both the provinces and industry and will be welcomed as such by all concerned. I have sought a better tax system, one which would meet provincial grievances and one which would provide more incentive to industry for exploration. At the same time, I have sought to preserve a fair share of the yield of these resources for the people of Canada. I hope that provinces will do their part to resolve whatever problems still remain.
The Fiscal Position
I now wish to inform the House as to our fiscal position and outlook. The financial requirements for the fiscal year just ended, excluding foreign exchange requirements, were about $2.3 billion. This compares to the $1 billion I had forecast in my November budget. Almost half of the increase of $1.3 billion resulted from the fact that certain corporate tax instalments expected in 1974-75 were received only in 1975-76. Other factors included larger transfers to provinces under the revenue guarantee and equalization programs, and payments to the provinces under the tax collection agreements in excess of the amounts collected on their behalf.
I am tabling tonight a more detailed analysis of the financial requirements for 1974-75. Since the books are not yet closed, the figures are still preliminary. This is the first opportunity for presenting this information to the House. The normal publication of the preliminary financial statements in the Canada Gazette will follow later this summer.
I would like to turn to the fiscal outlook for 1975-76. Total financial requirements, excluding foreign exchange transactions, are forecast at $5.3 billion compared with $3 billion in my last budget.
This increase in our cash requirements reflects the fact that the economy will not grow as rapidly in this fiscal year as had been expected when we prepared the November budget. The revised forecast has resulted in a downward revision in our earlier estimate of tax collections of approximately $1.7 billion. It has also resulted in an upward revision in the forecast deficit of the unemployment insurance account of $800 million. The receipts from the oil export charge are currently estimated to be some $400 million lower than previously anticipated. This decrease in receipts is due both to a reduction in the export charge and in the volume of exports. Some offset to the above changes has resulted from the delayed receipts of $600 million of corporate tax instalments referred to earlier.
The revenue measures I have announced tonight are expected on balance to increase our receipts by $200 million. The forecast of budgetary expenditures and loans, investments and advances has been increased by a like amount. This is more than accounted for by the direct employment and housing measures I have announced tonight. The very small rise in our outlays has been made

June 23, 1975
The Budget
possible by the very great effort we have made to restrain our expenditures. In 1974-75 our outlays, that is to say budgetary expenditures, OAS and GIS, and our loans, investments and advances, rose by 28 per cent rather than the 25 per cent I forecast last November. The largest elements in this 28 per cent rise were increases of $1 billion in oil subsidies to eastern Canada, over $800 million in family allowances, and over $750 million in fiscal transfer payments to the provinces, including equalization. The increase in our outlays for 1975-76 would have amounted to 1514 per cent, if we have not had the program of expenditure restraint. This program, even allowing for some shortfall in the planned reductions, should hold the increase to under 13 per cent.
The financing of $5.3 billion in requirements should not put undue stress on capital markets. Our cash position at the beginning of this fiscal year stood at over $3.2 billion. So far this year sales of foreign exchange have provided an additional source of funds to the government. The Bank of Canada will continue to require federal securities to finance a reasonable rate of monetary expansion. The chartered banks will require treasury bills for statutory requirements and federal securities to add to their liquid assets. I am satisfied that adequate room will be left in the capital market for other borrowers.
The deficit on a national accounts basis in 1975-76 is now forecast at $3.7 billion compared with $635 million in 1974-75.
I must remind hon. members that the figures I have presented tonight on the outcome of our accounts are estimates. The actual outcome will reflect the decisions of this House respecting legislation which is now before it or which will be placed before it during the course of this session. All estimates are subject to particular uncertainties in the circumstances of today.
With the permission of the House, I should like now to include in today's Hansard supplementary tables showing estimates of Government of Canada cash requirements, details of the budgetary revenues, federal government revenues and expenditures on a National Accounts basis and reconciliations of these figures with those compiled on a Public Accounts basis. The information in these tables applies to the fiscal years 1974-75 and 1975-76.
I should also like to table several Notices of Ways and Means Motions setting out the changes I have proposed tonight and I would ask that they be appended to today's Votes and Proceedings. I should also like to table the supplementary information of labour costs, the two discussion papers and the statement of financial transactions for 1974-75 to which I referred earlier tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For notices of ways and means motions, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[The tables referred to above are as follows:]
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA	FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS	
	1974-75 Preliminary	1975-76
	Actual	Forecast
	(Millions	of Dollars)
Budgetary Transactions		
Revenues	24,856	25,725Expenditures	-26,001	-28,900Surplus (+) or Deficit(-)	-1,145	-3,175Net Non-Budgetary Transactions Excluding Foreign Exchange Transactions	Loans, Investments and Advances	-2,261	-2,700Other	1,081	575Total	-1,180	-2,125Total Financial Requirements	Excluding Foreign Exchange Transactions	-2,325	-5,300Foreign Exchange Transactions	767	3322Total Financial Requirements	-1,558	-4,968
Numbers in this column should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
This amount reflects transaction's to the end of May.
|Mr Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).)
June 23, 1975

The Budget


GOVERNMENT OF CANADA BUDGETARY REVENUES
[Stage Direction]
1974-75 Preliminary Actual	1975-76 Forecast
	(Millions	of Dollars)
Personal Income Tax	10,069	11,195Corporation Income Tax	4,285	4,035Non-Resident Tax	427	480Customs Duties	1,810	1,930Sales Tax	2,906	2,720Other Duties and Taxes	2,838	2,545Total Tax Revenues	22,335	22,905Non-Tax Revenues	2,521	2,820Total Budgetary Revenues	24,856	25,725
Numbers in this column should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estima tes.
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1975
The Budget

[Stage Direction]
1974-75 Preliminary Actual		1975-76 Forecast
	(Millions of	Dollars)	
Revenues			
Direct Taxes, Persons	14,250	16,120Direct Taxes, Corporations	4,646	4,445Direct Taxes, Non-Residents	429	485Indirect Taxes	8, 313	8,200Other Current Transfers from Persons	7	10Investment Income	2,036	2,515Capital Consumption Allowances	362	395Total Revenues	30,043	32,170Expenditures	Current Goods and Services	7,656	8,405Transfer Payments to Persons	9,123	11,750Subsidies	2,389	2,790Capital Assistance	202	230Current Transfers to Non-Residents	435	510Interest on the Public Debt	3,157	3,740Transfers to Provinces	6,598	7,145Transfers to Local Governments	139	175Gross Capital Formation	979	1,100Total Expenditures	30,678	35,845Surplus (+) or Deficit (-)	- 635	-3,675^ Numbers in this column should be	interpreted as mid-points of	ranges of	
estimates.
|Mr. Speaker ]
June 23, 1975
[Stage Direction]
The Budget

[Stage Direction]
1974-75 Preliminary Actual	1975-76 Forecast
	(Millions	of Dollars)
Budgetary Revenues	24,856	25,725
Deduct		
Post Office Revenues and Deficit Deficit of Government Business Enterprises	-	746 -	219	-	892 -	154Excess of Accruals (+) over Collections (-) Corporate Income Tax Oil Export Tax	- 118 - 137	-	71 -	32Add	Government Pension and Social Security Receipts 3 Capital Consumption Allowance	6,454 362	7,166 395. 4 Miscellaneous Adjustments	- 409	33Total Revenues, National Accounts Basis	30,043	32,170
Numbers in this column should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
In the Public Accounts, deficits of government business enterprises are a charge to budgetary expenditures whereas in the National Accounts, these deficits are deducted from remitted profits of other government business enterprises.
In the Public Accounts, the government pension and social security receipts and disbursements are treated as non-budgetary transactions whereas in the National Accounts, these transactions are reflected in the determination of government revfinuei and expenditure.
These miscellaneous adjustments arise as a result of conceptual differences between the two forms of presentation. These items represent, for example, the proceeds from the sales of existing capital assets; budgetary revenue items offset against budgetary expenditures; imputed items; and an adjustment for the treatment of revenue in the supplementary period.
[Stage Direction]
June 23, 1975
The Budget

[Stage Direction]
Preliminary	1975-76
Actual	Forecast
	(Millions	of Dollars)
Budgetary Expenditures	26,001	28,900
Deduct		
l Transfers to Funds and Agencies	-2,112	-1,928Post Office Expenditures	- 746	- 892Deficit of Government Business Enterprises	- 219	- 154Add	. 2 Expenditures of Funds and Agencies	1,229	1,263Government Pension and Social Security	Disbursements 4	6,275	8,367Capital Consumption Allowance	362	395Miscellaneous Adjustments^	- 112	- 106Total Expenditures, National Accounts Basis	30,678	35,845
Numbers in this column should be interpreted as mid-points of ranges of estimates.
In the National Accounts, budgetary appropriations to various funds and agencies are replaced by the expenditure actually made by these funds and agencies.
In the Public Accounts, deficits of government business enterprises are a charge to budgetary expenditures whereas in the National Accounts, these deficits are deducted from remitted profits of other government business enterprises.
In the Public Accounts, the government pension and social security receipts and disbursements are treated as non-budgetary transactions whereas in the National Accounts, these transactions jre reflected in the determination of government revenue and expenditure.
As in the case of revenues, the miscellaneous adjustments arise as a result of conceptual differences between the two forms of presentation. These items represent, for example, reserves and write-offs; purchase of existing capital assets; budgetary revenue items offset against budgetary expenditure; expenditures of reserve accounts and revolving funds; imputed items; and, an adjustment for the treatment of expenditures in the supplementary period.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, inflation, recession and energy are three issues facing Canadians. No single approach can solve all three. Nevertheless, I believe this budget strikes the right balance of policy. Throughout, I have had a central aim. This aim is to prepare the Canadian economy for a resumption of economic growth without inflation. I believe the key to achieving this aim is to reduce the increase of costs and prices now. The government is not prepared to do this by deliberately putting people out of work. Nor is the government prepared to put at risk the supply of energy for the future by adopting a short-sighted pricing policy today.
(Mr. Speaker.]
Our broad thrust is to allow the forces of expansion already at work in the economy to have their full effect and, as an example to others, to exercise restraint as a government in our own claims on the economy.

The government has responded tonight to the advice we received during our consensus meetings, with a clear and evident determination to constrain the growth of its own expenditures. I ask Canadians to follow this lead in moderating their own demands. If we are all able to do this, our national prospects will be very much better.
June 23, 1975

In the budget of last November, we deliberately added stimulus to the economy. That stimulus is still having its effect and we shall allow it to achieve its full effect. But we have decided not to increase that stimulus because we do not wish to feed the domestic inflationary push that has emerged in Canada in recent months. Our tax revenues will be lower and social insurance payments will be higher than we forecast last November. But we shall not counteract these developments since they are cushioning the effects of the recession at home and abroad on Canadian employment and output.

While adopting this fiscal stance we nevertheless have proposed specific actions to deal with special problems in the economy. Taken together with some of the other measures I have announced, these actions will not add to our net cash requirements. We have provided for direct job creation in areas and among groups that will be hard hit by unemployment. We have proposed action to stimulate further the building of homes for Canadians and creation of jobs in the home-construction industry. We have announced measures to encourage investment in plant and equipment to create jobs and improve productivity. We have proposed a series of measures relating to oil and natural gas designed to conserve these vital fuels and bring forth new supplies for the future.
Given these policies, how will we fare in the period ahead? I have tried to make it clear tonight that prospects for a strong and sustained expansion of output and employment depend critically on moderation in the demands of all groups in the economy. Our production and employment should pick up during the balance of this year as demand revives in foreign countries and as our own underlying expansionary policy achieves its full effect. But as I have often said, whether Canadian producers hold their share of expanding foreign markets, or even hold their share of our own domestic market, depends upon whether they stay competitive.
The government has sought to demonstrate tonight its own resolve to moderate its demands. If this lead is followed-by other governments, by business, by labour and by the professions-then we can turn back inflation. Only in this way will we ensure that we Canadians continue to enjoy a rising standard of living.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, until tonight I thought my leader was the only member of this House connected in some way with long johns. But tonight we have witnessed something much longer than a long john. Already known as the empty tank budget, this performance tonight will likely go down in history as the '75 standstill budget.
When the minister stalled for 77 days before bringing in this budget it was natural to wonder why there had been such a stall and why he should choose Monday, June 23, of all days, to be budget night. We know the minister has a sense of the dramatic, being the play actor he is. Like a student performer he likes to put his acting into historical
The Budget
perspective. Now that we have heard and read the budget, the answers to both our questions are quite clear. The minister stalled for 77 days, only three days less than it took Phineas Fogg to go round the world, according to Jules Verne. He stalled because apparently he had nothing to say. Not only did he stall because he had nothing to say but, like Mr. Fogg, he has ended up where he began. But why did he choose Monday, June 23? Of course that happens to be the anniversary of the beginning of the reign of terror in France in 1793.
While the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) may have intended tonight to be the beginning of a Turner reign of terror against labour, against business, against unsuspecting taxpayers, against spending generally-but of course not against federal spending-it is our belief, now that we have had a chance to review the budget, that it is simply another budget by the same old minister saying many of the same old things he has been saying during his entire reign of error.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I may paraphrase what the Prime Minister was saying over two years ago: Inflation remains the issue-leadership remains the problem. I am really puzzled why the minister went through two and a half months of charade only to give us this. Why did he bother?
Before we take the minister's words tonight too seriously, perhaps we should review some of the earlier statements he made during his reign of error. Hon. members will recall that on a similar budgetary evening in May last year he stated, and I quote, "We are on the right course now. We de not require additional stimulus. Neither do we need any severe contraction of demand." He emphasized, and again I use his words, "the outlook for the Canadian economy is bright", and he added, "We are thriving as seldom before in our history". He even forecast there would be a real growth in the economy of 5 per cent in 1974, and in answer to a question in the House that day he said the real growth in the first quarter of 1974 was rising at an annual rate of about 9 per cent.
Oh, what a difference 13 months has made. Oh, what a difference now the election is over. Oh, what a difference now that the facts are before us. Instead of a 5 per cent real growth in 1974, we are told now, it was 2.8 per cent, and that in the past 12 months our performance was an amazing negative 2 per cent. For the first time in his tenure of office as Minister of Finance, and indeed for the first time anyone can remember for any minister of finance, the hon. gentleman offers no prediction for 1975 in relation to any of the basic economic numbers. There is no growth forecast any longer, he mis-shot so badly in his previous four budgets. He has never given us a forecast of unemployment, and again tonight he has not given us one. He does not give us a forecast of inflation or even a forecast of housing starts. To paraphrase another old blue eyes, Frank Sinatra, the minister seems to be saying "Come, fly blind with me".
I ask him whether the near 200,000 extra Canadians who are now out of work compared to May last year would say, as he has said, "We are thriving as seldom before in our history", or whether they could take him seriously when he states once again, as he did tonight, that his first priori-

June 23, 1975
The Budget
ty is the creation of jobs. Does he really believe home owners now paying 1114 per cent for their mortgage money compared to 9 14 per cent two years ago feel, to use his own words, that we are on the right course now, or, to quote once again from his words tonight, that this budget "strikes the right balance of policy"?
The minister now blames international forces for his plight. Those damn Yankees, in effect, he says, are not prospering the way they should. "It is certainly not my fault that we are in the worst economic condition we have been in for 30 years," he infers. But in former budgets when the minister chose to boast about anything he could find positive in our economic record, did he say "Thank God for the Americans; they are prospering and so are we; thank God for world prosperity"? No way. He just stood in the limelight taking his bows.
Now time has run out on the minister. World prosperity no longer allows him to cover up the inherent defects in his approach to finance. He now stands naked, devoid of any short or long range policy to cope with Canada's deteriorating position. In his November budget the minister spoke of the need to steer a narrow course between inflation and unemployment. "That is what the budget is all about", he told us. Having failed in that test at the helm, the minister is back tonight telling us he had to strike a careful balance. Only the words change; the cliches and the lack of performance carry on.
Meanwhile personal income taxes in this country have soared to tonight's figure of $11 billion compared to less than $6 billion when the minister began his reign of error. That is an increase of 88 per cent in four years to help cover government spending increases of 99.5 per cent in the same period. During the minister's reign of error his revenues have run ahead of forecasts by an amazing $3
billion. Despite the minister's remarks about restraints in government spending, I point out to hon. members that federal expenditures were increased by $2.9 billion, or 11 per cent, between fiscal year 1974 and fiscal 1975. Most unfortunately one third of this spending increase will be paid for by a $1.1 billion increase in personal income taxes, those taxes having increased by 11.2 per cent.
As this debate progresses we intend not only to criticize the minister for his ineptitude but to offer concrete suggestions to improve the economy and, in particular, to improve the slump that we now have in our housing industry.
It is late, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude. We intend to request the minister to furnish members with additional data to make our deliberations more meaningful, but for this evening I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon); that the debate be now adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the debate was adjourned.

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council),
seconded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), moved:
That the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Accordingly this House stands adjourned until two o'clock on Wednesday next.
At 9.55 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
June 25, 1975



Wednesday, June 25, 1975