1975-12-09

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
FIRST SESSION-THIRTIETH PARLIAMENT 24-25 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Printing and Publishing, Supply and Services, Ottawa, Canada K1A 0S9
21130- lid
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 9, 1975


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning an urgent and important matter.
Since two employees of the Quebec air service have been suspended from duty because they dared speak French in a field where the federal government supports the use of the English language, since this suspension may seriously affect the whole air service in the province of Quebec and even disrupt it completely, given also the policy of the Quebec government which makes French the official language in Quebec, and since the federal government advocates bilingualism to the point of spending enormous sums of money for that purpose, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House study immediately the matter of languages in relation to the Quebec air service in order to take efficient measures as soon as possible to prevent such incidents from happening again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


ALLEGED MISUSE OF COMMITTEE SYSTEM-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. The urgency exists in the fact that representative democracy has been severely challenged by some recent actions of this House. I refer to the deplorable and unscrupulous actions of a government minister in regard to Bill C-58, which was passed,
unwillingly, through committee stage last night. While in the original committee there was a significant measure of consensus, the government, for its own self-interest, found fit to remove two of its own members from the committee and to compel others to vote against their well-known and studied opinions, with the result that the committee system became a charade, a rubber stamp of a minister and not a group for analysis and persuasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without permitting the hon. member to go further, I can tell him now that this is not a proper subject for a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter, as my hon. colleague from Rimouski pointed out.
As, on December 8, 1975, two controllers at the Montreal Central Air Traffic Control were suspended for having used the French language in their communications by telephone with the ground, while working in jobs designated as bilingual, and as the Official Languages Act of Canada gives French the same status as English in all departments, agencies and institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane):
That this House now adjourn its proceedings to allow a debate on the steps to be taken to make the use of French a fact, as soon as possible, in air traffic control operations in all airports located in the province of Quebec.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

December 9, 1975
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In light of the disturbing figures on unemployment today, which I am sure disturbs the Minister of Finance as well as the rest of us, can the minister give us a reassuring forecast of growth in the gross national product for 1976, or at least for the first quarter of 1976? I am sure his department must have such a figure. Would the minister give it to us?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman says, I share his concern about the level of unemployment in Canada. While there has been some indication in the results for the last quarters of 1975 that there has been a pickup in the economy, I think it is very difficult at the moment to make any accurate prediction with regard to the first quarter of 1976.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF SHORT-TERM ECONOMIC FORECASTING UNIT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister who will recall that a number of years ago the Economic Council of Canada recommended the establishment of an independent short-term economic forecasting unit, a suggestion to which I frequently lent my moral support. In view of the secrecy of the Department of Finance about providing the public with such forecasting information and the importance of the public having this, will the Prime Minister now consider somewhat more sympathetically than in the past the establishment of such independent short-term forecasting to serve Canadians as well as the Canadian government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I must disagree with the hon. member when he suggests secrecy beyond that which exists around the budget. Of course, when the minister presents the budget he indicates the economic basis on which he is making certain financial decisions but the hon. member knows budgets are periodic; they are not made from month to month. On the hon. members's suggestion for a new forecasting unit, I must point out that several units exist across the country in the private sector or in the universities. I hesitate at this time to engage increased expenditures to carry out the purpose intended by the hon. member.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH PROVINCIAL PREMIERS TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL SUPPORT FOR GUIDELINES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and I think the Prime Minister might effect some economy if he would take some initiative to bring these forecasting units together. They

could be strengthened and money could be saved at the same time. In view of the economic uncertainty and the indication from several polls that a large number of Canadians question the effectiveness of the government's economic controls program although supporting its purpose, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance indicated yesterday that some of the provinces at least are not prepared to support the anti-inflation program put to the provinces in general terms by the Prime Minister on October 13, is the Prime Minister considering inviting the provincial premiers to come to Ottawa before the end of the year in order to make a very determined effort to achieve national backing for the government's program which would reinforce public support and public confidence in the program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is possible that in the future we will have to have such a meeting of first ministers but I do not contemplate having one before Christmas. I certainly do not draw the same conclusion as the hon. member from the statement made by the Minister of Finance. We are going toward a consensus and there is general agreement in the provinces to support the federal program. Some provinces are availing themselves of the provisions under the act which allow them to go ahead on their own-through section 4(4) I believe-but the very fact that they are discussing it shows there is a strong desire to support the general federal approach to inflation.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In order to assist the Minister of Finance with respect to the unemployment rate for 1976, I would point out that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicated that his personal estimate was something like 7 per cent. Be that as it may, and keeping in mind the unacceptable rates of unemployment we are faced with today and considering that the help wanted index shows there are some 75,000 employment vacancies, may I ask what steps the minister has taken to match those out of work and seeking work to employment vacancies, particularly amongst the 14 to 24 age group? Can the minister report any progress in this regard?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows the myriad programs directed to solving the prevailing problem, not the least of which are mobility, training, manpower counselling, job information centres, direct employment and many others which we have discussed at some length at various meetings.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we must keep in mind that what the minister has just stated has not been effective for our use. Keeping in mind that the unemployment rate for those between the ages of 14 and 24 has increased some 13.3
December 9, 1975

per cent, can the minister tell the House whether a significant proportion of the 371,000 unemployed in this category have had a prolonged attachment to the labour force prior to becoming unemployed, or whether there is a noticeable trend showing that people in this group work for eight weeks, then draw unemployment insurance for one year? Is there this trend?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad, on a more appropriate occasion, to consider statistical trends after I have had the opportunity to look in more detail at the most recent information on which the hon. member bases his question.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS WITH REGARD TO FUTURE OF PROGRAM
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? As the unemployment problem affecting our youth is extremely severe, does the government still intend to scrap OFY, as indicated, even though by next summer we shall see many university and high school students seeking employment?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member might wait for decisions announced in the House instead of indulging in speculation based on newspaper reports.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What do you advise? Tell us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As 734,000 people now are unemployed, which means a 40 per cent increase in year over year unemployment figures, how long will the government "hang tough", to quote the Prime Minister, before bringing in programs which will positively affect unemployment levels in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have no announcements, particularly with respect to the budget, to make at this time.


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF FUNDAMENTAL ECONOMIC PROBLEM
John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering that the economy is operating much below capacity, some saying it is operating at only 82 per cent of capacity, is it still the view of the minister that the fundamental economic problem which we, as a country, face, is that people are trying to take more from the economy than the economy can produce?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that remains of fundamental concern, particularly as by adding to the productivity costs of Canadian enterprises we may, over a time, price ourselves not only out of foreign markets but out of Canadian markets as well. A very significant contributing factor to the high level of unemployment in this particular quarter has been the reduction in the level of activity of some of our principal foreign markets, notably, the United States, Europe and Japan. We have noted with interest and concern some indication of a revival in these particular markets and recognize that the Canadian economy, being so strongly export-based, will continue to face difficulty until there is a strong recovery on the part of some of our customers.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to a second minister, the President of the Treasury Board? My question has to do with reports to the effect that the minister contemplates cutbacks in federal programs. Has the minister calculated the net economic effect on the community of such cutbacks? By this I mean has he, or the government, subtracted the cost of unemployment insurance and welfare payments for newly unemployed civil servants from the savings to the treasury which would first accrue from cutbacks in those programs the minister is contemplating? If the government has made such studies, can the minister assure the House that it will think twice-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Sink twice!


John Edward Broadbent: -before embarking on such major cutback programs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I made no public statement on the expenditure program for next year. When the program is ready, it will be announced through the usual channels.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
In the context of problems raised by the use of French in air to ground communications, the Minister of Transport told the hon. member for Champlain in this House on November 21 that "the study in relation to the possible use of the French language in other areas of flight operations is going on" how then can the minister explain yesterday's suspension of two Quebec air service employees who presumably used the French language in their communications?

December 9, 1975
Oral Questions


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time there are obviously a number of infractions of our regulations. There was this recent incident of the use of the French language contrary to the rules. I understand that a few days ago there was an infraction in the refusal by an Anglophone to use French, although he is bilingual. In each case it is necessary for us to enforce the regulations as they stand. It is our objective to work in a quiet atmosphere of good sense and good will to allow for the use of the French language where reasonably possible, but we have to do so with the serious consideration of safety.


PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF BILINGUAL AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS REGULATIONS TO GIVE EQUALITY TO FRENCH
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Considering the importance of the question just raised and the answer of the Minister of Transport, and considering the fact that at the last international conference of French-speaking parliamentarians the matter of the language used in air-ground communications was raised, and that the delegates committed themselves to promote in their respective Parliament the use of the French language, through motions or resolutions, my question is the following: Is the Minister of Transport prepared without reservation, to allow the use of French in Canada in the aeronautic field and to recommend that the regulations be amended in order that this language be used as much as English?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it would perhaps take a long statement to indicate to the hon. member the progress we have made and are making. I will send him that kind of long statement. We have had a number of studies and are having more. We have constant contact between our safety officials and the various people in all parts of the country involved in air traffic and air traffic control with the object of determining what procedures are necessary in order that further steps can be taken with regard to safety to allow the use of the French language and the English language in air travel and air communication.


SUSPENSION OF TWO COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEES IN QUEBEC FOR USING FRENCH
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a last supplementary question.
The Minister of Transport talks about security, but considering that the two employees dismissed yesterday without pay were two French-speaking employees talking between themselves over the telephone, that it was not a ground-to-air conversation but a ground-to-ground telephone conversation, and that those civil servants were

dismissed without pay, how can the minister refuse to admit that this is not only a glaring injustice but also an abysmal absurdity as regards security?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will double-check the circumstances to determine whether a rule was offended. If so, then one understands that these rules in this very important area must be adhered to. It is only if we see that the rules can be changed that a different practice can be followed. If there was no infraction, no failure to abide by the rules, the matter would be on a different basis; I will look into that part of it.


POSSIBILITY MR. ARPIN WILL SUCCEED MR. McLEISH AS DIRECTOR GENERAL
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Will he inform the House whether Mr. Peter Arpin, the Quebec administrator of aviation, will be succeeding Mr. McLeish as director general of aviation for that particular segment of his department?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will double-check on any future possibility. At the moment, I know of no such change.


EFFECT ON SAFETY OF BILINGUAL AIR-TO-GROUND COMMUNICATIONS
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question about this very important matter of language rights and air-ground communication. Are the minister and his department convinced that the use of two official languages in air-ground communication will be beneficial to airline safety?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question really is what procedures are required in order to ensure that safety can be preserved. We believe that the safety elements have been satisfied in the steps we have taken so far, which was to allow the French language in air to control tower communications in the five specific airports for visual flights. Indeed, we have adopted some new procedures to further ensure safety. I am satisfied with that. We are looking at the question and have general agreement on all sides that advisory communication should be available in both languages throughout the province of Quebec. The more delicate questions of instrument flight and extending French language use to visual flight at other airports are the subject of ongoing discussions between our safety people and the persons using the service who will be primarily affected.


An hon. Member:: You will get somebody killed, eventually.
December 9, 1975


FINANCE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: A question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Taking into account seasonal patterns of expenditure and revenue, Fry, Mills and Spence Limited has predicted a budgetary deficit of at least $6.5 billion and more likely $7.5 billion. In response to questions in the House, the minister has repeatedly refused to clarify the question of the budgetary deficit for the present fiscal year without explaining the reason for his refusal. Is the hon. gentleman now in a position to tell us whether he still finds the budgetary deficit of between $5 billion and $6 billion cited in the budget of June 23 a probable figure for the current fiscal year?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The
figure referred to is the figure for the cash requirement.


SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF SOUTH AFRICAN PLANT PRODUCING GASOLINE FROM COAL
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A short time ago the minister of economic affairs for South Africa announced that the South African Coal, Oil and Gas Corporation known as SASOL, intends to build a second plant to produce gasoline, diesoline and other petroleum products from coal. Each day, the original plant, the only one of its kind in the world, crushes 2,200 tons of coal and each hour nine million cubic feet of gas is produced. Bearing in mind our own high unemployment rate, the high level of our coal reserves and our need for new energy sources, may I ask whether the minister has given any thought to visiting South Africa to examine this process in the hope that a similar coal-to-gasoline project might be established in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I do not think it will be possible for me to visit South Africa in the near future but I am discussing this question with my officials and I hope we shall be able to send an expert to South Africa to check into the process the hon. member has described.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering that those who have an interest in peace and justice in the Middle East have a duty to demand that the PLO make a clear choice between diplomacy at the United Nations and terrorism, will Canada insist at the UN or elsewhere that in order to aid negotiation the PLO undertake at the level of Mr. Arafat a
Oral Questions
binding renunciation of terrorism and at the same time recognize Israel's right to exist?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: We have not as a government recognized the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people. I have already stated at the United Nations that these conditions ought to be met by any group wishing to participate in any negotiations, namely that terrorism be abandoned and that the right of Israel to exist as a state be fully respected. This has been insisted upon, but I would add that up to the present time we have not recognized the PLO as a representative of the Palestinian people for reasons which have already been made known to the House.



SUGGESTED RENUNCIATION OF TERRORISM BY PALESTINIAN


Claude Wagner: In the light of the answer given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, may I ask whether Canada will insist that this renunciation and this recognition become sine qua non conditions which must be met before PLO representatives can be admitted to this country as delegates to any UN conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. That would mean an importation of matters into our immigration entrance requirements which have not hitherto been considered by any government, and I hope will never be.


Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister not consider that one should go beyond the simple condemnation of violence? In this particular case, is the minister not prepared to set as Canada's posture in the future conditions that he has already admitted are reasonable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will send the statement that I made at the United Nations to the hon. member so that he will see that before the general assembly Canada took a position on the question of both violence and terrorism as a method of gaining political objectives, a method we condemn. Of course, the importance we attach to the recognition of the state of Israel is a fundamental cornerstone of our policy.
With respect to the admission of individuals to Canada, my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has already stated that, even though the PLO is a prohibited organization under Canadian law, members of the PLO would be admitted to Canada under ministerial permit if invited by a reputable Canadian organization or to attend United Nations conferences. But in no case-and obviously this would be applied across the board-would any individual be admitted to Canada who has a record of terrorism. This certainly meets the point the hon. member has been making.
9840
Oral Questions AIR CANADA

December 9, 1975



ESTEY REPORT-GOVERNMENT ACTION ON RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the report of Mr. Justice Estey makes reference to practices of a type that would be discouraged or prohibited in other industries and illustrates what has been occurring in commercial airlines, making specific mention of kickbacks, and so forth, due to the necessity of competing in the travel business, would the minister reconsider his recent statement that the airline, meaning Air Canada, would be made to act more like other commercial airlines?	-


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. member may rather be referring to restrictive practices which it would be better to see removed rather than the contrary, since some of the consequences that he points to are the result of international arrangements rather than national ones.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Justice Estey's report also calls for tighter internal and external scrutiny of Crown corporations. In view of the fact that the government has effectively curtailed operations of the Standing Committee on Transportation for the past three or four years, would the minister assure the House that henceforth the annual reports of Canadian National and Air Canada will be presented to parliament and subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation for scrutiny in order to abide by Mr. Justice Estey's recommendations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in this area, as in all others having to do with transportation policy, I would be delighted to see the Standing Committee on Transport play a full role. This has been our practice with regard to other major areas and it is the case here, too.



ESTEY REPORT-POSSIBLE PUBLICATION OF CONFIDENTIAL SECTION

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the part of Mr. Justice Estey's report that the minister considers confidential, I notice the press quoted the minister as saying that the confidential report contains nothing of major public interest. If the minister is quoted correctly, would he now agree that the co-called confidential report that he said has no major item of public interest in it should be made public and made available to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that particular remark was in answer to a question concerning the impact of the report on a variety of decisions in which we may take an interest in this House. That is as far as I want to go in regard to making any reference to the content of the report. The report is confidential because the commissioner made it so.



POST OFFICE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. Since it is about a week since the mail workers returned to work and it is considerably longer than that time since the AntiInflation Board have known of the government's final wage offer, would the minister inform the House when the minister or minister's officials submitted the draft contract arrangements to the Anti-Inflation Board, and can he tell us when we can expect a decision?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the ratified collective agreement is before the Anti-Inflation Board. I must plead ignorance to the precise day, having left it up to my officials. I have not heard yet from the Anti-Inflation Board as to whether it meets with their approval or disapproval or whether there is any particular area of clarification needed by the board. I am naturally waiting anxiously for their decision. In the meantime, we are proceeding as if the collective agreement were in force and are paying the wages outlined in the proposed new collective agreement.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Anti-Inflation Board has had the government's final wage offer for some considerable time, and since it now appears as if any delay is the result of a split between the board as to whether or not to ratify the contract-and hence my question is not entirely hypothetical-what contingency plans does the minister have in the event that the Anti-Inflation Board offers his contract with the postal workers as a sacrifice on the altar of restraint?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have said on numerous occasions that we have tried to negotiate collective agreement within the spirit of the guidelines. I have said further that I am prepared to speak on behalf of the union if such is necessary in the event that there are areas that need to be clarified. As to what would happen if theoretically the collective agreement were rejected by the Anti-Inflation Board I cannot say until I have had an opportunity of studying the regulations that are probably now being set up, or which will be set up the moment that the law comes into existence.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister and arises from recent announcements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the government is interested in assisting in a pulp and paper complex in Indonesia, through a third world project partnership agreement between France and Canada. In view of the recent invasion by Indonesia of Portuguese Timor and of the apparent corrupt and barbaric regime of President

December 9, 1975

Suharto, dictator of Indonesia, will the Canadian government now abandon such plans and keep our money at home for better purposes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
share the hon. member's premise, Mr. Speaker.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Ten o'clock.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that residents of cities have their mail delivered to their doorsteps while we in smaller communities in western Canada have to pay post office box rental and pick up our own mail, does the Postmaster General not now think it is time to discontinue this discrimination?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me advance notice of his question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We are lucky to get any mail.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Hon. members opposite think it funny that there is at least one gentleman in their ranks. There are criteria making a distinction as to whether mail is to be delivered door to door or picked up. That criteria depends on whether the population of the community varied anywhere from 2,000 to 5,000, and the rate growth. Until it becomes more economical to deliver door-to-door, we ask the people to pick up their mail at general delivery or, preferably if they have a box, to use their own mailboxes and pick up their own mail at their convenience.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the announcement by the premier of New Brunswick before the Legislative Assembly of a federal counter-proposition concerning an agreement on highways, in reply to a proposition made by the New Brunswick government, which apparently was unacceptable to the federal government, could the minister check with his officials whether that counter-proposition really has his approbation, or whether it simply is a working document for his officials?
Oral Questions


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I will surely check into that statement the New Brunswick premier made yesterday before the assembly and I will try to communicate with the hon. member to give him full details on the point he raised. I hope I will be able to give him very helpful information.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the city of Winnipeg sent a telegram to the federal Cabinet requesting it to rescind an order in council allowing a CNR piggyback terminal to be located in southwest Winnipeg adjacent to residential areas proposed and existing. Would the government House leader indicate whether any action has been taken by the government to date in this regard?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure why the question was referred to me but, at any rate, I will make inquiries.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture announced on November 4 a decrease in the subsidy payments to industrial milk producers based on a production increase of 11 per cent, and in view of the fact that cream producers have actually had a reduction in production, does the minister not feel that to deal fairly and equitably with the cream producers their situation should be acted on separately?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, they are all in the cost-sharing program. I want to make it clear that I did not decrease the subsidy as announced last April. We are still paying the same amount of money as we said we would because it is based on a certain amount of production. We are investigating the suggestion made by the hon. member about cream producers to determine whether anything can or should be done.



MERCURY POISONING IN TESTING OF CREE INDIANS IN QUEBEC-CO-OPERATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the House exactly when his department will begin to conduct mer-
21130-2%

December 9, 1975
Oral Questions
cury tests on Cree Indians in Quebec, and also assure us that these tests will be extensive?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting behind the latest developments in this field. Tests have been administered to the Indians of northern Quebec, in the Mistassini area. Certain of these have been examined by the Montreal Neurological Institute, which is certainly one of the most famous institutions in Canada, and further tests are being administered to the Indians of this area, in co-operation with the Quebec government to check if there is higher contamination than the one which we are aware of at the present time.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, would the minister tell us what new action he is taking to coordinate attacks on mercury poisoning and whether his department was involved in a federal-provincial meeting held recently by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and provincial authorities?


Marc Lalonde: Yes, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I shall refer the hon. member to a press release which has been released jointly by the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and myself in which we stated all the measures which were taken by the federal government in this respect over the last few months. This report was made available to all hon. members. In addition, I participated at a joint meeting with my two colleagues and three provincial ministers from the Ontario government to set up a committee at the senior officials' level, at the assistant deputy ministers' level between our three federal departments and the three provincial departments so as to ensure an efficient coordination of our action in this area.



TRANSPORT


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and refers to recent announcements by Mr. Gary Louck, a minister of the British Columbia government. Since the commitment by that government to upgrade the construction of new roads, rail and port facilities in central-northern British Columbia to the tune of $1 billion, and since this program includes innovation to the national railway and port systems, will the minister enlighten the House as to what extent his or any other department of the government is in accord with these announcements, and what federal plans there are in respect of this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by Mr. Louck is very misleading, indeed, in appearing to suggest that any firm decisions or fundamental actions have taken place. There have been

some preliminary discussions concerning a number of the matters to which Mr. Louck referred, but it is not even clear at this point whether the cost to remove the coal, to which he refers, will be greater or lesser than the value of that coal at present or foreseeable market prices. Environmental studies have barely begun and are nowhere nearly advanced to the point of a decision. In addition, the Indian claims question has not been dealt with. Indeed, the reference to the acceptance of the Neptune Terminals facility in Prince Rupert is completely premature since at this moment there is only a preliminary feasibility study being conducted on the Neptune Terminal, and there has been no further action than that so far.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, since any major development in the prime industrial or resource scene in central and northern British Columbia would depend on federal participation, would the minister report to the House today on any events that may have occurred since the signing of the umbrella agreement in March 1974 that might have encouraged the provincial government to make these announcements, and are there any studies going on that may bring these plans to fruition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That seems to me to cover much too great an area for the question period.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious economic effect on communities of the strikes in the pulp and paper industry, will the Prime Minister provide leadership by having senior officials of the Department of Labour bring the two parties to the dispute back to the bargaining table, where good faith is not being shown by the industry under the guise of a misinterpretation of the anti-inflation legislation guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these strikes are giving concern to a great number of people, including several members on this side, and for that reason we have tried to make it clear that the guidelines should not serve as a pretext to an employer or employees to avoid free collective bargaining. As to having the Minister of Labour bring the parties together, Mr. Speaker, this would seem an impossible step to take in an issue which is under the jurisdiction of provincial labour departments.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this strike affects the federal government, not only because of a loss of one of our major exports but in that negotiations are not localized to any particular province, but affect Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and some of the western provinces, could an exception be made in providing the facilities of our senior officials in the Department of Labour to entice, if necessary, the parties back to the bargaining table?
December 9, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely, Mr. Speaker, even in the circumstances outlined by the hon. member one cannot change the provisions of the BNA Act which state that certain areas of labour and industrial relations are under provincial jurisdiction.



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
The Quebec minister responsible for the Olympic Games gave a press conference recently and it seems he was not aware that the federal government could grant interest free loans. Would the minister tell the House whether the federal government could do within Canada what it does already for many foreign countries, namely grant interest free loans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are no such things as interest free loans. When we grant loans, the government itself has to borrow the money from the taxpayers. If the interest is not paid by the beneficiary, it is paid by the taxpayers generally. I do not know if that is what the hon. member advocates: a loan to the Olympic Games that would be paid back by the Canadian taxpayers generally. If so, he should say so clearly.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
The explanation which has just been given by the Prime Minister is similar to that of Mr. Goldbloom, but as it happens I do not accept it. Does the Prime Minister suggest that this money must be borrowed to be lent interest free? If so, could he tell the House where the government is now borrowing money to lend it interest free to foreign countries?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can merely give an example. Last month, the Canadian government borrowed through Canada saving bonds a considerable amount on which it had to pay interest of about 9!4 per cent.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On November 27 and again on December 3 I posed questions to the minister with regard to lay-offs of Canadian National Railways personnel in the Atlantic region, with particular reference to Cape Breton. At that time I asked if he would approach CNR and have them declare a moratorium on
Oral Questiotis
further lay-offs. Is the minister in a position to provide a report to the House today as a result of his discussions with CNR?


Otto Emil Lang: I can only say that CNR has indeed laid off employees in various parts of the country when the work and the volume of traffic have justified it. I will not try to second guess CN on that.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since Bell Canada has been denying for six months any kind of phone service to an increasing number of new householders on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence in Montreal and since the company put down that denial to a lack of manpower, would the minister ask the president of the Canadian Transport Commission to inquire of that company and make it formally undertake to provide that service within a reasonable time?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring that request to the attention of the Minister of Communications.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Lethbridge to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that the postmaster in Fort Macleod made application for a block of new post office boxes over two years ago, and residents of Fort Macleod not only cannot have their mail delivered but cannot even rent a post office box, would the Postmaster General give immediate consideration to the request made by the postmaster in Fort Macleod in view of the fact that Fort Macleod is experiencing rapid growth?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that Fort Macleod is experiencing rapid growth and in recognition of that fact I will find out why it is taking so long to supply extra mail boxes. It could be that the building needs expansion to accommodate them. But I will report back to the hon. gentleman tomorrow.

December 9, 1975
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



COMPREHENSIVE MILK MARKETING PLAN-INQUIRY WHETHER AGREEMENT AMENDED TO PERMIT INCREASED CHEESE IMPORTS

Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and relates to his November 4 statement regarding the dairy industry. In light of the fact that the agreement signed by both federal and provincial agencies since 1971 commonly called the Comprehensive Milk Marketing Plan, was expressly designed to provide a balance between the domestic supply of butterfat and Canadian market requirements for butter-fat in manufactured dairy products, can the minister say whether, before he announced last month the 100 per cent increase in cheese imports, he had the signed agreement amended by all the original parties to the agreement or their successors?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the agreement for the increase in the cheese quota is under discussion. We have not allowed any increase as of this time. We are reviewing the whole situation at present and there is some dispute as to whether or not we have followed the correct consultative process. Some of my people say we have, some dairy producers say we have not.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the latter part of the minister's answer. I wonder if I can ask him, by way of a supplementary, if at any time during the current dairy year he or representatives of the federal government notified the signatories to the Comprehensive Milk Marketing Plan agreement that he wanted to change the definition contained in the agreement as to what constitutes Canada's industrial milk requirements.


Eugene Whelan: We had many discussions with them. I am not sure whether or not that was discussed, but I am sure that they knew and were well aware of the increased importation into Canada of industrial cheeses at that time. They made strong representations against this and they are making strong representations against this at present. We are reconsidering the whole situation.



MANPOWER


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the light of the fact that unemployment figures show a heavy concentration of unemployment in certain regions in Canada while other regions are in need of workers, can the minister confirm or deny whether manpower mobility grants which enable Canadians to move from areas of high unemployment to areas of high employment activity have been suspended as of December 8?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. We have

been improving our information services concerning local, regional and national job vacancies through the many measures we have been taking. The mobility grant activity has increased exponentially. I make no secret of that fact that by virtue of that increased activity we are matching our budgetary allocation for this year. There has been no suspension of mobility grants-we are making some modification but there is no suspension.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of the answer given by the minister, may I ask then if he is saying there will be no further mobility grants made in this fiscal year due to budgetary restrictions?


Robert Knight Andras: I said precisely the opposite. There is no suspension. We are matching our budget and therefore modifying it in some ways to make sure it is going to those who obviously need it most and are best able to use it, but there is no suspension.



SARNIA-MONTREAL PIPELINE-ESTIMATED DATE OF COMPLETION-POSSIBILITY DEFICIENCY PAYMENTS MADE IMMEDIATELY

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wonder if he can now give me the information I sought on Friday with regard to the estimated cost of completing the Interprovincial pipeline extension east into Quebec, the estimated date of completion and an estimate of whether or not the government of Canada will have to make a deficiency payment or a subsidy to support that line from its inception in view of the higher cost. Can the minister give that information or has he as much difficulty in foreseeing the immediate future as the Minister of Finance?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made some inquiries with respect to the hon. member's question. It appears that the delays last week have not yet been quantified in terms of what they might add to the total cost of the line. The best information I have received is that it is not likely to be significant in the over-all. For these reasons, therefore, I cannot answer the other questions put to me by the hon. member.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members are aware of the fact that today is the last allotted day in the last trimester and accordingly at 9.45 this evening I will interrupt proceedings to put the question necessary to decide on the motion which is the subject matter of the debate today. Hon. members will also recall that last spring on the last allotted day when it was necessary to go into the business of supply, the passage through all the stages of the supply
December 9, 1975

bill, we were able to accommodate members of the House by distributing in advance of the ten o'clock time-I think it was at 8 p.m.-the actual supply bill, which I think alleviated some of the concern and discontent hon. members had expressed earlier that they would be handed the bill and then asked to vote upon it moments later. There seems to be acceptance of that procedure, certainly by the government, and by all hon. members of the House, so I am happy to report that it will be possible to repeat that procedure this evening. Hon. members can expect to receive copies of the supply bill at eight o'clock.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, in answer to a question by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), I inadvertently indicated that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Miss Campbell) had made representations in connection with Riverport. I was wrong in that. The representations made by the parliamentary secretary had to do with three Customs ports in her particular riding, and I would like the record to show that.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Today I directed a question to the government House leader, who I understand is also President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), in connection with a telegram from the city of Winnipeg asking him to rescind a certain order in council. The minister suggested that he was not the minister to whom the question should be directed. Could the minister please advise me which minister should answer this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I said that I would inquire, and that I will do. Perhaps the hon. member will ask the question tomorrow, if it should be directed to another minister.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege and it relates to my attempt to put forward earlier today a motion under Standing Order 43. I submit that it was not that I had any grievance about the differences which take place amongst members of the committee but, rather, that I think there is something inherent in what took place which threatens the whole committee system; that is, that when a question came before the members of the committee, four members from the government side were removed from the committee studying Bill C-58. It was well known that many other members had some very serious questions. I simply suggest that as long as a ministry of the government so enforces, unilaterally, its position on the committee, it really makes a charade of the whole committee system, and perhaps the matter ought to be reviewed and studied in terms of committees and how they operate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair had no intention of restricting the opportunity of the hon. member to express the very grave concern which he has now expressed rather adequately on a question of privilege.
Finance



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Twelfth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture, in both official languages-Mr. Daudlin.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, in both official languages-Mr. Guilbault.

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Miss Nicholson.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to lay on the table the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1975, with a supplement.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF DRAFT AGREEMENTS
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of draft agreements under Bill C-73, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


FINANCE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: moved that the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1975, and the Auditor General's report thereon be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1975

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: That the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, presented to the House on Thursday, June 12, 1975, be concurred in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I ask that my motion which appears under Motions stand once again today and also tomorrow, but I give notice that I intend to move it on Thursday unless the government takes action to make this unnecessary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion stands.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3.138, 3,238, 3,251, 3,291, 3,300, 3,482, 3,491, 3,510, 3,522, 3,562, 3,626 and 3,632.


Mr. McKinnon: How many civilian personnel, in addition to civilian communicators have had their services terminated, or have been given notice of termination as a fiscal economy by the Department of National Defence in the period April 1, 1975 to October 1, 1975?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: In addition to five communicators, 169 civilian personnel in other classifications have been issued with a notice of termination as a fiscal economy between April 1 and October 1, 1975. Seventy-three of these employees have either been placed in alternate employment in the Public Service, have proceeded on superannuation or have accepted employment outside the Public Service. Efforts to place the other employees scheduled for lay-off in alternate employment will be continued.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	On what date was the International Defence Programs Branch of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce established?
2.	What is the number of full-time employees in the Branch?
3.	How many personnel of the Branch or of other departments are stationed abroad for the purpose of aiding sales of Canadian military equipment?
4.	What is the estimated cost to the government in the promotion of sales of military equipment referred to in the answer to Question No. 2,394?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. March 28, 1969.
2.	Twenty-one officers and nine support staff as of October 15, 1975.
3.	No Defence Programs Branch personnel are now stationed abroad. A Departmental organization change in 1974 transferred the functions and responsibilities formerly carried out by Branch officers abroad to the Trade Commissioner Service. Branch personnel stationed abroad were integrated into and became part of the Trade Commissioner Service. Trade Commissioners abroad aid in the sale of Canadian military equipment in the same manner as they aid in the sale of any other Canadian export commodity.
4.	One of the functions of the Defence Programs Branch in carrying out the Departmental Trade/Industrial Program is to assist in the promotion of export sales of defence and defence related equipment. In addition, the Branch provides Headquarters and administrative staff support for Canadian participation in the defence industrial aspects of Canada's collective defence research, development and production arrangements which include NATO RDP activities, Canada/U.S. Development and Production Sharing activities and activities related to bilateral agreements between Canada and United Kingdom, France, Germany, Netherlands, Italy and Sweden and such other agreements as might be negotiated from time to time. The Branch formerly maintained officers at selected posts abroad to assist in these functions. It is, however, not possible to estimate with any degree of accuracy, that portion of Branch resources which would have been devoted solely to the promotion of sales of military equipment which would be included in export sales referred to in the reply to Question 2394.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation granted a loan to the Municipality of Lac-Etchemin, Quebec, or to its Housing Corporation for the building of low cost housing for the retired and, if so (a) what was the amount involved (b) at what rate of interest (c) for how long (d) under what terms of reimbursement?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised that the following applies with respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation: In December 1973, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation approved a loan which Quebec Housing Corporation was proposing to make to the Municipal Housing Bureau of Lac-Etchemin, to finance the construction of a housing project for senior citizens, (a) The amount of the loan approved is $384,400; (b) The interest rate is 8 per cent, calculated half-yearly, not in advance; (c) The term of the loan is 50 years; (d) Quebec Housing Corporation makes annual payments of principal and interest, under the above terms, on its loan from CMHC. The Municipal Housing Bureau makes monthly payments of principal and interest, under the above terms, on its loan from Quebec Housing Corporation.
December 9, 1975


Mr. Howie: 1.	How many permanent civilian positions at CFB Gagetown are being deleted from the plan of organization within the next year?
2.	What is the total annual payment in salaries for such positions?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. At present 18 positions in the General Services Group-Food Services-Level 2 (GS FOS 2) have been identified and are scheduled for deletion. One of these positions is not filled at the present time. In addition another sixteen positions, the classification of which have not been identified are being scheduled for deletion within the next year.
2. The annual payment in salary for the 18 GS FOS 2 positions is $108,954 if these positions are filled. The annual payment for the other 16 positions will not be known until the positions scheduled for deletion have been identified.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce aware of the statements in the press attributed to the President of Panarctic Oil during the week of October 20 to 24, 1975 indicating the possibility that Panarctic Oil will purchase three Scandanavian crude oil tankers for transport of Arctic oil to market should that be feasible?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the extent of participation in Panarctic Oil by the government and its agents and, if so, to what extent is this participation?
3.	Has the Minister examined the implications of going outside Canada for such vessels in terms of the long-term viability and health of the Canadian ship-building industry and trade balance and (a) if so, what conclusions have been reached (b) if not, for what reason?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. The Globe and Mail did carry a story, on October 22, which described a Panarctic Oils Ltd. oil discovery on Cameron Island. This story discussed briefly the problem of transporting the oil to market and mentioned the possibility of a Scandinavian shipbuilder supplying a suitable ship.
2.	The government owns 45 per cent of the issued common stock of Panarctic Oils Limited.
3.	The Advisory Committee on Industrial Benefits from Natural Resource Development will be meeting with Panarctic Oils Ltd., in the immediate future, to discuss the implications of the announced oil discovery, including the marine transportation implications. In response to question (b) conclusions have not been reached because the discussions with Panarctic Oils Ltd. have not yet taken place.


Mr. Schellenberger: Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development give the (a) status of negotiations with regard to the integrated school project to be built for the Enoch Band and surrounding district in Alberta (b) expected date of (i) final approval (ii) beginning of construction?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: The Enoch Band have offered to provide the land on a lease basis free of charge. Parkland County has agreed to the project and so has the Enoch Band; however, because the classrooms are required at the east end of the county and there is a surplus of classrooms at the west end of the County; and because of a lack of justification for the seats required, the Provincial Government is not prepared to proceed with the project at this time. Negotiations are continuing with the County and a student survey is being conducted. No date of final approval can be predicted; however it is anticipated that no decision will be reached prior to February.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Approximately what percentage of the Public Service has taken language training in (a) English (b) French?
2.	What is the average length of time such employees have spent away from their regular job on language training?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. While figures are available in terms of total enrolments, statistically valid percentages of public servants on language training are not available in the form requested because: (a) Many of the course are cyclical in nature, with the carryover of students from year to year, (b) Many courses are part-time or special courses, operated privately or at the departmental level and also with carryovers into other years. Valid statistics (without carry-overs from year to year) are available only for con-tinuous/intensive courses. From the inception of contin-uous/intensive courses in September 1973 to October, 1975, the following are the numbers involved: Courses in French, 6,820; Courses in English, 801; Total: 7,621.
Note: In 1974, there were 258,590 employees under the Public Service Employment Act.
2. The average length of time spent by public servants on continuous/intensive language courses is six months.


Mr. Forrestall: Is the government aware of the cost in 1974 of shipping by sea Canadian forest products to other countries and (a) if so, what was it (b) if not, for what reason?


Marcel-Claude Roy: The government has no official data or costs for 1974 of shipping by sea Canadian forest products to other countries. Details of shipping contracts are not required to be reported to any regulatory or statistical agency.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. Does the RCMP have a file commonly referred to as "Featherbed" or did it ever have such a file and, if so (a) in what location is the file (b) did the RCMP or anyone on their behalf give a copy of the file and

December 9, 1975
Order Paper Questions
its contents to any agency in the United States or elsewhere including the CIA or FBI?
2. What is the (a) name (b) job designation (c) address ol the individual described in the file?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: As part of their responsibility for law enforcement, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police retains information in their records dealing with both criminal and security matters. The Policy of the RCMP is to preserve the confidentiality of their records, and therefore do not divulge information concerning either the record system or its contents.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Does the government expect to implement the statement of intention by the Secretary of State on July 4, 1972, that "The National Film Board will no longer be the exclusive recipient of Government commissions; it will now have to compete with private producers for all film contracts awarded by a federal department or agency" and, if so, on what date?
2.	In 1973-74, what was the total number of original motion pictures (a) produced by NFB for either their own programmes or for departments or agencies (b) contracted out by NFB to private Canadian producers?


Coline M. Campbell: 1. The government has already given effect to its policy of contracting out an increasing share of its sponsored films requirement to the private sector, through the National Film Board. The record speaks for itself: Prior to 1972 the private sector received a maximum 8 per cent of the total NFB sponsored film program. This was worth approximately $144,000 during fiscal year 197071. By the end of fiscal year 1974-75, the value of contracts to the private sector rose from $144,000 to approximately $1.6 million representing about 50 per cent of the total sponsored film program. In other words, during this period, the share to the private sector increased from 8 per cent to 50 per cent. The extent to which the NFB will compete with the private sector is the subject of current review and consultation with film industry representatives.
2. Please refer to NFB Annual Report 1973-74, pages 36 to 51 inclusive.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Veterans Affairs during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	What were the names and addresses of all lawyers and law firms in the Constituency of Victoria, British Columbia who performed services for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce during 1973 and 1974?
2.	By year, what was the total amount paid to each?


Marcel-Claude Roy: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,124?


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Has the Prime Minister's Group of Seven Economic Advisory Council, chaired by Albert Breton, been disbanded and, if so, on what date were they notified that their services would no longer be required?
2.	How many meetings were held by the Group and what was the total remuneration and expenses paid to each member of the Group?
3.	Have any of the Group been retained in the past month by the Prime Ministers Office or have been advised that their services may be used by the Prime Minister's Office in the future?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, 1. The Prime Minister's Office has never established any formal economic advisory group. Dr. Albert Breton has acted as an economic consultant to the Principal Secretary, and on four occasions in late 1974 and early 1975 individuals in the economic field practising outside of the government's employ met with Dr. Breton for discussions with the Principal Secretary of Their views on events of economic concern to the private sector.
2.	Four meetings were held and expenses paid in connection for these meetings were $1,962.29. No remuneration was paid, but each received an honorarium in the amount of $100 for each meeting.
3.	No retainer has existed in respect to these particular meetings, but Mr. Breton has been retained at $200 per diem (as required) as an economic consultant in the Prime Minister's Office since September 16, 1974 to date.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to
stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 9, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Léonel Beaudoin: That this House considers the government has lacked foresight and leadership in the conduct of the affairs of Canada and should be blamed for its failure to fulfil its promise of a fair and just society and to prevent the deterioration of the social climate, and its failure to stop the alarming increase in unemployment, to introduce measures other than price and wage control, to prevent the actual rate of inflation and to make loans available to the provinces at an interest rate not exceeding the cost of administration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 58(4)(a), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the following motion:
That this House considers the government has lacked foresight and leadership in the conduct of the affairs of Canada and should be blamed for its failure to fulfil its promise of a fair and just society and to prevent the deterioration of the social climate, and its failure to stop the alarming increase in unemployment, to introduce measures other than price and wage control, to prevent the actual rate of inflation and to make loans available to the provinces at an interest rate not exceeding the cost of administration.
If I move such a motion today in this House it is because of circumstances forcing us to meet our responsibilities as parliamentarians. Elected representatives must remind this government of its lack of foresight in the administration of the country and warn it against serious consequences for the Canadian nation if it continues to show an attitude so unrealistic in its action. What I generally regret is that in recent years this government did not try harder to establish a preventive policy concerning current economic and social problems and rather let them grow to such a point that today's situation is almost unbearable.
I do not intend right now, Mr. Speaker, to discuss in every detail all the major points raised by a motion like the one I move today. I shall mention only the principles in question and draw the attention of the government to the present situation and possible solutions, leaving it to my colleagues to study the situation further in the analysis they will make following my comments.
When I say that a government must show some leadership, I mean that it must, first of all, set the example as concerns business, integrity, common sense, balance and fairness. It is its first duty if it really wishes to create among the people the feeling of confidence and respect necessary to the strength and the stability of a democracy.
But for too long this government has tolerated-I did say tolerated-contempt for government institutions, the declared intent of anyone to destroy our democratic system; this government has tolerated for too long record breaking deficits in its estimates and its external trade without reacting vigorously; for too long also inflation and unemployment have grown without being stopped and, to top it all off, we note a 100 per cent jump in federal government spending over the last five years. Then, where is the example set by this government in all this? Where is the example of an authority really wishing to create that
Canadian Economy
confidence necessary for the motivation of Canadians. This is the kind of leadership not shown by those who have governed this country for the last few years. On top of this lack of foresight and leadership, another negative factor adds to the record of the present government and it is the anti-democratic way to govern by procuration by avoiding this House as much as possible. During the sixties, the government decided to amend the rules and defer to standing committees several bills then considered in the House. One major result of those transfers was that expenditures were no longer examined by Parliament but by a committee where the minister responsible did not have to attend and where the same officials who worked up the expenditures have drafted the answers. The questions on policy issues put to the absent minister can be raised in the House, but the member is then referred to the committee without avail. Such a procedure does away with discussion and ignores democracy, but it does not reassure the citizen and give him confidence in his government.
In other respects, and this is not much better, the government has grown into the habit of having a legislation passed by the House reserving itself full discretion in making the regulations proceeding from it.
In any event, those regulations stemming from the bill may be more important than the bill itself, but the House would have no say in them. That drawback was actually aptly pointed at in the past few months by the Mining Association of Canada on page 6 of the brief on the antiinflation program they submitted to the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I quote:
You still have no idea of the contents of the regulations on Bill C-73, and yet the government will derive from them every power they will use in their fight to curb inflation. We are therefore concerned that those regulations will be enacted pursuant to an order in council without the assent of Parliament. Although that procedure is technically right, we believe it is an objectionable practice in a democratic society, and should therefore be avoided inasmuch as possible. That practice seriously limits the powers of our committee and of citizens in general to assess government intentions.
That way of ruling by proxy, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly makes people sceptical with respect to government management, and in my opinion, it means ignoring one's responsibilities and refusing to assume a real leadership.
On the other hand, the government stands on no firm grounds not only as far as political philosophy is concerned, but also with respect to action. They failed to anticipate inflation, much to the detriment of most people, since in the past three years 65 per cent of inflation has concentrated on housing, food and energy. Since it is a sector which relates to essential and basic needs, most citizens are therefore hit and cannot help it. Their buying power is directly undermined. The taxpayer is therefore the all-time loser, so that he develops the form of thought which he cannot be blamed for, but which also works against his interests. He comes to thinking that it is better to spend everything than save money. Such an attitude does nothing to slow down consumption or cut down unnecessary expenses, and therefore creates more difficulties.
We are not the only ones who have those problems, but we should have taken action much sooner, for the situation might deteriorate even further.
Several major industrialized countries had in recent years a rate of inflation fluctuating around 9 per cent. On

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
the other hand, prices continued to rise at a rate of 11 per cent a year in countries like Italy, Great Britain and Japan, and that is quite easily explained when one sees the world of business lose speed and unemployment increase. Those are signs we must pay attention to when we recognize them at home and we must avoid at all cost the serious effects they had elsewhere. If the government of Canada is further maintained in its inability to curb inflation, we are definitely going to pass the point of no return at the very risk of losing, so to speak, the control over our economy. Already now the situation is really alarming. Let us just look back a bit to compare.
Only about twenty years ago, if one had dared suggest that a hospital room in 1975 would cost over $75 a day and a year of university would total between $3,000 and $4,000 he would have been branded as a sick man. At that time a year of university cost $1,000 and a hospital room $11 a day, and the average price for a single family house was about $12,000. And if the same guy had dared say that in 1975 a single family house would average $40,000 he would have been laughed at outright and even taxed with thinking liberal, in the right sense of the word though, that is with having a weird mind. However, this is exactly what is happening today. And projecting prices and wages for year 2,000, according to the inflationary trend of these last years, we get astounding results.
The average family now earning $14,000 will get $112,000, according to the current trend, in year 2,000. A pair of shoes now costing $28 will be worth $167. A wool skirt now sold $11 will retail for $53. A haircut now costing $3.20 will be $20.50. A tooth repair now worth $11. will cost $50. A semi-private hospital room now costing $78 a day will be worth $290. A yearly tuition fee now costing $3,700 in a private institution will cost $45,000. A house now selling for $40,000 will be paid $623,000. This was arrived at by a recent authoritive study by the Economics Department of the magazine United States News and World Report.
This clearly shows the current economic situation and the kind of thing we can expect if we do not take immediate corrective action.
Belatedly, the government recently attempted to control the situation through their anti-inflation program, although controls are not a solution actually. Indeed, the Bank of Montreal's Business Review of October 1975 clearly states that such a measure is of very dubious effectiveness, and I quote:
Throughout history and until the 1970's, it has been shown that such programs hardly stopped inflation. They may bring temporary relief at the price indices level, but once controls are lifted prices almost invariably resume their uptrend at an accelerated pace. It will be remembered that unfortunately such was the result of the controls program launched in the United States in 1971 and finally curtailed in 1973. Controls unfortunately tend to obscure the need for a radical change in basic policies and behaviours.
And I want to repeat that:
Controls unfortunately tend to obscure the need for a radical change in basic policies and behaviours, which means that eventual solutions are more difficult and painful to apply.
As the President of the Bank of Montreal said in his speech to the shareholders in 1973:

-nothing could be so harmful in the long term while bringing only an insignificant relief in the short term as controls and no action can be successfull while the underlying conditions which have caused inflation remain unchanged.
Another related basic problem is that price and income controls block the relationship between prices, even when this relationship is clearly inappropriate or unfair, which may well be the case in view of the rising inflation that we are now witnessing. But even if this relationship is just in a certain measure, at a certain time, we are living in a dynamic society where prices must change constantly if supply is to adjust to changes in demand. When the price system can no longer function normally, shortages and dislocations become frequent.
Since imported products represent 29 per cent of the Canadian gross national product, a control program would be difficult or impossible to implement without a gigantic and costly subsidy system or without higher prices of imported products being reflected on the consumers, which would contribute to the rising spiral of prices while inflation continues abroad.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the conclusions drawn by the author of this article are the same as those that we have drawn in this House and the same as those drawn by many Canadians.
It is a fact that there is no miracle or easy solution to these problems. But the solution favoured by the government, which is to implement these controls, could be too easy and the results risk being quite unsatisfactory. Other steps that would be more logical and show true leardership could have been taken, but I shall come back to this later, after suggesting alternative solutions.
The point I am trying to make is that we should strive to create, through fair and truthful statements, the sort of social climate which is conducive to social justice.
Mr. Speaker, I could quote now, as I have done on previous occasions and as I shall certainly do again some other time, a whole series of statistics and facts which point to the weakness of the government in such areas as capital punishment and parole. But I shall merely quote part of an article published in Quebec industriel 1975 which shows the lack of responsible leadership on the part of the government and the social climate it has created:
Blass commits crime after crime and offence after offence. He has his picture taken holding a gun and sends it to the newspapers. He is a real gangster, a notorious habitual criminal, a misfit. He is caught by the police but escapes, and a great many people are terrified when they know he is at large. Finally, he is shot dead by police. Immediately, the same "specialized" groups mourn his loss, blame the police for having done their job, look into Blass' background, etc. Special material is published on his life and "works". And a movie about him will top it all.
It is the same old story. People have bought many paintings done by one of the "Santa Claus killers" who had gunned down two policemen and made many orphans. The Watergate conspirators, who came out of American prisons as if by magic, are generously paid today by the press and television for the story of their dirty tricks.
In a world in which policemen and victims are wrong, criminals are better protected than honest people, bandits are held as heroes, the results are obvious.
In Montreal, a murder is committed every day of the year; in the United States, the number of thefts has increased by 20 per cent, burglaries by 17 per cent, rapes by 9 per cent and murders by 5 per cent. All the records have been broken.
Recently, Mr. Frank Schauffee, a well known criminal lawyer, stated: "It is a lot easier to defend a criminal than a victim, since in the latter case everybody is against you: the judges, the laywers and the journalists ..
I do not know if justice is blind, as is often said, but it is far from exemplary.
December 9, 1975

Mr. Speaker, we need only look around us to realize that this article was not written for another time or another planet. There again, it is high time the government assumed its responsibilities in a spirit of justice and honesty and also set the example.
Where is the just society that was so much talked about a few years ago? Where is the just society the qualities of which were posted on almost every street corner? Where can we find in 1975 the justice, the equity, the sharing of resources and the well-directed and well-used prosperity we were promised?
When we look around us, what we see is not quite, I would say not at all, like those promises. We see only strikes, increasing unemployment, a mockery of justice, poverty, concerned citizens, a very unstable business world, spiralling inflation, and so on. It would not be fair to say that the government is responsible for all this, but it would certainly be fair enough to say it had something to do with it.
Cure-alls which can cure every ill at once do not exist, but there are some measures which could give positive results even in the short run. Because of the serious problems now facing the country and the bleak future in store for us if one and everyone fail to do their full share to remedy the situation, it is urgent that the government inform the people, business, labour and the various groups of that threat and assign duties to everyone. It is not a matter of frightening anybody but rather of waking up the people so that they will become aware of their responsibilities in that common undertaking. It would certainly be better to tell the whole truth on the present state of affairs. In any case, nobody will prevent reality from being what it is-
On the other hand, there is another area where the government has failed to act and where it should take steps as soon as possible and that is the area of importation and exportation. In recent weeks, I have repeatedly raised the problem in this House; the failure to restrict the present flow of imports endangers some of our large industries such as footwear and textile. Too many imports are allowed and our Canadian producers must slow down their operations or dismiss workers. We had a somewhat similar problem with powdered milk and cheese. The government must at any cost protect our people-I mean the Canadian people-and recognize as a principle of urgency that we must absolutely tend to produce in this country the consumer goods which we need after that we can always import some if there is any shortage, but not before that. As a middle term objective, we should try to increase the production of some commodities which could even be exported.
On the other hand, in the area of social security, we should set up as soon as possible a minimum guaranteed income plan to provide Canadians with a certain amount of security, while reducing the financial burden resulting from several measures of direct or indirect support which are administrative monsters rather than effective measures.
With regard to the working population, which is disturbed by so many conflicts, and all sorts of upheavals and unrest that affect workers and employers alike, there is an urgent need for reviewing the rules of the game. In this
Canadian Economy
regard, the government should immediately implement our proposal to promote the possibility for workers to participate in the share capital of companies, in order that the problems of production, profits, and work security become common to both parties. Then they would, to a greater extent, speak the same language, and share the same goals. Several conflicts could then be avoided and the workers would have greater motivation. The workers, at least wherever this proposal could apply, would know greater stability, which is badly needed.
Those are only a few of the solutions which could apply over the short term, and produce positive and swift results. I do not intend to go on further along this line; my colleagues can easily complete the picture. Still, what I want to stress, above everything else, is that this matter requires leadership on the part of the government; they must assume their responsabilities and set an example of integrity and determination in attempting to solve justly the social and economic problem that prevails in this country. The government must absolutely restore the confidence of all Canadians and have them participate in the achievement of their future. I am one of those who believe that we will have a strong, free and prosperous nation the day everyone of us in this country becomes strong, autonomous and firm of purpose.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, many Canadians as well as myself are dedicated to the belief that democracy is best for this country and that government must be the servant of the people rather than the master. For that reason, I am very pleased that the Social Credit party have put forward this motion; included in it are subjects for discussion which I want to cover today.
I am particularly interested in the concept in the motion that the government has shown lack of foresight and leadership in the conduct of the affairs of this nation. That is certainly a fact. It has also shown a failure to fulfil its promise of a fair and just society. It is certainly fair to say there has been a deterioration in the social and economic climate of this country.
I want first to deal with the question of democracy. On reviewing the record of this administration, I do not think anyone would dispute the fact that there have been very bold and well designed steps to take away the power of this institution of parliament: they have been designed to emasculate parliament and to concentrate power in the hands of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: If the hon. member from Toronto would listen for a moment, he may find that is in fact true. Let us go back to 1969. We had a debate in this House which lasted almost the whole summer, dealing with the question of rule changes in the House of Commons. We debated very significant changes which removed the power of this House to question the government on its activities and to make it accountable to parliament and the people for its expenditures. The government went so far as to bring in closure in order to bring in a rule that would make closure of debate very much easier. I am referring to rule 75C.

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
We can also examine the record in terms of the question period to see what has happened to it in the past eight or ten years. If we go back to the days when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister-great days for this country-we find that the question period was very democratic. Questions were put and answered for as long as there were questions to be put. As soon as the government changed and the late Lester Pearson took over, time limits were placed on the question period. The government of that day knew very well the kind of damage that could be done to a government with an uncontrolled and prolonged question period and they wanted none of that. One of the first things they did was to limit the time spent on questions.
Following the 1968 election, another step was taken because the question period was still hurting a little. The present Prime Minister took it one step further: he withdrew one third or one-half of his ministers from the House of Commons during the question period and ministers attended only two or three times a week. If you consider the earnings of those fellows, they should have been able to fulfil their services in the House a little more freely. That, of course, gave the government more protection from the question period. However, it also created a great deal of public discontent about the attitude of the government, and they have since reversed that policy. Much more recently, in this very parliament, there was a greater shortening of the question period. If we give these matters a little thought, it can easily be seen that democracy is indeed being eroded in this institution of parliament.
If one looks around and talks to people in various parts of the country, one finds a good deal of concern about the direction of this government, It has been designed to slowly, but surely, steer the course of our economic system away from the traditional concept of private enterprise, private ownership and open competition in the marketplace.
We have seen a proliferation of certain Crown corporations. We have seen a number of changes in tax and other policies which have seriously threatened certain industry which previously had been operated satisfactorily and efficiently by private enterprise. I refer in particular to the petroleum industry. Not too long ago we did not even think of the possibility of a shortage in this area or of not being self-sufficient. Over the past three years or so there has been a sudden desire by this government to change the economic climate, to change the tax system and to make sudden and frequent changes in petroleum policy. This has created instability in the petroleum industry and has led to decreased productivity, exploration and development. This country is now in the position where we face the very real possibility of being almost totally dependent on offshore sources within the next decade or so.
There have been further programs of great extravagance which typify this government. They appear to be designed with political expediency in mind. They are designed to buy the taxpayers' vote with the taxpayers' own money. As an example I would refer to Petro-Can which is going to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: Hon. members do not like to hear the truth. Those who are interjecting would have a very dif-

ficult time trying to show that there is any real need for the institution known as Petro-Can. We had a long debate on that. It will cost the people of Canada $1.5 billion, yet there has never been any kind of justification placed before this House to show the slightest need for it. Indeed, it appears to be simply a stop to the socialists in our society.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Yewchuk: I hear the socialists groaning. I am cognizant of the fact that when the vote was taken, they were glad to support it. It is a continuation of the unofficial marriage which originated during the minority government and still seems to be in effect.
I was talking about extravagance. This can be easily demonstrated. In 1968, when I first became a member of this House, the total budget of the federal government was less than $11 billion-in the vicinity of $10.8 billion. It has tripled in the short space of seven years. Can you imagine anything more shameful, or anything which contributes to inflation to a greater extent than that kind of uncontrolled extravagance?


Mr. Nystrom:: What happened in Alberta?


Paul Yewchuk: One of the members of the New Democratic Party asks what happened in Alberta. The fact is that the Alberta budget has performed much more satisfactorily.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Oh, sure. You say that with a big smile on your face.


Paul Yewchuk: Much more satisfactorily than that of the federal government or, indeed, than that of British Columbia or Manitoba where the socialists have been in charge.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Now you're talking.


Paul Yewchuk: In the case of British Columbia, they have nearly made the province bankrupt in the space of three years, and now they are asking the people to give them another three years in which to complete the process.
One of the things which has upset me most about the present administration is the attitude it has created toward the concept of work. Each of us can think of times when the Prime Minister has scoffed at the idea that people in this country need to work in order to make a living. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is devoting almost all his energy to bringing in what he will call a guaranteed annual income, a program which in effect says to the people of Canada, "You do not have to work any more; you can live off the guaranteed income".
This is an attitude which has led to our present decline in productivity. It has led to the concept that if you work it right, you can get more out of this country and out of the economy than you put into it. It is an attitude which covers a great deal of territory, including such programs as LIP designed with political expediency in mind. The only way to change this state of affairs would be to throw out of
December 9, 1975

office any government which pretended that a country can survive on the basis of that kind of attitude.
Furthermore, in the course of the past ten years we have witnessed what I consider to be an unprecedented intrusion into the daily lives of Canadians whether as individuals or as business groups. Never before have certain aspects of their democratic rights been eliminated as rapidly as has been the case under the present administration. I ask hon. members to consider how our nation acquired the prosperity which made so many of our social undertakings possible. It is easy to see. The economy was based on private ownership and private enterprise. The tax system was designed to stimulate growth and, consequently, the development of employment.
The economy, in short, did not reflect the belief that government had the answer to everything or that government must run everything. One of the reasons the economy is drifting toward disaster today is that we now have a government in power which believes it.must be the master and control everything. It does not want to give people the opportunity to exercise their initiative, their imagination or their ability to produce. I do not believe we need to look too far afield to notice the difference in productivity between government-operated production systems and those which are controlled by the private sector. We need only look to countries behind the iron curtain or behind the bamboo curtain to assure ourselves that an economy based on the state controlling and owning the means of production turns out to be extremely cumbersome, inefficient and distrustful of individual initiative. We need not look far around the globe to see that an economy based on production in private hands is more successful and leads to a higher standard of living.
Therefore, I should like to say to those who sit on the treasury benches opposite that as long as they are in charge-which I suppose will be for the next three years- they should reassess the urge on their part to control every aspect of our lives and business as if this were somehow an inescapable part of their duty to the people. We recognize that government has an obligation to help those who cannot help themselves, but we also recognize that this process should involve, not making them permanent dependents on government but, rather, giving them an opportunity to improve their own positions. One can illustrate this easily by an example which has become a cliche, and it is the only cliche I will use in this speech, "You can give a man a meal by giving him a fish, but you can feed him for the rest of his life by teaching him how to fish." This is a principle we must incorporate into the welfare aspect of our society. If we are to come to grips with poverty on a long-term basis, we must make an effort to stimulate self-reliance rather than prolonging a need for dependence on government for more and more handouts.
We need only read the story of Robin Hood to be reminded that simply taking from the rich and giving to the poor will never erase the condition of poverty in the long term, though it may be a necessary solution in the short term. Canadians, or, for that matter, others who are living in conditions of poverty, must be given an opportunity to look after themselves. They must be given educational opportunity; their ability to earn a living must be upgraded. Programs must be designed to achieve those goals, and
Canadian Economy
job opportunities must become available if we are seriously to tackle the problem of poverty in this country.
We know that taxes are a necessary evil in our society. Taxes are necessary because there are certain public services and projects which governments are obliged to provide. But the tax system must recognize the principle that initiative and enterprise should be rewarded. It must be designed in such a way as to stimulate growth. I have to say, frankly, that our tax system does not do this. Any one of us can look back over the past year and think of individuals, old friends, who have said, "Why should I work any harder; the tax people take it all away?" There is a reason for this feeling: it is that the tax system has become cumbersome and has destroyed the initiative of many Canadians, discouraging them from working harder or doing what is necessary to make our country grow. We must, therefore, work toward far reaching changes in the tax system, changes which recognize the need to reward initiative. Through the provision of equal opportunity we must motivate people to pursue excellence and greater productivity for the benefit of Canada.
I have already said that I do not think government must be the master of the people and perhaps I should say what the government should, in my view, do. The role of government is more properly one of the guiding hand, a body creating the economic atmosphere in which private individuals or groups of individuals, corporations or any other Canadians, can exercise their initiative and imagination to do the things required to make this country grow and be great. We must also insist that the role of government must be to create the atmosphere in which no Canadian is exploited by other groups, in which no Canadian is dominated by external political or economic forces. In this regard I think our party has a good record. We have put forward policies that would have achieved these ends and which would have been in place now had we won the last election. These policies are still our policies and will be placed before the people in the course of the next election.
I have said that I am very concerned that the policies of the government are designed, it appears, to create dependency on government. The LIP and OFY programs are very good examples of policies that create dependency on government. We need to achieve new directions. Somehow we must reawaken in the minds and hearts of Canadians the concept of self-reliance. We must give all Canadians the opportunity to look after themselves and their dependants with dignity and security. I am not saying that Canada is an easy country to govern. We have much diversity. We have people of many different races from virtually all parts of the world living together within our borders. Our geographic regions are very much different physically, economically and socially.
I see you are sitting on the end of your seat, Mr. Speaker. Are you going to give me another minute to wind up?


An hon. Member:: One minute.


Paul Yewchuk: In short, Mr. Speaker, Canada requires new directions and policies that are designed to allow individual Canadians to exercise their own initiative, that

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
are designed to make Canada strong, united, and a free, democratic nation. We must take steps to improve our democratic processes rather than continuously detracting from them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House is one that is all-encompassing, covering a great deal of area. At the outset, let me say that when the vote comes later on this evening we will support the non-confidence motion. Not that we support everything contained in the motion, but we do interpret it as a general motion of non-confidence in the government's economic policies and for that reason we will vote for it.
I should like to put in a disclaimer or two regarding some of the wording of the motion. The last part reads "to make loans available to the provinces at an interest rate not exceeding the cost of administration". I think wording such as that leaves a lot to be desired. I should like to hear from some of the Social Credit members what exactly is meant by that. For example, today the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about the federal government borrowing money by issuing Canada savings bonds at 9 per cent plus interest. Are they going to lend this money to the provinces at no interest at all except for the administration charge? Canada Pension Plan funds are lent to the provinces now, but are they proposing to lend such funds at a low interest rate or at no interest rate at all? What would happen to pensioners under the plan if that were the case?
I share the concern of members of the Social Credit party about the banks and financial institutions being at the centre of many of our economic problems. Our solutions in this regard may be different, but in many ways perhaps they are similar. For example, I believe that those who control the finances of this nation control the destiny of the nation. The assets of the chartered banks, insurance companies, trust companies, mortgage companies and of all financial institutions in Canada are immense. These financial institutions have much more impact on public policy and on public life in Canada than many of the governments in this country.
If we are to have a planned economy, the time has come to have public ownership of banks and financial institutions. I do not understand why we continue to support a system where the private banks work hand in hand, essentially, with the multinational corporations and the fiscal and monetary policy of the country reflects that of the United States. I should like to see banking in this country publicly owned, operated as a public utility. This would give Canadians much more freedom than the course suggested by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) who said government should not interfere in the economy, that so-called free enterprise should run the economy. In essence, in today's society this would mean the law of the jungle where the big fellows get bigger and stomp on the toes of the mice. I say that 95 per cent of the people would have fewer freedoms and liberties under that system than if there were public ownership of our financial insitutions and Canadian resources. Under such a system, Canadians, through their government in a democratic way, would make the decisions concerning resource development and finance.
I want to turn to the general question of the economy. I should like to tell the parliamentary secretary who will

reply that some very serious problems are arising, on which I hope he will comment. I want to spend some time talking about unemployment. I have the feeling that the government has forgotten about unemployment or they are ignoring it in their so-called fight against inflation. The anti-inflation bill which recently went through the House is one that, at best, will have a neutral effect on unemployment and, at worst, will aggravate the situation across the country by slowing down the economy, particularly in developing regions such as the Atlantic provinces and much of Quebec.
Figures released by Statistics Canada today show that unemployment this past month of November has increased by 35 per cent compared with November of 1974, when there were 542,000 Canadians out of work. Last November there were 734,000 Canadians out of work. This means an increase from 5.5 per cent seasonally adjusted, to 7.3 per cent seasonally adjusted, or that 192,000 more Canadians are out of work. This is a serious matter. The government must direct its energies toward achieving a full employment policy. We must put people back to work so we can increase productivity in general, particularly in regions like Quebec and the Atlantic provinces where for years there has been a very high rate of unemployment.
Let us look at the regional breakdown of unemployment in Canada. I should like to spend a moment or two putting some of these rates on the record, beginning with Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is 18.1 per cent. Let us not forget that there are some who are unemployed but who are not reflected in these unemployment statistics. I have in mind those who are not registered with Manpower; those who are on welfare. There are those who have given up trying to get jobs and are no longer registered, as well as treaty Indians in places like Saskatchewan. So there are a great many people who are not actually reflected in the statistics we get from Statistics Canada each month. We could probably add another 1 per cent or 2 per cent to the 7.3 per cent we now have, making the actual figure at least 8.5 per cent and perhaps even as high as 9 per cent or 10 per cent. These are Canadians who are able-bodied and would work if we had jobs for them.
The rate of unemployment in Newfoundland is 18.1 per cent, compared to 14.8 per cent one year ago. This is an increase of 3.3 per cent. One could go right down the list. In the province of Quebec 7.1 per cent of the people were unemployed last year, and it was 9.2 per cent in November of this year. There are 9.2 per cent of Quebeckers unemployed, yet the federal government fails to bring in any new programs to combat this very serious social and economic problem. Even in the province of Ontario, where unemployment was 3.7 per cent a year ago, it is now up to 4.4 per cent and is becoming a serious problem as it is right across the country. Only in the prairie provinces is the unemployment rate low, being 2.9 per cent in Alberta, 4 per cent in Saskatchewan and 3.7 per cent in Manitoba.
I ask this government what it intends to do to bring down the unemployment rate in Canada. What are its plans to stimulate the economy, providing more jobs while at the same time fighting inflation? Its failure to do anything is the reason I will be voting non-confidence in the government later this evening.
December 9, 1975

Let me look at the incidence of unemployment among men, women, young people and the middle-aged across this country. I find that 13.3 per cent of the young people between 14 and 24 years of age are unemployed. This is a serious situation. We talk about providing young people with opportunities to develop, to become established in the work place, in business or on the farms, We talk about young people acquiring skills and training. Yet we find that 13.3 per cent of the young people in this country are unemployed, compared to 10 per cent last year. This is an increase of 3.3 per cent, or a full one-third of the young people in Canada. What is the government going to do about this? What solutions does the government advocate to bring down the rate of unemployment in Canada? These are the things I want the parliamentary secretary and other government spokesmen to comment on later in this debate.
Recently we have heard very disturbing and serious rumours about cutbacks in government expenditures in certain areas. I think this will only aggravate unemployment in Canada. There are many areas where I think the government should cut back on spending. The government is spending money on Information Canada which I think in many respects is just a duplication of service. The federal government provides hefty contracts for outside consultants, many of which I think are unnecessary. We also have that other place which is an undemocratic institution, spending millions of dollars every year in order to provide a few so-called second, sober thoughts. I think expenditures like these are unnecessary in this country.
There are several other programs under way in respect of which we could cut out some government fat and waste, including high salary increases for deputy ministers and senior executives. In these days, during the fight against inflation, I think these increases set a bad example and have in themselves an inflationary effect across the country. When the government talks about cutting back on expenditures, I hope it is not thinking in terms of cutting back on programs such as equalization payments to the poorer provinces. I hope it is not thinking of cutting back on cost-sharing for hospitalization and medicare which enables the poorer provinces to maintain the standard of health care enjoyed by provinces such as Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. These are the areas in which the government must not cut back.
Let me say also, that if the government is going to eliminate LIP and OFY projects something else will have to be put in their place. Where will all these young people find employment if the jobs provided by OFY projects are eliminated? A number of young people employed in these projects fall within the 14 to 24-years old category. Many young people in the city of Yorkton, in my riding, would have to go on welfare if the LIP projects or the LIP program itself were eliminated. People in the Metis society in the city of Yorkton would be unemployed again if they were not working on projects under LIP. If these projects are to be eliminated, let us have some long-term, ongoing projects put in their place.
I question the economics of some of these short-term projects, but I do not want to see them scrapped unless something is put in their place that will enable Canadians, regardless of their background, educational or social, to
Canadian Economy
work and provide for their families and make a contribution to this country. What we need in Canada is a planned economy. We need a concerted effort that will reduce inflation but put the people to work. We need a full employment policy.
Let us consider three or four areas at which I think the government should take a very serious look. I am thinking of the area of housing, where we have extremely high interest rates and high construction costs, yet a shortage of houses that fewer and fewer people can afford to buy. The government should be forcing the banks to lower their interest rates and allocate a far greater portion of their investment portfolios to the housing area. This would increase the supply and bring down interest rates and the cost of housing. It would, at the same time, stimulate the economy by providing more jobs in construction and in the forest industry in place of high unemployment such as New Brunswick, Quebec and parts of British Columbia. This is something the government could do to bring down unemployment and at the same time bring down the high rate of inflation and the high cost of housing and shelter for the Canadian people.
Another area in which the government could move is that of food production and cost. The government should move very quickly on a stabilization program so that farmers in this country will have price guarantees for their products. If they had price guarantees there would be a much more consistent pattern of food production. With a more consistent production pattern there would be more consistent pricing at the other end. If you have orderly marketing, farmers can afford to produce more food, and if there is more production the chances are that inflation at the other end, where men and women purchase food at the retail level, will not be as great.
I would also look to the area of the resource community. It is this area about which the hon. member for Athabasca is so concerned. He is concerned about increasing government expenditure in the resource field. I suggest that is a laugh. The government has not gone far enough toward intervention in the field of natural resources in this country at the federal or the provincial level. Petro-Can has been established, but the main criticism I have in that regard is that its funding will not be great enough. What the government should be doing is nationalizing Imperial Oil. The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan should be establishing a publicly-owned oil industry in this country.


An hon. Member:: What about potash?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I suggest that the government of Saskatchewan has undertaken, in respect of potash, one of the most progressive and advanced moves taken in this country for a long time. This example set by Saskatchewan should be followed by the federal government and provincial governments right across this country. The renewable and non-renewable natural resources of this country should be publicly-owned. The fact is that for the most part the resources are foreign-owned. Let me spend my last two or three minutes in this debate discussing the potash situation and trying to enlighten some of the Liberal back-

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
benchers, if that is at all possible. I see the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) smiling.
Let us go back a few years when almost all of the postash industry in Saskatchewan was owned by foreign companies with headquarters in Denver, Toronto, Europe, Houston and many other places except the province of Saskatchewan. The mines that were developed during the last few years have in the last few months been enjoying very high prices for their production of potash. I am glad to see the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mcl-saac) back in the House. Let me point out that they have brought the price of potash up from $20 a ton which was the situation back in 1969.
Let me give some reasons to support the idea that public ownership is very economical. In 1975, the price of potash went up from $20 a ton to $75 a ton, and the estimate of most people is that it will reach about $100 a ton by 1980. The demand for potash will probably double in the next 15 years. The mines in Saskatchewan are operating at nearly full capacity and there is a dire need to expand their capacity. In Saskatchewan there is around 40 per cent of the world's reserves of potash-the greatest reserves in the world, except possibly for the Soviet Union. We have those reserves in our province and they should be developed publicly for and on behalf of all the people.
I recall that when the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley was sitting in the Saskatchewan legislature a few years ago there was an oversupply of potash and the IMC mine operated by the Americans, with a subsidiary in Mexico, had to cut down its production because of the oversupply. They cut down about 60 per cent of their production in my constituency, while in the United States they cut down by only 10 per cent or 15 per cent. Thus, people in my riding joined the unemployment rolls and were thrown out of work while jobs were saved for the Americans. That was a natural reaction by IMC and it is a natural consequence of foreign ownership. It is the branch of the plant that will be cut down and thrown away first. But now we find in Saskatchewan an industry that will grow, a product the price of which will continue to rise and the market for which will increase.
Potash is used primarily for fertilizer; about 95 per cent of it is used for that purpose. As the world's agricultural economy becomes more sophisticated, as knowledge increases and the developing nations become more wealthy, the demand for potash will increase. The profits of the privately-owned potash companies in Saskatchewan went up and the Saskatchewan government naturally increased the taxes, but many of these mining companies refused to pay the taxes and took our government to court on the issue. They were not ready to expand, and several mines announced that the plan for expansion was either cancelled or postponed until the court cases were heard. They are withholding their taxes. Mr. Speaker, you could not do that without the Department of National Revenue taking action against you.
The potash companies are holding the government to ransom. They will not expand, thus denying jobs, and they will not pay taxes, thus denying revenue to the Saskatchewan people. So the premier of our province did the only

logical and sensible thing; he announced that the mines would be nationalized and taken over by the people of Saskatchewan. We have the money for that; much of it is right in the province of Saskatchewan, and the rest will be borrowed and paid back over the years. In years to come the Saskatchewan people will have an asset which will appreciate by literally hundreds of millions of dollars for the people of our province, not just for me but for my children's generation and for their children and generations to come.
It will be a resource owned wholly by the people of Saskatchewan and by all Canadians. It will be the only resource company in this country on a large scale which will have its head office in Saskatchewan-and the jobs at the head office will be in Saskatchewan, not in Houston, not in Denver, not in Europe. The corporation in Saskatchewan will be able to open new mines and expand. That is one of the first things it will do. This would not happen under private enterprise in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley knows that the potash companies were going to cancel or postpone their plans to expand the mines because the taxes were too high.
There are two choices which you have: you can either say, "We will lower the taxes and you, poor company, will expand, but we will get less revenue from the taxes," or you can take them over and expand and develop the mines. If you make that decision, you keep the money. That is a much better investment for the people of Saskatchewan. Why will this government not do this with the tar sands in Alberta? They have an obligation to develop such a resource on behalf of all the people of Canada. In Saskatchewan we will have these head office jobs, we will have research and development jobs, we will expand our industry, we will keep the profits in the province and we will control the biggest resource company in Canada that is Canadian-owned-all within the boundaries of a small province.
These are the things this government should be doing on a national scale. Just think what they could do if they seriously tackled the oil industry, in terms of keeping prices down for consumers, in terms of the petrochemical industry and in terms of keeping the profits in this country. These are the things they could do if they would provide economic leadership. But that is something which I am afraid they are not willing to do.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the motion before us by saying initially a few words in favour of the implementation of an anti-inflation policy in Canada at the present time. Any national economy that is unable to control the value of its monetary exchange unit over the short to long term within some reasonable guidelines is indeed in trouble. The problem, economically speaking, must take priority over other social and economic problems that may be facing the nation at the time, for without a solution to this basic issue, all other government leadership endeavours are bound to be fraught with a good degree of failure. A just society can never be achieved, nor moved in a very positive direction, if we cannot assure members of our society that there is a good degree of strength in the monetary system.
The old age pensioner on a fixed income, the young widow receiving a static allowance or pension as the sole
December 9, 1975

means of support for her and her family, the wage or salary earner forming part of the vast majority of our work force where the ability to negotiate a higher rate of income is almost non-existent, the businessman locked into a contract which makes no provision for a higher revenue to him in the face of substantially rising costs, all these people depend on someone and, I suggest, look to the government for leadership to somehow or other help them out of their predicament by taking steps to introduce measures which will alleviate the upward spiral of the inflationary infection which is having such an undesirable effect on their very ability to make ends meet in the course of their already limited standard of living.
Further up the line we have the middle-income group who form a larger and larger proportion of the Canadian social fabric. They are perhaps those who have been able to or are steadily saving toward the purchase of a home in which to live and raise their families. Just when they are at a point where they envisage moving, if a purchase is being considered, or start making their first mortgage payments in the case of a purchase having been made, the rising inflationary factor seems to sweep their accomplishment out of their hands and they find themselves once again against the wall.
It is at a time like this that a government-in my view, particularly a national government-must act. It must make a move to show leadership to the people who elected it to govern. This is what I suggest the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) did on the evening of October 13, 1975. He and the government took the bull by the horns and came out with an anti-inflation policy which, I suggest to the House, is receiving increasing support across the country as the weeks go by.
Let me speak further on this aspect of leadership which was raised by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). Why anti-inflation measures now? Why not six months hence? I should like to deal with this question. The reason for not postponing the inevitable at this point-this, I suggest, reflects on leadership-is simply that the nation could probably not sustain a further six months of unbounded leaps in the rate at which the Canadian dollar was decreasing in terms of the goods and services it could acquire. A move was required without further delay.
The swift and concerted attention which has swung toward the Anti-Inflation Board in its early days of existence is surely an indication of the inflationary forces which beset the Canadian economy last fall. Leadership was required as the thirtieth parliament was about to reconvene after the summer recess. Leadership came, and it is astounding that once it arrived, those opposition voices which cry for leadership whenever they run out of viable alternative policies to place before this House-and unfortunately that is all too frequently-cringed in despair as the principal crutch on which they spent so much time leaning was virtually snapped out of their hands. Opposition members were bereft and without the apparent means to bolster themselves up with a new crutch. They were so disorganized that the official opposition of this country, the party to whom Canadians look as the only viable alternative on the national horizon, were caught with their proverbial pants down and voted against the very type of
Canadian Economy
legislation which they themselves promoted as a cure-all to Canada's ills only a short 15 months before. That is very strange behaviour indeed and, I suggest, is most incomprehensible to the minds of the voters of this country.
The hon. member for Richmond is concerned about unemployment in this country. So am I; so are we all. The point to be made is that whatever evils may accompany unemployment-and, granted, there are many-these evils will undoubtedly be greater in the event that an inflationary rate which has achieved the dubious distinction of two-figure status is not brought under control. The hon. member speaks of lack of foresight. Is it not a distinct example of foresight, carefully applied, to look a growing national problem in the eye, to consider its probable impact over the ensuing mounths and years, and then to act?
That is what our Prime Minister did on the evening of October 13. That is what the government I support did in following up the initial action of the Prime Minister by sending its ministers out to the hustings to explain to the Canadian people exactly why the new anti-inflation policy was a clear example of foresight and leadership on the part of the elected officials who had been charged with the task of running the government of this country for the next four years or so, as of July, 1974. Foresight and leadership we have, based on sound rationale and supported by a careful analysis and examination of the situation at hand.
Responding for a moment to the hon. member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), unemployment is a problem in this country which has always occupied a high level of attention by this government and will continue to do so in the future. However, let us make one point very clear. There are many factors accounting for unemployment problems in a given country at any given time.


An hon. Member:: The Liberal government is the biggest one.


Alan Gray Martin: However, we must be sensible about this. Governments do not create unemployment; they try to react to the conditions which bring about unemployment. That is why we have DREE, that is why we have Opportunities for Youth Programs in the summer. That is why we endeavour to equalize tax revenue situations across the country. That is why so much of our effort is directed toward overcoming the disparities and the difficulties faced by people in various regions of the country. It is to make every endeavour, within the free enterprise system, to bolster the economies of regions and the society which makes up these regions. That is why we are constantly searching for new export markets and encouraging Canadian industry to look beyond its more traditional markets within and without the country. All these government initiatives are aimed at strengthening the Canadian economy and at providing more and more jobs for an ever-expanding work force.
Obviously, from time to time difficulties in the area of any government initiatives will be encountered and this is particularly so when such initiatives are aimed at producing more jobs. A softening of world markets is bound to make it more difficult for an exporting industry to increase its production and thus hire more workers. A tightening of the money supply within the country will

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
certainly produce greater difficulties to domestic industry attempting to expand. There is no question that the antiinflation policy will present the government with new challenges in all these areas. The policy is intended to keep a reasonable lid on both prices and incomes.
Canadians are being asked to revise the order of their priorities over the next little while. All these factors will have an effect on the viable productive capacity of various individual industries within the country. The government will respond to these challenges and, unlike the opposition parties which sit across from us in this House, it will respond in a positive and meaningful way and I am sure it will continue to receive the support of the vast majority of the Canadian people.
Before concluding, I should like to make reference to a comment made by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) with regard to Petro-Can in which he once again referred to the lack of necessity for an organization sponsored by government in this particular industry. As we said last spring-I think it is worth while again reminding the hon. member and his party-the situation in Canada today regarding oil and natural gas supplies has changed dramatically from the situation three or four years ago. I suggest that the entry of a government-sponsored organization such as Petro-Can into this over-all problem will, in turn, not only create more jobs by assisting in the exploration and development of new sources of energy but will also serve to alleviate some very serious energy problems which would otherwise beset us in the years to come.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like at the outset of my remarks to point out that our parliamentary system is most democratic. Indeed, its rules provide for days allotted to the opposition to enable it to criticize objectively the administration, more specifically the government, for its omissions while the government for its part will surely talk about its accomplishments which, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggested this afternoon, are normally paid for by Canadian taxpayers.
I was astounded to hear the answer given by the Prime Minister this afternoon to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte), concerning loans made to developing or underdeveloped countries. Not only, Mr. Speaker, does the administration as we know it make us pay interest on loans contracted on our behalf but according to the answer given by the Prime Minister we must also pay interest on loans contracted to make gifts to help underdeveloped or developing countries.
I listened attentively to the hon. member who spoke before me. I congratulate him. He spoke very objective words, and I think that is the way one should participate in the debate in this House not only to give the people of this country the impression that we are serious people and we want to give the best administration possible but to prove to them through actions, steps, decisions, that we are really conscious of our responsibilities and we want to solve the problems facing the people of this country, our country. Mr. Speaker, the government on those opposition

days expects criticism. Today, December 9, 1975, is an opposition day, and the topic was selected-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very anxious to hear what the hon. member has to say, but I regret to report that the simultaneous interpretation is not coming through the system. 1 wonder if it could be checked before the hon. member continues his address.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is your responsibility to restore-


@Acting Speaker: Order, please. I believe it is working now.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you very much. I think the hon. member who has drawn to the attention of the Speaker the fact that he could not hear my remarks. It proves that he is interested in what is said in the House. I congratulate him.
I was saying that the topic selected by the Social Credit Party of Canada today is excellent; the backbenchers should not be offended by my remarks. If we refused to blame the government for its failures, we would be shirking our duty and the people would have the right to judge us severely, because the people have elected 264 members and we do not live under dictatorship in this country. The people of Canada are asked to make a choice and they choose what they want. And when they send us to Parliament they expect us to be of different opinion, to have divergent points of view, but that we will join our effort to administrate our country as well as possible.
Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I support the motion of my colleague, the hon. member of Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). This motion of no confidence against the government is perfectly justified. In fact, the hon. member described exactly the promises and commitments that the Liberal party made to the people of Canada and did not fulfill entirely. Even if the right hon. Prime Minister, in 1974, during the last elections presented himself to the nation as the only one detaining the magic formula to solve the inflation and unemployment problems created by the credit-debt system he advocates, it was just another electoral promise as since July 8, 1974 the economic situation of our country has been deteriorating and our Canadian dollar has continued to devaluate, the number of unemployed has continued to rise, and we do not know in what direction this government steers our economy.
In 1975, Mr. Speaker, the economic situation looks strangely like that of the year 1926 to 1930 and 1930 to 1939.
Of course, the younger members cannot make the comparison as they were not born at that time. However, at that time, like now, the system was the same and they were many bankruptcies were the order of the day. Like today, banks were empowered to turn the credit tap on or off and they contributed to multiply industrial and business bankruptcies through curtailments and even, in several cases, through a complete withdrawal of credit margins;
December 9, 1975

the result was paralyzed industrial and business activities for a large number of companies.
Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the war of 1914-18, the government contributed to putting into circulation an impressive quantity of dollars which were used first and foremost to produce ammunitions of all kinds that the consumer would not buy but which were nevertheless manufactured and, the flow of money thus created increased the purchasing power for consumer goods.
This caused an extraordinary price increase in all sectors of our economy at that time. Farms would sell at exhorbi-tant prices. Food prices rose to a level which enticed farmers' sons to buy very expensive farms of their own, in the hope that the situation would remain the same for years to come. That was the post-war boom.
Alas, disenchantment followed. The days of artificial prosperity were soon over and the year 1929 came too soon. That was the onset of the depression, of the "crash" as they called it in the United States. I remember those days, being then a young man already on the labour market. We learned, not on the radio because our sets were not able to tune in American stations, but in the newspapers that the "crash" on the New York stock exchange had tolled the knell. That was the onset of the depression because people had been led to believe U.S. that the dollar would depreciate and Americans who had money in the banks ran to those banks to take out their savings, because they no longer had confidence in the American banking system. They feared they would lose their savings.
What happened is that the American government reacted very rapidly. The president called the Congress. It came to the rescue of the banking system to restore the confidence of the American people. All financial institutions were forced to close down and through legislation, the American government restored the people's confidence necessary to allow the system to keep on working.
It remains nevertheless that it was the beginning of a depression which caused great hardship not only to the american people, but to the Canadian people as well
In the period between 1918 and 1929 some people lost everything they had worked for because they thought, from lack of experience, that the boom they had lived through would last. At that time, people were buying anything at any price, a business, an industry, a farm, what have you. But when 1929 came, profits disappeared and we experienced bankruptcies, as I said before, many bankrupties, loss of savings, to such an extent that people fell ill and had to be hospitalized for the rest of their lives.
Mr. Speaker, to recall those cases is not daydreaming, it is simply to call attention to the current situation.
It will be remembered that in 1930, there was a general election in Canada. At that time, I was old enough to attend political meetings and see and hear on the hustings Liberal and Conservative candidates debating.
At that time, in Saint-Adrien, my home town in the riding of Megantic, I saw two real men, two candidates fight one another vigorously after Sunday mass on the porch generously made available by the owner of the general store, so that the candidates may inform the people. I remember seeing, among others, a respectable merchant, an experienced businessman, Mr. Leonard
Canadian Economy
Tremblay, who as a Liberal member represented in this House for a number of years the riding of Dorchester, now included in the riding of Belleehasse. Mr. Tremblay used to say with bitterness: "Butter is cheap, but what can we do, it is a global problem, butter is flowing everywhere." I remember those phrases. Butter was cheap. The price of 4 cents a pound did not even pay the paper to wrap it in. And they used to say, as we are told now, it was a global problem, we must accept it as a scourge, because we were sinners and we had to pay for our failures.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people believed what politicians said at that time, and the Liberal party was beaten. A discouraged Mackenzie King asked: "How did it happen? I tried my best, I wanted to give my country the best administration possible and the people do not understand. And Mr. R. B. Bennett was elected. He took the power with as many seats he wanted-an overwhelming majority. And then he tried by all possible means to put the country on the way to prosperity. But the bankers had control over Mr. Bennett as they used to have over Mr. King and he did not have the required money to achieve programs designed to create employment with a view to restoring the confidence of Canadians and making them prosperous.
At that time, we had the direct assistance system, which strangely reminds me of the system we have now. It is called differently but it provides the same remedies, the same means. Then as now there were thousands and thousands of youths able to work but who could not find any jobs. And I recall an employment system for young people, who were told: you are lazy, you do not want to work. Canadians are lazy since you do not want to earn a living, you do not work. This is what they were told at that time. And they had been given the opportunity to join the army. You do not have the means to buy clothes, we shall clothe you. And then, they were dressed in a kaki uniform and paid 20 cents a day. Imagine, 20 cents a day! What kind of a future would young people prepare with 20 cents a day! What happened? Untold numbers of young people thus lost precious years that they could have used to truly prepare themselves for the future.
Then, in 1935, there was a general election. The two same men ran against each other: Mr. Bennett for the Conservatives and Mr. King for the Liberals. Each one had a sensational program which would bring prosperity to Canada. But Mr. King had had time to reflect for a few years. He had had time to get to the bottom of things and to truly study what had been the cause of his mismanagement. And Mr. King had discovered that it was a lack of money. He said: Well, if I am reelected, I know what to do. You will witness the greatest fight between the government and high finance that has ever been seen in the whole world. People believed him. Mr. King said: If a parliament, if a government does not regain control over its money and credit, it is useless to talk of democracy. He said: If I am given the power to do so, I will fix all that. He was therefore given the power but the problem was not solved; it has remained unsolved to this day.
The great fight that the Canadian people were supposed to witness never happened. Of course, we were given the Bank of Canada, that institution with a truly fine-sounding name: Bank of Canada, the Bank of Canadians, but the government forgot to give to the Bank of Canada the

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
necessary tools, capacity and authority to fulfill its true role as the Bank of Canadians. Its role is restricted to receiving from the chartered banks the money on which the chartered banks based themselves to create the credit of the nation under the act. The Bank of Canada only receives the cash reserves which chartered banks are bound by law to deposit in that bank to be permitted to go on practising that larceny legalised by an act of Parliament, an ever thriving business. Let hon. members just have a look at the answers of the Minister of Finance to questions on the order paper of the House and they will understand that our present banking system which operates at a profit is going through an era of outstanding prosperity, to the point that bankers no longer know where they should invest, after deriving such fabulous profits from that medium of exchange called money. That system should be a service controlled by government, by the Bank of Canada, so that the funds necessary for a proper circulation of goods and services in Canada would be accounted for by the Bank of Canada after statistical data provided by Statistics Canada.
And if a constant balance was kept in the money supply required to circulate goods and services provided by Canadians through their work, then we in Canada would have a balanced money supply, and the exchange medium would not be commercialized like an ordinary commodity, but it would have a constant relationship with the productive capacity of Canadians and consumer needs.
I know of course, Mr. Speaker, some people will say: Social Credit members dream in colour. You like colour TV, everyone buys colour TV sets today, and they pay a tremendous price to buy one because they like it. So if you think we dream in colour, just look at us dreaming. Try to look at us, try to understand at least the suggestions we are attempting to make in this Parliament to try and help the government solve today's problems. Mr. Speaker, let us not forget this: we now have in Canada thousands of young people who are unemployed, people for whose education we paid a lot of money in building multidisciplinary schools, CEGEPs, universities, to have them learn a trade, to have them become Canadians able to help us older people in our efforts to go on building a country where it would be good to live and which we would love all the more. But no, our children are among the jobless.
Mr. Speaker, was there not a cheaper way of increasing the number of unemployed? Personally, not only do I think so but I say so, and since I have a responsibility to assume, as everybody else, in Parliament, I would appreciate it if members would pay serious attention to the proposals we are making in all objectivity and seriousness. It is not a crime to consider them. How discouraging it is to see adults, reasonable people, rejecting with the back of their hands any suggestion contributed by the opposition on the assumption that they are not serious, not sound.
Mr. Speaker, before passing judgment on someone else's ideas, one must first get to know them in order to be able to analyse them, and see whether there is something in them which may be used and applied to upgrade the economic situation in our country, something which would give our youth faith in the future of our country. I think each parliamentarian has the responsibility of taking the trouble to consider them as something valid, as something worth being heard and judged afterwards.

Mr. Speaker, earlier this fall, during the recess, not during the session, I went to the north shore. I went there to get information as a representative. I went on the other side of the river to see what is going on there and I noticed that there are bright prospects there. But I also noticed that we go and hire workers in Europe for the positions our young people could take on if we ensured they can complete their training.
Mr. Speaker, in my constituency of Bellechasse, there is room for training 240 operators of heavy machinery. Some 1,200 young people are waiting. Why not allocate funds which would enable regional school boards to open new centres so that these young people could complete the training required to apply for these positions which are available on the north shore? But no! School board officials say: "We don't mind but we have no money" The Minister of Manpower and Immigration says: "It's all right with me but the Treasury Board won't give us money". Everybody complains of having no money, nobody does anything about it and everybody starves.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic that we are speaking on a motion today which states:
That this House considers the government has lacked foresight and leadership in the conduct of the affairs of Canada and should be blamed for its failure to fulfil its promise-
It is ironic because this is the day that the Auditor General's report came out. Talk about horror stories. It makes past editions read like fairy tales. Therefore, there is complete justification for a motion like this. The blame has to be laid at the doorstep of the Liberals. They have been in power for many years. If they had such great administrative ability we would not be receiving reports like this. It really makes interesting reading.
For many months Progressive Conservative members of parliament have grilled the federal Liberal government in Ottawa extensively on its spending practices, and with good reason. Federal government expenditures have increased to astronomical proportions since 1968. It is estimated that before this fiscal year is over total government spending will reach $35 billion for all accounts, almost 40 per cent of the gross national product. The question is whether the country can afford this kind of extravagance at the present time considering the economic problems we face.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What are you going to cut out?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) asks what we are going to cut out. It is not what we are going to cut out, but what they are going to cut out. According to today's newspapers they are not cutting anything out.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) to tell this House what he would like to see cut out. The time has come for the opposition to tell this side what they want elmininated. Instead of just talking about spending, they should tell us where to cut.
Some Kon. Members: Hear, hear!
December 9, 1975


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member will agree that he raised an argument rather than a point of order.


A. Daniel McKenzie: There was one very good suggestion-cut out the government.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is a nonsensical answer.


A. Daniel McKenzie: What Liberal members fail to realize-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The only place he is any good is on CBC radio-


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, he wants me there tomorrow. There are a number of other radio stations as well.
What the Liberals fail to realize is that it is not just social programs for which the government is responsible. It is also responsible for managing your affairs properly and having a proper accounting.
Crown corporations have to spend properly. The hon. member is aware of all the Viscount aircraft at the Winnipeg airport that were overhauled at a cost of between $200,000 and $600,000 each, but are only worth $10,000 to $50,000 on the market. They cannot be flown because they are not airworthy.
I will give another example of mismanagement. The hon. member asked me a question which I will answer. A number of years ago there was the Samson-Belair report which cost $239,000. If dealt very extensively with regard to postal delivery being left in the hands of private contractors. It went into the dollars and cents, and stated why that business should be left to private contractors. When the Post Office took over, there were 239 more trucks and hundreds more men. We had the cost of the Post Office operation going up and the service going down.
In committee I asked deputy ministers if they could cut their expenditures by at least 10 per cent a year. A number of them have told me that if so instructed by their ministers they could curtail expenditures by 10 per cent. I have presented motions requesting that this be done, but the Liberals have turned them down.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) says present excessive expenditures have been brought about as a result of pressure from the news media, the opposition, and the general public. I challenged him on this issue in the context of Information Canada. That costs only a paltry $10 million a year, but it amounts to nothing but a bunch of duplication. There are 750 information officers spread out among the departments as a whole. We do not need them all. Information Canada is just duplication. That is a prime example, and I suggest to hon. members that if they read this speech they will find out a lot more.


Mr. Paproski:: Don't go now, Joe. Can't you stand the heat?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Joe wouldn't run his shoe store the way this government runs the country.
Canadian Economy
Approximately half the government's spending cannot be touched by parliament as it is in the form of statutory estimates which can be examined, but not reduced. Members of parliament, when asked to approve estimates, do not receive government spending proposals in the form of meaningful programs in which objectives are outlined and justified on the basis of factual data. I am sure the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) will back me up in this assertion. There should be many improvements in the government's accounting system.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: The 1968-69 rule changes effectively curtailed the operations of parliament so that it no longer has an effective rein on supply. The result is that members of parliament now must spend long hours just trying to understand the format of the Blue Book of Estimates. Increasingly moneys are concealed in estimates and hidden votes such as those designated for security measures. These are being used more and more often. The party to which I belong is concerned about this, Mr. Speaker. It is a very real issue. The federal government is obsessed with secrecy with respect to its spending plans and programs. It conceals money in the estimates without explanation, and it prevents Commons committees from calling witnesses who are supposed to be responsible for directing expenditures into which we are inquiring.
The Ontario government made a very wise move recently. It hired the former Auditor General, Mr. Maxwell Henderson. He can be expected to stir up a storm in connection with almost anything he tackles. He has the rare ability to be able to cut through the fog and put his finger on sensitive issues. In a relatively short time, Henderson and his committee were able to come up with 184 recommendations which, if implemented, could save Ontario taxpayers $3.6 billion over the next two years. This is the gentleman whose authority hon. members opposite wished to curtail.
There is one person who is supposed to have been given the power to act as a watchdog over government spending, and that is the Auditor General. Bearing this in mind I should like to quote what my hon. friend from Peace River said in this House on June 2:
As the power of the Commons has diminished with regard to meaningful examination and scrutiny of estimates, we have driven back to the final line of defence of the beleaguered taxpayer of Canada, the office of the Auditor General.
Unfortunately, though, the federal government is trying to place limitations on the power of the Auditor General in order to ensure that parliament, in the words of my hon. friend from Peace River, "does not have an effective, useful and meaningful Auditor General's office."
I should like to read some excerpts from the report of the Auditor General which I have to hand. For example, he states:
A number of major concerns related to internal audit have been identified and may be summarized as follows: some departments have no internal audit.
I wonder whether the hon. member for St. Boniface carries out his business without an internal audit. I doubt it.
Internal auditors are often involved in systems which may divert them or compromise their ability to discharge their responsibility.

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
Under "Program Forecasting and Budgeting" the report goes on to say:
An annual review of country program projects was carried out by operating units in the bilateral branch, the largest of the operating branches, but this review was not made in conjunction with the annual program forecast. As a result there is no firm information base to ensure that forecasts reflect executive priorities.
This sort of thing appears in hundreds of pages of the document which was released today.
CIDA is a subject in which I am interested, Mr. Speaker. I am not opposed to aiding under-privileged countries. Hon. members might note, however, that the budget has now reached almost one billion dollars a year. An article appeared recently about CIDA under the heading "Spend, Spend, Spend." Apparently officials were rushing around at the end of 1974 to get rid of $117 million which had been held over, so that the Treasury Board would not get it back. I have discussed this sort of thing with the Auditor General and he tells me it goes on in almost every department-they scurry about at the end of the year to spend any money they have in their votes. This is one area which ought to be looked into if the government has any real intention to curtail expenditures. It has nothing to do with cutting off somebody's old age pension.
Referring to CIDA, the Auditor General's report states:
Recipients of all grants and contributions should be shown in public accounts and consideration should be given to classifying grants and contributions by agency division, such as Asia, the Caribbean, the Commonwealth, etc. Consideration should be given to disclosing public accounts the full financial implications pertaining to the loan vote including the undisbursed portions of the authorized loans.
We in this House have tried to get hold of documents relating to CIDA-the subject was debated here recently- but the government declined to release documents upon the basis of which we could conduct a proper examination. It is members opposite who should be criticized, not us. We are the ones who are asking for open government and a proper accounting system.
The Auditor General has stated that some of his recommendations will be implemented. I, for one, hope they will all be implemented in the very near future. The Auditor General goes on to say:
Departmental financial transactions are recorded in two separate formal financial systems. In addition to utilizing the financial reporting services of the Department of Supply and Services the department also maintains its own computerized financial reporting systems. Inputs to the two systems are mainly prepared independently thus resulting in inefficiency and differences between total expenditures reported by the two systems. The department should exchange expenditure input data with Supply and Services in machine-readable format.
Reported in today's press is an example of the government's effort to contain expenditures. I can hardly believe it, since I find it very strange that the government should be making statements of any kind about curtailing its spending. At any rate, an article in today's paper, written by Geoff Johnson, says:
Up there on the 23rd floor of the Bell Canada palace on Elgin Street, lavishly appointed home of Treasury Board, keeper of the public purse, there is much honing of axes in readiness for the trimming of the public service.
The noise, of course, is muffled by the thick broadloom. Not for nothing is Treasury Board nesting in the most expensive accommodation ever rented by the federal government.
Certainly, its not the carpets which will feel the axe first. If Treasury Board President Jean Chretien has his way, yesterday's news story in this paper indicated, public servants will be laid off rather than be reduced in number by attrition.
The cuts, said the report, were born with the government's anti-inflation program announced two months ago and are intended to show the country that the government is practising what it preaches.
Meanwhile, nearer ground level, all appeared normal.
An insurance company has vacated its offices on the first two floors of the huge complex at Kent and Laurier dominated by the Department of Indian Affairs.
The department is expanding and says it needs the room.
Next year the suite in La Promenade building on the Mall housing Southam News Services and several other newspaper offices, including mine, is to be vacated.
The Canada Council is expanding and says it needs the space.
So you can see, Mr. Speaker, no curtailment at all is planned by the government.
Any day now the battered wooden fence which screens the lower floors of the new Bank of Canada building will be removed, and the public will be able to take in at last the entire majesty of the 12-storey tower of reflecting glass, a jewel shimmering in a dark sea of concrete and steel.
Not even in the developers' paradise of Montreal has an office building of its size cost so much to erect. It is a magnificent monument to free spending, from the year-round garden enclosed in plain glass to the fact that it will cost more to heat and cool than any other government building.
It will make those cabinet ministers and public service mandarins who have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars on renovating their offices this year look like bagmen for Cromwell.
When that wooden fence is taken away, the teachers, the postal workers, the public servants to be laid off-all will be able to get close enough to see their faces in the mirror walls and to reflect on the virtue of austerity.
Some austerity!
For a number of years this party has been asking for a complete examination of the operations of the unemployment insurance program. If unemployment exceeds 8 per cent this year-and many economists are predicting it- there will be over 800,000 Canadians out of work by December 31, 1975. That means each one of those Canadians will be a potential unemployment insurance recipient. Already, at an unemployment rate of 7.2 per cent annually, the unemployment insurance program is costing each Canadian man, woman and child $200 a year. The total cost of the program in 1975 alone is expected to be $4 billion. Between January, 1971, when the present program was first implemented, and December, 1975, our unemployment insurance bill is expected to reach a total of $10 billion. By comparison, between 1940 and 1970, a period of 30 years, Canada spent a total of only $6 million on unemployment insurance.
For well over two years the Progressive Conservative party has asked for an independent inquiry into the operations of the unemployment insurance program in order to find some answers to these and other problems associated with it. This is not an inquiry which implies a witch hunt or simply a crackdown on abuses, but one which would get to the roots of the problem and come up with some concrete answers. And unless there is an inquiry we feel the problems cannot be identified in their entirety and solutions found. In the absence of federal government initiative in this area, we continue to press for that inquiry. The

December 9, 1975

alternative, as we see it now, is escalation of the present situation and the resulting damaging effects it can have on the country.
To turn to another subject, I understand that the government is going to relocate some of its federal operations from the capital city of Ottawa to Montreal. I fail to see how this can be a priority at the present time. We are continuing to put up more and more government skyscrapers. One has only to look at the situation in Hull, where the process is never-ending. There is already a printing bureau in Hull with a work force of up to 1,500, including the Olympic coin packaging unit. There are 2,000 employees of the Department of the Environment and Fisheries. I also understand there is going to be a $17 million parking garage constructed in Hull. The government talks of energy conservation and leaving cars at home; we are trying to encourage people to use buses, yet the government builds a $17 million parking garage.
A report was published two years ago which indicated the government was going to construct a $10 million parking garage on Parliament Hill. If its estimated cost was $10 million two years ago it is easy to imagine what it would cost today. Whether this is going to go ahead I do not know, but one area of cut back would certainly be the elimination of the $17 million parking garage in Hull.
Another construction phase in Hull is to be occupied by the Department of Supply and Services; it will cost $98 million, with phase IV budgeted at $63 million. Unspecified government departments will be major tenants of Cam-peau Corporation's Le Terasse de la Chaudiere, to be completed in 1979 at a cost of $160 million. I should like to know when government restraint is going to appear. I suggest government members have a lot of nerve to criticize opposition members for making no suggestions. I have made some suggestions today, and on another occasion I shall have a long list of examples of mismanagement and of programs that can be cut out.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like at the outset to re-read the motion, because after listening to some members I got worried and I shall say why after I have read the motion.
The motion read by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) states:
That this House considers the government has lacked foresight and leadership in the conduct of the affairs of Canada and should be blamed for its failure to fulfil its promise of a fair and just society and to prevent the deterioration of the social climate, and its failure to stop the alarming increase in unemployment, to introduce measures other than price and wage control, to prevent the actual rate of inflation and to make loans available to the provinces at an interest rate not exceeding the cost of administration.
I read the motion, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member for Richmond read it, then gave us a rather long lecture. He even talked about capital punishment and all the crimes committed in the United States. That was one of the reasons why I wanted to read the motion. As for the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), he did not start his speech by reading the motion, but the whole time he was on his feet he spoke highly of a free society, of free enterprise.
Canadian Economy
Then I heard the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who spoke a little about unemployment but who particularly tried to impress the House with his reference to the natural resources of his province and to what he would do once those resources would be nationalized. Afterwards, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin) spoke not only to the motion, but he took a few minutes to tell us exactly what had just been going on. I much appreciated it and I would ask the other members who did hot pay attention as they should have to those comments to go over them after they are printed. Then we heard the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). He probably brought back a few memories to several of us when he recalled the 1929 crash which rocked the United States, but he dealt primarily with a matter with which he is quite familiar and which he often refers to, whether before the house committees or here in this House, and that is the banking system now in operation in Canada. In his opinion, there are shortcomings in our system.
I will return to that if time permits. As for the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), I must more particularly dwell on them. He showed the House he has a quality no one knew he had. And I must say that two documents I am now holding total 489 pages. It is the Auditor General's report to the House of Commons. It was tabled today. As I said, there are 177 pages to the first part and 312 to the second. The hon. member could summarize all that and had assimilated it in about fifteen minutes. Moreover, he really convinced us that he had discovered the help we give underdeveloped countries and I could not understand his position, whether he approved or not.
I should like to deal with the motion moved by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin). He regrets the lack of leadership of the present government. In the time that was allowed to him, probably against his way of thinking, he proved there is much leadership in Canada. To be able to criticize, structures must necessarily be set up. He lingered over that in a way which, I admit, seemed to him most deserving. He talked about the standing committees of the House to which I should like to turn my attention for a few moments. I have not had the opportunity, probably because I do not sit on the same committees, of seeing him often, particularly at those parliamentary committees considering precise matters. He might very well sit on other committees. We never meet. I have not had the opportunity to see him at these committee meetings.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, 21 parliamentary committees have been set up and have been operating differently ever since this government came to power. The Social Credit Party of Canada is quite willing to be part of them and as I indicated earlier the hon. member for Bellechasse does so; there has been at least 2,500 sittings and I am somewhat concerned about the fact that the hon. member for Richmond has stated that ministers are never present. On any parliamentary committee which requires the presence of ministers, the minister will attend, together with his assistants and departmental officials, to answer the questions which hon. members from from all the parties represented in the House may care to ask. In my opinion, this is
9864

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
a worthwhile initiative. Some hon. members used to say: we cannot meet so and so; we never meet anybody.
Those parliamentary committees give precisely the opportunity not only to enquire from the minister but also to question the government's policies. If that is not done, the responsibility cannot be laid upon the government; it has to be laid upon anyone not taking part in the committee proceedings. Some of us members do not participate for different reasons. There are a few who prefer to participate here, and this is within their rights. It should at least be acknowledged that not only do members and ministers responsible for various programs participate in committee proceedings, but there are also thousands of witnesses who appear before the various committees to testify.
To still the fears of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), let me point out that when the tax reform act was introduced, there was for three years and half a great deal of participation by the hon. members who took the time to study it. The result was a substantial bill about which people were able to discuss and not only express their concerns, but also change what they wanted to change by bringing well-prepared resolutions before the committees and putting arguments forward, and in several cases, they were accepted. So, Mr. Speaker, nobody should say that there is no government, that there is no participation and no cooperation.
Last week, we adopted the anti-inflation bill, which is considered today by the Senate, before which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is now appearing. I see that for some reason, Social Crediters are suggesting that this bill should not have been introduced, but until now I did not find in their speeches any alternate solution.
I noted several points on which I shall come back later, but I did not notice any alternative. I want to deal later on with some of the recommendations.
I understood that this was almost illegal, that regulations would be drafted, that a board would be established and that this would not even be legal. Also, I understood that it would be impossible for members of the House to review the legislation. I think that it is a great disservice not to have read the bill or what was said. That exercise will take place in Parliament, if required by members of Parliament. I think this should have been pointed out, but maybe some of my colleagues forgot.
I should like to talk about leadership. Most members of the Social Credit Party of Canada come from eastern Canada, but there was no direct intervention regarding energy. This matter was not raised during the debate. It seems to me that it is to show leadership to allow the people of eastern Canada to benefit from direct state intervention in the economy through legislation and to provide them all with gas or heating oil at lower cost, at a price lower than the world price.
Now, I hear comments right and left. It is a matter of $4 less. The balance of forces may have something good. To some members, that may not mean much. Indeed, 33!/3, 40 per cent may not mean anything to them, but I feel that to allow a price 40 per cent lower than the world price requires a direct participation in the economy. Oil companies do not expect that, Mr. Speaker, that is for sure. Many have come and made representations and are still doing so.

After hearing the remarks of the member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk), I know that he certainly does not want anyone to dwell on this matter. With regard to his province, this afternoon he made a kind of a sermon on the mount. He spoke of the intervention of the government with regard to those companies. So, there should be some sort of a balance between the arguments that have been heard until now.
When the Food Prices Review Board was set up, some companies were required to produce facts. That is direct intervention. That was not appreciated either. Subsidies were granted to bread and milk producers. Now, that is intervention and leadership. You will not find that in very many countries, Mr. Speaker. But we had it here in Canada and it has been forgotten, or skimmed over very lightly, in an effort not to dwell on what has been done.
With regard to the milk industry in particular, we on this side have heard the representations that were made from every corner opposite. Not only was the government asked to take action, which it did, but it was asked to intervene to a far greater extent than it did. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, both claims cannot not be made at one and the same time, namely that there is government intervention that costs money and redistributes wealth and, in the same breath, that there is no such intervention. Perhaps it would be better to go on to something else.
The exercise that fascinated me the most, Mr. Speaker, was in fact what was said about the year 2000.
The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) made extraordinary projections. What struck me most at the very beginning of his remarks, was that he at least admitted that in this country where there is a government intervention, the average family income is $14,000. I may have missed something somewhere along the line, Mr. Speaker, but I think that as far as resources or structures are concerned, our country ranks second in the world. Even if it ranked only third or fourth, it would be quite good.
The government's responsibility is broader than that. This does not mean that everyone is earning this much or more. I think the government insisted on this, but it was in the spirit of the anti-inflation bill to ensure that people who cannot get along are given some attention. In order to achieve that, the economy had to be reviewed, and that is what the government did. This may be distressing to my honourable friends over there, I would not know. But if they are taken aback, I wish I could know because we have to help those who cannot help themselves. That was said by an honourable member earlier, and I think everybody in this House believes it. However, we must also restrain the abuses which befalls our society, whether they are ascrib-able to the governement, to the companies or to the unions.
Now, if one of these areas is deprived of certain powers, we may be sure that we will hear about it sooner or later, Mr. Speaker. We saw it in the parliamentary committee which sat on that matter. Certain companies or groups of people are absolutely opposed to the government taking any decision. The more you look at it, the more intervention there is, and the less I understand the motion put forward today.
December 9, 1975

I would also like to refer to what was done in the United States, because the point was raised a while ago. Price and wage controls in the United States seem to be placed in a context far removed from reality. They do not exist since 1970 in the U.S., they have been in existence for more than 30 years! They were imposed and removed from time to time. But they were not a successful in the United States according some American economists I met. They told us: We had several problems. We were told that thousands of civil servants would be needed to set up such a structure in our country. It is exactly what the Canadian government said. Then, we followed another course.
Just the same, one thing must be admitted: in the United States, the rate of inflation is now lower than it is here. There might have been some deficiencies in their system, as I said earlier, but what is good and useful in it might be adapted to our needs. That is what the anti-inflation act, Bill C-73, does at present.
There is also a point that our socialist friends do not mention very often, that productivity in the United States which is much higher. Now, some union leaders I met there take a quite different position. In some cases, those people not only restrict their demands on the tax revenues, but they also ask for salary cuts in some cases. I did not see that here, Mr. Speaker. I do not say we should follow that course, but I wish only to mention that there is in the States a quite obvious sense of responsibility that does not exist here within our unions. Maybe we should look more fully into that situation and ask everyone, since it is the subject of the bill under consideration, to participate in a reassessment and to ensure that our productivity is in proportion to our demands on the economy.
Another point which was previously mentioned is the fact that 29 per cent of our products are imported. We must realize that although this country is endowed with extraordinary resources, it also has a very harsh climate. A glance through the window today will be enough to convince us that we are living in a country with very rough climatic conditions. I am told that at this very moment the city of Toronto is totally paralyzed by a snow storm which is heading towards our area. So, this climate is not the best for all kinds of crops. This is why we have to rely on imports. I believe the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) made that point this afternoon. I have no objection to imports because they are a necessity.
But what do we have in the present legislation? It says: All right, there are world prices, world markets, and we are now going to apply controls within our boundaries, set up marketing programs and ask the cooperation of provincial governments. It will not be easy.
I must admit that there was some abuse in that area. I myself was in that business for years and I could talk about it at length. However, I do not think this is the right place. Just the same, there is one thing we should consider, and the government does so. Farmers made justified representations, saying their revenues are not in keeping with their contribution to the Canadian economy, and I agree 100 per cent with them. But I say the government should stop and consider the very wide gap between farm income and consumer prices. That wide gap is not justified in some cases. I think that is where the problem lies, and where this bill will apply.
Canadian Economy
The question of the social climate was raised and is properly mentioned in the motion. And time permitting, I wish to address the House for a few minutes on that subject.
We have to admit first of all that there is no such thing as perfection on earth. But there are certainly in the social climate, in the areas with which some of my colleagues are familiar, some determining factors for the Canadian society. An hon. member earlier mentioned the guaranteed annual income. If we consider that 56 per cent of the federal budget, as the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk) said, is transferred to the provinces and individuals, it is obvious that this equalization contributes to a better social climate, but is also a source of problems for managers. Therefore we should ask ourselves: Is that justified? In my opinion, it is indeed.
Secondly, does this help those who are most in need in our society? This is a very far-reaching question, Mr. Speaker, and we could spend a lot of time talking about it. But I believe that the programs that have been created, submitted and approved by this Parliament contained some factors which improved the social climate. I can list these programs: There is health insurance and also unemployment insurance, which constitute a transfer to individuals. This is costly, but we must ask ourselves one question. We must revise the position not only of individuals, but also of the government, whatever party is in power. We must ask ourselves a more far-reaching question than that. Does each level of the government now receive its part of the fiscal pie? In my opinion, that is valid question. I did not see it in the motion. It could have been brought up.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are discussing today is obviously very timely. The lack of foresight in the direction of public affairs must certainly be noticed by the whole Canadian population. This lack of foresight is made even worse by the fact that all the data concerning this quasi catastrophic situation were clear and obvious several years ago. The problems were therefore systematically clouded. People were blinded to the facts on purpose. The last two elections showed the blatant inconsistence of government leadership. I would like to point out in particular the action of the Prime Minister during the last election campaign. How lightly, and I must also say how skilfully, he denounced and ridiculed the price and wage freeze proposal advocated by the Progressive Conservative party. Furthermore, how frivolously did he move about on the "Trudeau express" inviting people to come and see the train and admire Mrs. Trudeau and the two little Trudeaus at that time.
Mr. Speaker, we were then in a deep period of inflation. Can that be called leadership? How remote was that from considering the real solutions that were needed to remedy the problems of the day? That lack of leadership brought this government to accept today what it was laughing at heartily yesterday. And we now have that Anti-Inflation Board which wants to control prices and wages. Already, as our motion suggests, we have repercussions of that government's action and already we can feel it is leading to a deterioration of the social climate. Already we see that it
21 1 30 - 3,4
December 9, 1975

Canadian Economy
will swell the wave of unemployment. Already we can see the accurate aims of the non-confidence motion we introduced against this government. And, contrary to what the hon. member who spoke before me suggested, we are all the better placed to put our finger on those shortcomings that we were detecting in the government administration, that we had foreseen for a number of years and where the economic and financial policies of the government were systematically leading us. Let them come and tell us that we forget to talk about what has been done. Of course, measures and steps were taken, decisions were made, but all those measures, all those steps and all those decisions did not reach the goal that they should have. And as my hon. colleague for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) suggested earlier, that reminds me of someone who has a number of miles to go to reach a goal; he is going somewhere, and he has 300 miles to cover to get there. And there is the government telling us, we have gone 50 miles, we have reached that point and we are stopping there. It is all very nice to do 50 miles but what matters are those remaining 300 miles. Indeed, I think that in the present economic situation there is a distance ahead and if after 50 miles we decide to stop we have not gone very far.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are all the better placed to blame this government as for many years we pointed out the shortcomings that existed, we warned of what could happen, foreseeable catastrophies. Now is the day of reckoning. Mr. Speaker, the remedies will always fail to cope effectively with the conditions, since we never deal with the basic issue from which stem all the problems which we face.
Mr. Speaker, the settlement of the energy crisis seems to be quite an important matter, since oil prices in Canada are lower than at the world level. It would be ridiculous if it were otherwise. Indeed how could a government find normal that a country which a few weeks ago was exporting a million barrels of oil daily can tolerate dependence on foreign oil while it keeps on exporting some. It is so stupid and ridiculous that it was quite proper to establish a single price throughout Canada. Why did the government failed for years to direct its efforts toward the distribution of Canadian oil from west to east? Why has it not implemented such a policy? Why is there not today that famous pipeline which would bring oil to Montreal? Why? Is it not lack of foresight or consistence on the part of the government to hear the hon. member say: The government has done extraordinary things in setting up prices below the world price? Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have all we need when it comes to oil.
In the energy field, we have all we need to meet our requirements. We do not even have to rely on foreign crude but on one condition, that the government defines beforehand a policy to make up for it. Are we not right in saying that the government lacked foresight? Was it not the government's role to have foreseen that oil producing countries would one day close the tap? Is not a government there to anticipate those developments? Is it not there consequently to prevent and forestall them? I think it is unacceptable that we were subjected to that crisis. The hon. member was certainly ill inspired to use this as an example, because it was the height of ridicule and stupidity for a country as rich as Canada in energy in every shape and form, including oil, and the hon. member would have
(Mr. Matte.]
been right; in this case, however, as I said, he would have to disregard the millions of gallons of oil we are selling every day to the United States. We established a quota last week: 700,000 barrels a day instead of a million. Since we are selling oil, Mr. Speaker, the government should not come and talk to us about shortage or difficulties-


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary rises on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the information the hon. member is giving the House is entirely wrong. We have not exported one million barrels of oil for the past two years. We export approximately 550,000 barrels.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Hopefully hon. members will wait for their turn to make their speeches; otherwise, if there are interventions and voiced disagreement, all hon. members will have difficulties putting forward their ideas. Hon. members should not rise on points of order to make contradictory statements, but should wait for the proper occasion to make their own speeches.


René Matte: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it is only a digression I was making before moving along with my remarks. But indeed, as recently as a week ago, or perhaps 15 days ago, the government decided to limit the exports at 700,000 instead of one million. So we should know what is going on here before interjecting. Now, Mr. Speaker, about the measures which have been taken and which one would like to praise, the actual measures taken by the government, there is none which could have been anticipated, although this could have been possible. On the other hand, we are sure all that could have been avoided, particularly if we had started from one essential fact.
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) dealt with this and I do not want to comment on it at any length myself, but still I think he raised some really essential points. True enough, it was said three, four or five years ago, that the increasingly disastrous economic situation which was forthcoming could be ascribed to world conditions. We were told again and again that we had to accept it because it was a worldwide problem. Inflation was a worldwide problem! That is the answer that was given to all those who asked questions about the economic progress in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the government was thus trying systematically if not misleadingly to cover up the lack of leadership which prevented it from assuming its own responsibilities. You cannot speak of inflation as a world phenomenon in a country like ours, brimming over with natural resources of all sorts, capable of being self-sufficient, a country thus gifted with an almost totally independent economy. As I have already said in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat it again, outside of bananas, grapefruits, and lemons, we lack very little in Canada. Furthermore, as my hon. colleague for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) has pointed out, as far as lemons, are concerned, we have a good supply in the benches opposite.
December 9, 1975

So, is it possible that in a country like ours, capable of producing as much as we can, we should be told by our government that we will have to tighten our belts, that our production is not up to par and that, consequently, people will have to be urged to produce more. But to produce from what? Everyone knows that to produce, one must have, in the first place, the raw materials. And the raw material, we have them. Is there one hon. member in this House who can say that Canada has not all the raw materials required to produce all that we need? Who can say this? Is there one hon. member who would dare stand up and say that Canada does not have the natural resources required to produce everything we need, and this in all areas, namely food, clothing, construction and so on? This is the question we should ask ourselves.
Now that we have all the resources required, what else do we need, Mr. Speaker? Labour? Not with an unemployment rate of up to 10 and 12 per cent in some parts of the country. Then we have enough labour to produce whatever we need. What is lacking? Money, or rather the permission the government should give to issue the necessary credit to set production in action. For that matter, if the government had guided its policy in this direction, we would never have reached the point where we are today because, Mr. Speaker, if we try with economic means to achieve this equation, this perfect balance between the production we need all over the country on the one hand and on the other hand, the possibility of consuming this production, the problem of inflation will no longer exist. But when we have a government and leaders who admit candidly, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister has done in answer to my question this afternoon, that we borrow money by means of government savings bonds at a 9Vi per cent interest rate which we lend interest free to foreign countries. Mr. Speaker, to borrow money at 9 !4 per cent interest to lend it interest-free, that is bordering on ridicule. Come on!
Mr. Speaker, why a government leader simply answers that we cannot lend interest-free money within Canada? Because we have to borrow that money: this is the best joke I heard today. I will come back to that tomorrow so that the prime minister may not sound so ridiculous.
Then, Mr. Speaker, when a government has been warned and told what should be done, and the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel) comes and asks us what are the suggestions? He must have been kidding when he said that. Usually, every time we have the opportunity, we are very careful to dot the "Is" and never do we criticize in a totally negative way; on the contrary, we always seek a proposal to counterbalance the negative criticism which we have the right to offer, right which we exercise.
This is why our motion ends in that way-when I hear the hon. member saying that we did not propose any concrete solution-that our motion ends in that way and I quote:
and to make loans available to the provinces at an interest rate not exceeding the cost of administration.
In my opinion, this is a very concrete suggestion and we are sure of this statement. Moreover, if this was not true, if there was no opportunity-


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Canadian Economy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Trudel) rises on a point of order.


Jacques L. Trudel: Mr. Speaker, may I make a remark. I think that I did say in my remarks, that some solutions were put forward about which I would like to talk, and which were presented by a colleague of the hon. member. Now, I did not have time to discuss them, but I wish I had. Maybe the hon. member took it the wrong way, or perhaps he just misunderstood. I want this to be recorded in Hansard.


René Matte: At any rate, if the hon. member had not quite well understood then, I hope he has now and that he will prevail upon his colleagues to accept it.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I would like to point out that in this Parliament there is a dedicated political party whose existence depends on the economic policies he has put forward in order to fight inflation, which should not be ignored when we see even today that our neighbours to the South have understood the need to flight inflation by decreasing the interest rate. Indeed the First National City Bank in the United States is reported in the Sept 22nd 1975 issue of La Presse as having announced that it would lower its interest rate from 7.25 to 7 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, why don't we, here in Canada, go ahead since inflation can only be controlled by decreasing the interest rate, which would result in making borrowing easier and hence increasing production and really fighting inflation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga).


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, if it meets with the approval of the Chair I would call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker. I was simply asking for the indulgence of the House to have the floor and carry on with the debate.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. The hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) has the floor.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the first aspect of the motion brought before the House by the Social Credit party. The part I am interested in reads:
That this House considers the government has lacked foresight and leadership in the conduct of the affairs of Canada and should be blamed for its failure to fulfil its promise of a fair and just society and to prevent the deterioration of the social climate ...
When one observes that one is overspending and debts are mounting, generally this is the time to restrain spending and look seriously at ways to stabilize, and even reduce one's debt. Yet sound personal thinking and government rationale apparently are quite different.
In fact, government mismanagement has reached such extremes that a Canadian youth would have to stretch his imagination to the breaking point if he were to try to visualize his country as one that had a stable let alone decreasing cost of living. How could he be expected to understand a society which was strike-free, with a crime rate under control, with no expensive subsidies and privileges, with reasonable levels of income tax, and a monetary system in which a dollar will buy at least a quarter's worth of goods?
It would be great if youngsters knew "inflation" as something that filled balloons and bicycle tires; if "economy" meant "saving" and if "efficiency of government" and "dignity and self-reliance" were not just antiquated phrases they do not understand. Instead, they are encouraged to believe that man is so clever today he can ignore past experiences, and that once respected principles are no longer valid. Then they wonder why mankind is not happier today and if, perhaps, some element influencing that happiness is missing. After all, there is a great difference between cleverness and wisdom. And in the area of wisdom the government leaves a great deal to be desired.
The function of government in promoting Canada's economic growth is to encourage a climate in which initiatives and incentives can operate for the good of individuals and society. To ensure that the Canadian economy will serve the common good of all Canadians it is necessary to combine economic growth, price stability, taxation equity, and regional development. This would not reject the need for government control or participation in specific areas, but it would require that the state not stifle the ability of Canadians to make their own decisions within the framework of social order and economic justice. It needs imaginative government action directed toward unleashing the potential of the people themselves to put the economy on a sound footing.
The major social and economic problems facing Canada today are those disastrous twins, unemployment and inflation. The government has not succeeded in stemming the relentless inroads it is making into the lives of all. Piecemeal and fragmented activity cannot overcome unemployment. Make work programs such as the Local Initiatives and Opportunities for youth, even though some of their projects are beneficial to a few communities and individu-

als, are merely temporary stop-gaps that simply cannot be considered as an organized attack on unemployment.
We need long-term, realistic guidelines, something conspicuously absent in many Liberal government policies. Some guidelines have been set by the Economic Council of Canada, but left largely ignored in their implementation. I ask why the council's sound advice has not been taken by the government? The government has the responsibility of defining a workable national development policy. That plan must begin immediately if the unemployment and inflation dilemma is to be solved. Canada's industrial potential must be thoroughly examined and priorities given to areas where our skills and resources yield the greatest returns.
The Science Council of Canada recommended, soundly, to this effect: that the co-ordination of policies within the different levels of government is essential in order to plan wisely. The economic planning must begin with the coordination of the departments of the federal government, and must have definite inter-relationship with the provincial governments, to the benefit of all bodies of the administration. The lack of co-ordination within departments of the federal government is quite evident, especially in the ministries of Regional Economic Expansion and Manpower. These departments tend to pursue their own economic ideals independently, and often in contradiction to the policies of the Department of Finance.
No economy can be really vital without competition and, to encourage it, greater efforts must be made to protect individuals and the public interest from abusive monopolies. It is imperative that the trust of the Canadian people in their economy and in their own abilities be restored to them. They must also be assured that their government is capable of tackling the major economic problems facing the country today. This trust can only be rekindled if the government takes the people into its confidence, outlines to them its strategy and objectives, and is willing to work with every sector involved in order to reach its goals.
The Economic Council of Canada has warned time and time again that public expenditure and taxation trends are accelerating wage and price inflation to much higher levels than is suggested by conventional budget-impact indicators. However, the government refuses to heed the warning.
Public sector growth adds to inflation, but what has the government done to curb its expenditure and growth? A comparative view of the expenditures will clearly indicate how the fires of inflation have been fueled. In 1974 the federal government spent twice as much as it did in 1969, three times more than it did in 1961, and 12 times more than it spent in 1950. If expenditures continue to increase at the rate which they did from 1973 to 1974, they will double in less than three years. This adds up to a daily spending of $78.8 million, an hourly spending of $3.3 million, and $54,000 every 60 seconds.
Almost half of this vast amount of money that the federal government spends comes directly from personal income taxes. The rate which Canadians are now paying has increased by a staggering 13 per cent in just seven years.
December 9, 1975

Total government spending for last year will be around $33 billion; almost 40 per cent of the gross national product. The question is, can the country afford this kind of extravagance at the present time? Considering the economic problems we face, I do not believe that we can.
Of this spending, approximately one half cannot be touched by parliament as it is in the form of statutory estimates which can be examined, but not reduced, by the House of Commons. Members of parliament, when asked to approve the estimates, do not receive government proposals in the form of meaningful programs in which objectives are outlined and justified on the basis of factual data. Because of rule changes in 1968-69, the estimates cannot be debated in detail but must be passed by a definite fixed date. These rule changes effectively curtailed the ability of parliament to hold effective reins on supply.
The result is that members of parliament must now spend long hours just trying to understand the format of the Blue Book estimates. Increasingly, moneys are concealed in the estimates and hidden in votes. The designation of votes which are hidden because of alleged security reasons is being used more and more often.
In the six short years of the reign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), from 1968 to 1974, the numbers on the federal payroll increased by a staggering 27 per cent, a record rate of growth in the history of Canada. The government most certainly does need a watchdog. Let us check, too, just what the national position is today in regard to federal civil servants.
In 1946, just after the war, there were 31,088 permanent federal civil servants to minister to a population of 12,500,000, or 403 people per government employee. The cost in salaries annually was $66,440,000, or $5.30 per Canadian. In December of 1973, 27 years later, the number of federal civil servants had risen to 254,610, a ratio of one civil servant for 87 Canadians, and the cost had risen to the astronomical height of $2,557 million. That works out to a $115 tag for administration services for each of us.
This does not include the additional employees, numbering some 143,600, in Crown agencies such as the Canadian National Railway and Air Canada.
Neither do these figures include a temporary staff of 35,400. Regardless of its alleged philosophy to the contrary, it is abundantly clear that the Liberal party is involving the government more and more in practically every aspect of the lives of Canadians; nor is there the slightest shred of evidence that would indicate that it intends to reduce this involvement.
What this means is that at the rate of civil service growth which we have experienced over the past, in another 27 years, under Liberal guidance, by the year 2000 there will be 2,820,700 civil servants burrowing into every facet of our lives, while it will be costing us $2,645 each for this service.
The most flagrant example of this in government ranks can be seen in the office of the Prime Minister himself. Indeed, in the years up to 1974, the total number of staff, personal assistants and advisers, has risen to 100 odd. Why then does the Prime Minister need a cabinet? The answer, of course, is that he does not. In effect then, we have a similar system to that of a president of the United States with all its abuses, but without the check of a congression-
Canadian Economy
al system. And our Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) stated that growth in government expenditure should be restrained.
Agriculture is a department which can very well illustrate the escalation of the numbers game. In 1946 there were 1,800 full-time employees of that department, which meant that the ratio was one federal employee to administer to the needs and requests of every 104 farmers. By 1973 that ratio had narrowed to one staff member per 24 farmers. At this rate, by the year 1984, there will be more bureaucrats in the agricultural field than there will be farmers.
With this vast body of employees engaged in the welfare of the farmer, who foresaw and planned for the drastic state that the industry is in now? Who worried then, and who is worrying now about the financial losses and anxiety that the farmer is enduring today? Agriculture cannot be viewed as a number of separate entities. It is a complete package, but a package with many components. The beef industry cannot be separated from the grain industry as each is woven into that of the other. A sound policy for administering the needs of the one must take into account the requirements of the other for the betterment of the whole.
Agriculture is not one of our more important industries; it is the most important. This fact was ably pointed out by the member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) in the House a short time ago, but as our most important industry, agriculture is not getting the priority it merits. Why are the farmers not more actively involved in working out improvements in their own industry? Rather than increase and improve some of the agricultural products in our country, the government has actually tried to restrict their production. As the welfare of agriculture depends on the efficient movement of grain, animals, and machinery, it is imperative that a viable transportation policy be developed.
Let us now examine just what the government has done to assist small business in this country. At the present time small Canadian businesses are caught in a cost-price squeeze. The Canadian Federation of Independent Businessmen has found that the small businessman is having to pay higher costs for his goods, and is forced into selling them at a higher price. In spite of this higher selling price and an increase in volume sales, only about one third of the businessmen have experienced higher profits.
As small business generates more employment, more real growth, and more tax revenue than does big business in Canada, it is time that the government realized that a comprehensive policy must include measures to stimulate small-business activity.
The massive amounts of money that are spent today on the unemployment insurance program are something that bears careful scrutiny also. An inquiry into its operation is definitely necessary-a public inquiry, not a witch-hunt, to get at the root problems of this debacle. Practical, sound solutions must be found to the fundamental questions which are arising from the mismanagement of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Disincentives to work are built into the act and something must be done to eradicate them. It is most important to make a distinction between an insurance program and a welfare plan in which the contritutions are merely another form of taxation.

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
This multi-billion dollar program should be looked at with a view to the overall social policies of all departments, and co-ordinated with them. The prime consideration must be the most efficient means possible of assisting persons finding themselves jobless, the ways of supporting them most adequately with the co-operation of all agencies involved, and of getting them back into the work force as quickly as possible.
It is becoming increasingly clear to a great many Canadians that a higher priority must be given to the quality of life in our country. Although it is essential for our social well-being that Canada enjoys sufficient economic growth to meet the needs of her people, we must be liberated from the "bigger is better" complex. Bigger is not necessarily better; otherwise why has Canada so many social problems after a generation of material prosperity?
Why are there five million Canadians living below the poverty level? Why have the numbers of crimes of violence increased so drastically? Why do so many people have to resort to alcohol and drugs for escape from reality? Why do they find it necessary to flee from the reality of living in one of the most richly-bestowed and beautiful countries in the world? Our values and opportunities must be emphasized to give greater meaning to life in Canada.
Government policies must reflect the realization that the worth of each Canadian cannot be counted simply in terms of input into the economic system. If, in the past, cities had to give priority to the hardware of municipal services they should now begin to emphasize those which will enable people to fulfil their potential. Our primary task should be to demand policies based on that premise, policies which will enable Canadians to lead lives of dignity, with meaning and responsibility. From infancy to old age, each person should have the opportunity to enjoy the fullness of life. We must hold the belief strongly that there is a need for a system of social justice that maximizes every Canadian's sense of individual initiative and enterprise.
Attention must be given to social development which has for too long been neglected, and it should begin with a clearer understanding of what a truly human and spiritual existence can be. Past indifference to this quality has brought us to the present situation where our populace is beseiged by ills of the spirit. We must realize that humanistic and spiritual considerations must become vitally important ones.
Government cannot legislate a meaningful lifestyle, but it can undertake programs designed to foster it. There is an urgent and compelling need to bring order out of the chaos of overlapping and cumbersome programs.
Policies involving senior citizens should be revised in order that they may experience a greater fullness of life. One never outgrows the need to believe in one's self-worth, but the trend in our society has been to demean the aging. Many older people sense that they are losing their identity as persons, and a physical approach to their condition is not enough. More positive efforts are required to help the senior citizen preserve his independent indentity.
Social justice must not be mistaken for socialism or for welfarism, because they are altogether different, Mr. Speaker. Let us not think that the socialists have a corner

on compassion. Indeed, the one thing I have noticed about them is that their compassion bears a marked relationship to their distance from an object and its source of funds and aid. They have great enthusiasm for public money going to foreign countries and for wonderful projects such as Petro-Can, but they have somewhat less enthusiasm for private money going to individual Canadians. They are great at giving out money as long as it is the public's money, but we dare not touch their pockets. My complaint is that those feelings of compassion have been smothered by years of state expansion until Canadians expect the state to do everything, because now it has gotten into everything. We must have a policy which is based on returning the state to its proper function of serving the individual, and not the other way around.
A socialist is one who thinks he knows all the answers. In fact he thinks that he knows what is best for an individual, even better than the individual himself. He strives for complete government domination of the economy and believes that the government should own, or at least control, all productive capital. "Public ownership" he calls it, or "belonging to the people". These are very slick phrases, Mr. Speaker, but let us ask the socialists: do we own Air Canada or the Post Office? Of course we don't. Nobody owns these institutions unless it is cabinet ministers and their bureaucrats who control the money-money which comes from you and me, the taxpayers. It is true welfarism has an immense political advantage and is the best cover-up for basic injustice. It has a built-in defence against criticism. But let us remember a statement made by Lenin.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He may, however, continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Peter Elzinga: I thank hon. members for giving me an opportunity to continue.
Let us remember a statement of Lenin's. He said that the way to destroy the middle class was to crush it between the grindstones of taxation and inflation. And that is just what the government is doing. The inadequacies of many of the proposals put forward by the government make me more and more aware each day that it does not have any positive solutions or policies to solve the problems of this country. Too many of the government's decisions reflect a strong tendency to put that which is expedient ahead of that which is basically sound from the long term point of view. It is time there was restoration of ideals and principles to their rightful place in our national politics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) has given us again the opportunity to deal with two economic issues which are a grave concern for Canada and the entire world, that is inflation and unemployment.
I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on both problems, especially on unemployment
December 9, 1975

and then more particularly on a few aspects of the antiinflation program introduced in the House of Commons eight weeks ago. Those two problems are important, not only for Canada but for the entire world. I noted it in the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Richmond. It is quite important in assessing the responses of the Canadian government to compare them with the responses of other governments and to consider also the conditions in other countries in comparison with the progress made in Canada.

As I was saying, the two questions of unemployment and inflation are questions which are of grave concern not only to us in Canada but to the broader world. The response to the hon. member's motion, as indeed the response to these problems, must therefore be measured against a wider backdrop. The motion put forward by the hon. member does provide an opportunity, on a day when we have seen the result of the Statistics Canada "Survey of Employment in Canada," to make some observations on the subject of unemployment and the difficulties we have been facing with a high unemployment rate, one at almost the same level on a seasonally adjusted basis since the spring of this year.
There is little in the statistics we saw today which could give anyone much satisfaction. Those who read the rules of economic prediction and from time to time seek to analyze the figures and draw conclusions about a trend, find, curiously, some support for the conclusion that the strengthening of the level of employment of males in the work force and females over the age of 25 indicates a strongly positive cyclical factor and may justify the prediction of a strong recovery within the Canadian economy in the quarters to come. Nevertheless, we cannot do any more at the present time than draw some hope from the figures. There is no ground for satisfaction.
One of the difficult questions of policy making with which we have been faced in this country is how to deal with two economic problems at the same time. One of the difficulties about proposing solutions is that one should not, on the one hand, undertake public expenditures which, while they might have a significant effect in terms of reducing unemployment, also run the risk on the other side of substantially increasing the rate of inflation in Canada. I suppose that the best sources one can look to in this regard are those in the Canadian business community who, from time to time, have to make decisions on the basis of government policy, so as to see the kind of conclusions they have drawn as to the extent to which we have arrived at some kind of balance.
Let me refer to the 1975 fall issue of Canada's Business Climate, issued by the Toronto-Dominion Bank, which put it in this way:
In spite of the serious reversals in housebuilding activity and the external trade balance, Canada's recession was shorter and milder than elsewhere in the industrialized world. Among the factors contributing to this was the sustained strength of business investment and, even more important, the federal government's swift move to an expansionary policy of tax cuts early in the recession. The speedy response helped prevent a serious erosion in consumer confidence and enabled the
Canadian Economy
volume of consumer spending to continue to increase for 1975 as a whole.
One is faced, in reading the conclusions both of the academic economists and those writing for the business community, with an ambivalence that occurs at all times. For example, Professors Wilson and Jump of the University of Toronto's Institute for Policy Analysis expressed regret at the June budget, having the feeling that it would have a contractionary effect on economic growth. They added that the contractionary impact of the budget on consumer spending would be magnified if the announced policy of expenditure restraint were put into effect this year.
So there you have it, Mr. Speaker. Side by side, or one after the other, you have the comments of the Toronto-Dominion Bank to the effect that the policies of my predecessor in budget making were of considerable benefit in cushioning the effects in Canada of the very much more serious recession that was felt in other parts of the world; and you have the concern, on the other hand, that the budget had not gone far enough.
Turning to another banker-economist, John D. Parish, senior assistant economist with the Bank of Montreal who warned in mid-September that heavy-handed policy actions aimed at fighting inflation by restricting the economy would mean a renewed period of recession before mid-1976. There is a third, qualified opinion indicating that our most serious concern is that expenditures in Canada should not be cut down at too great a rate lest there be the risk of increasing the level of unemployment in Canada.
This is a comment that should be set alongside that of the 17 economists led by Messrs. Crispo and Hartle, who have directed themselves to the question of inflation only, turning a blind eye to the fact that the kind of policies which they advocate may indeed be very successful in dealing with inflation in a harsh way but bring with them the very substantial risk that the rate of unemployment in Canada will be increased.
Going back to the first of my quotations, I would say to Messrs. Crispo and Hartle that they should consult their colleagues who are professional economists, and see if they can get together and form some collective opinion that will perhaps offer some more balanced solutions to the economic problems facing us at this particular time.
The second of the questions which the hon. member has raised in his motion concerns inflation. I suppose there has been no question that has absorbed more hours of parliamentary time since we resumed on October 14 than inflation, from the first day's discussion in general terms of the government's proposals to meet inflation, and then the specific terms of Bill C-73. I am not going to go over once again the broad terms of the program or the details of the bill, but in response to that part of the hon. member's motion which relates to whether or not there is perceived to be foresight or leadership in the program may I refer this time not to professional economists but to the Canadian people themselves. Let me put on the record the reaction of Canadians obtained in recent weeks by various surveys, one by the CBC and Radio-Canada, and another by the Gallup poll.
In the survey conducted for CBC News between November 25 and December 2, 61 per cent of Canadians, or nearly
9872

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
two thirds, declared themselves to be in favour of the federal prices and incomes program. The degree of support, of course, varies from region to region. Three out of four Canadians in British Columbia and the four Atlantic provinces favour the government's approach; the other regions were less enthusiastic in their support. But the survey shows on a national basis that, of those Canadians who expressed an opinion on the program, two out of every three favoured the government's attack on rising living costs.
The survey also revealed some interesting reactions regarding the public's perception of the single most important factor that has contributed to inflation in Canada. For example, 28 per cent of those surveyed felt that wage demands were the most important factor behind inflation; 24 per cent said that world wide economic conditions, including rising energy costs, were a major reason. Some 13 per cent felt inflation was due to expenditure by various levels of government, and only 10 per cent felt that profits were responsible.
Some rather interesting contrasts were provided in response to a series of questions having to do with expectations for the program. For example, 84 per cent of all Canadians agree that, to quote the question, "for the sake of the country as a whole, all Canadians should try to make the government's wage and price controls work". An even greater number, 86 per cent, said that they would personally accept controls and try to make them work. At the same time a lesser number, about one half, or 47 per cent, said they thought not enough Canadians would support the controls to make them work. I think those are revealing statistics indicating that while there is a great will on the part of a substantial number of Canadians to accept controls there is the feeling that their neighbours, others in the community, will not co-operate. Indeed it was because of the feelings that were revealed that my colleagues, after the course of the consensus operation last spring, came forward with this particular program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So that is the reason, is it?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The poll showing 61 per cent in favour of the program is matched by the Gallup poll, which found 62 per cent in support. The French network survey conducted with La Presse found 56 per cent support. I hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) laughing. I suppose one can only expect at this point in time that when he changes his position to being against controls the majority of Canadians will be in favour of them.
One of the interesting questions has been the extent to which the controls might be extended under the provisions of Bill C-73 which has passed the House. There have been extensive representations during the period of time that the white paper and the bill were before the public indicating that particular groups in the economy should, for reasons of strategic importance, be included within the controls program. The government's concern has been that the controls should be selective, that they should not be the kind of comprehensive controls on all aspects of the econo-

my that have been proposed by others. It is our concern that these controls should be selective in an attempt to control the principal sectors which, without that kind of control, could have the most adverse effect on the community.
We would conclude, however, that the governor in council should under Bill C-73, upon receiving Royal Assent, direct the Anti-Inflation Board to consider the situation in the following industries: the trucking industry; the construction industry, and here we are considering, of course, firms with less than 20 employees; the shipping industry on the west coast of Canada, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence; the longshoring industry; and the grain handling industry, with a view to recommending whether, in what manner, and to what extent designations should be made under 12(2) of Bill C-73 so as, for example, to cover present collective bargaining in these particular industries.
If the Anti-Inflation Board makes a positive recommendation in respect of any or all of the foregoing industries, and if the governor in council decides to designate some or all of these industries, the designation will take effect as of today and the designation will be applicable to both prices and compensation.
We are now engaged in this anti-inflation program, having moved to the end of the first phase, namely, seeking parliamentary support, and I would hope the bill will receive the support of the Senate within a matter of some days, and then we can have Royal Assent. At that point we will be able to move into the stage at which the Anti-Inflation Board and the administrator would be able to carry out the wishes of parliament as indicated in the bill.
I think we can at this time take some lessons from the reaction shown by the polls, namely, that there is a very substantial degree of support for this kind of program from the Canadian people. With the mobilization of this kind of support I think it is important not just for the government but, indeed, for all parties to lend their support in this effort to overcome inflation in Canada.
There may, indeed, be criticism of individual parts of the program, and there may, indeed, be criticism of the manner in which either the government or those appointed under the program may carry it out, but I think the ultimate truth, which I hope all will accept, is that none of us in this House or in the country stands to gain by continuing inflation. It is in that spirit that I hope we can arrive at an early reduction in the rate of inflation in Canada, and arrive at that point, which indeed I am sure is hoped for by all quarters in the House, where it ceases to be one of the major economic problems disturbing us in Canada.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) who took advantage of the opportunity he had tonight to reiterate all the hopes he puts in his anti-inflation bill. I for one wish that these hopes have lasted since the government presented its bill a month ago. However, I am sure they will disappear, alas too soon, whereas inflation will continue to increase.
December 9, 1975

Tonight I do not want to deal with various problems in particular, and thus demonstrate that there is only one sector of our economy that is ill. We could talk, for instance, about the economic conditions in the shoe-making industry, particularly in my region of the Eastern Townships where more than 75 per cent of the shoe manufacturers are now forced to close their doors. Every day, people with 30 or 40 years of experience must be laid off because manufactures in Acton Vale, Granby or in my region must close or lay off 75 or 80 per cent of their staff.
We could give the same figures for the furniture industry. In the textile industry, the situation is the same. We could also quote figures on unemployment in our area, as well as in the maritime provinces and elsewhere in Canada where the situation is almost identical.
Mr. Speaker, this evening I should like once again to bring up a matter in which we, Social Crediters, see the cause, if not the cornerstone, of economic unrest in Canada. I mean the financial situation in which Canada finds itself today. Before going any further with my remarks I should like to say that even before the Social Crediters sat in this House, there were people who said exactly the same things which we have said since 1935 or 1936 when we first came to this House. On the other hand, the famous words of illustrious people are still timely today because nothing was done about the recommendations they made throughout the history of Canada or that of the countries around us. For instance, in 1930, the most eminent Prime Minister England has ever known said something which could well be repeated again today in 1975. Sir Winston Churchill, in his Romanes lecture "Par-liamentiary Government and the Economic Problem" delivered at Oxford in 1930, said this, and I quote:

Who would have thought that it would be easier to produce by toil and skill all the most necessary or desirable commodities than it is to find consumers for them? Who would have thought that cheap and abundant supplies of all the basic commodities would find the science and civilisation of the world unable to utilise them? Have all our triumphs of research and organisation bequeathed us only a new punishment the curse of plenty? Are we really to believe that no better adjustment can be made between supply and demand? Yet the fact remains that every attempt has failed. Many various attempts have been made, from the extremes of communism in Russia to the extremes of capitalism in the United States. They include every form of fiscal policy and currency policy. But all have failed, and we have advanced little further in this quest than in barbaric times. Surely it is this mysterious crack and fissure at the basis of all our arrangements and apparatus upon which the keenest minds throughout the world should be concentrated. Lasting fame and great advantage would attend the nation which first secured the prize.

A former British Prime Minister said that all attempts had failed because there were tax reforms but no in-depth economic reforms.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to give some figures which speak for themselves: In February 1941, the U.S. debt was $65 billion. Because of the war, on March 28 of the same year, the debt jumped to $125 billion. And because the debt had increased so much over one month as a result of the war, a meeting was held with the leading U.S. businessmen and financiers. Here is what the financiers said to businessmen about war.
Canadian Economy
The bankers said to them through the soft-voiced High Priest of Banking, Bernard Baruch, "To hell with the cost. We are in clover again. We are in war. Jobs will multiply. Money will triple. Sirs, the sky will be the limit. We will build unneeded plants, remote from raw materials. The most costly way will be most pleasing to us. We will spend $15 million on a magnesium plant in the village of Austin, Texas, which will never turn a wheel; a $60 million iron furnace in the potato fields of East Texas, and its furnace shall never glow. We will hire all the crack-pots we can find to think up crazy schemes to waste money.

American or international bankers were then talking to American businessmen and politicians.

Go, go out to spend, pad your expense accounts, never forgetting the cost plus formula. And they raised the war debt to $300 billion.

Mr. Speaker, within a few months, following the wise advice of this grand priest of international financiers, the late Bernard Baruch who died a few years ago, the American debt went from $65 billion to $300 billion at the end of the war. Between February and March 1941, the debt soared from $65 billion to $125 billion. During the war, there was no problem.

According to Professor Rautenstrauch, Professor of Industrial Engineering at Columbia University, world debt increased by 47 per cent during the 17th century; during the 18th century by 466 per cent; during the 19th century by 12,000 per cent, and today is increasing at a still more rapid rate.
In the case of Canada ... from Confederation up to January 31st, 1936, the interest paid on this national debt amounted to $2,823,245,405- almost as much as the principal.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in 1975 we in Canada paid $5 billion more in interest on loans than the total of the present debt.
This means that if Canada had financed its federal bonds through the Bank of Canada, we would not have any debt and would now be left with a surplus of $5 billion.
Here is another quotation from a banker, the chairman of the Bank of England in 1920, then the second richest man in the whole British Empire. His name was Sir Josiah Stamp, which is neither an English nor a French name.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin ... The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control credit, and with a flick of the pen they will create enough money to buy it back again. Take this power away from them, and all great fortunes like mine would disappear. They ought to disappear. This would give us a better and a happier world to live in. BUT, if you want to continue the slaves of bankers, and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let them continue to create money and control credit.. . However, so long as governments will legalize such things, a man is foolish not to be a banker".

This is a statement by the chairman of the Bank of England in 1920. Moreover, during a hearing before the American Congress in February 1943, he said:
9874

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy

Cong. Wright Patman asked Marriner S. Eccles, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,
.. The U.S. Bonds ($20,000,000,000) the banks hold today-they created the money to buy those bonds, did they not?" And Mr. Eccles replied, "The banking system as a whole creates the (bank) deposits as (at the time) they make loans and investments, whether they buy Government bonds, or whether they buy utility bonds, or whether they make farmers' loans."
Lord Inchcape had the following to say:
A State may be made low just as effectively by wrong ideas as by an invading army. There is no agent of destruction known to chemists that is half as formidable as the T.N.T. of bad economics.

When I hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) refer to scholarly and influential economists, he should read what Lord Inchcape thought about the TNT, the wrong economic theories of present economists.

"When it is remembered that kings and governments have, throughout the ages, insisted with jealous care on their prerogative of issuing money and controlling currency within their jurisdiction, it is somewhat strange to find modern States accepting as axiomatic a limitation of their sovereignty in the sphere of money, so farreaehing in its effects on their powers and on the daily lives of their citizens, as is involved in their agreeing to conform in all circumstances to a standard of value over which they have no control." -Sir Basil Blackett, Director of the Bank of England.
"I have two great enemies; the Southern Army in front of me and the financial institutions in the rear. Of the two, the one in the rear is my greatest foe." [DOT]-Abraham Lincoln.

And, Mr. Speaker, I hope I will have enough time to get those many quotations on the record. I will get back to that in a few moments, but now I would like to refer to a book dealing with political economy. Some members believe that the members of the Social Credit party or the supporters of the Social Credit are certainly taking their stand on erroneous theories. I have here the manual of political economy used at Carleton University in Ottawa to teach students attending this university.
The authors of this book are three economists named Lipsey, Sparks and Steiner. It is not a book which was used in 1900, but it is still in use in 1975. Here is what is found in Chapter 36, page 611 of this book:
And it is comforting to note that everything suggested by the Social Crediters in the House concerning the creation of credit is fully confirmed by these three economists, and I would like to ask my hon. colleagues of this House to refer to this book so as to learn something about economics and politics. I would like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to do the same. For instance, as is stated on page 612, these economists say about the nine Canadian banks that the Royal Bank of Canada has assets of $12,959 million, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce $11,400 million, the Bank of Montreal $10,165 million, the Bank of Nova Scotia $7.85 million, the Toronto-Dominion Bank $6,549 million, the Bank Canadian National $2,281 million, the Provincial Bank of Canada $1,416 million, the Mercantile Bank $288 million, the Bank of British Columbia $178 million. It all adds up to assets of $53 billion for nine banks, which means that over an average of 50 years, these

Canadian banks, with a subscribed capital of something less than $10 million, have multiplied their sssets by 7,500. The nine Canadian banks have transformed deposits into an asset which means that with the $10 million invested, they now have more than $75 billion in 1975, and $53 billion when these figures were given by the economists.
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the banks have boosted their assets to $75 billion from a beginning of $10 million, and this figure of $75 million represents the whole national debt including the bonds of the federal government, the bonds of provincial governments, municipal bonds, school bonds and individual bonds. All these are part of the banking assets, and because of our outdated monetary policy, we print bonds, we mortgage the assets of our country and sell them to the banks which pay us with cheques drawn on the credits created by themselves from nothing, and these credits created from nothing are written off as debts due by the various government or public institutions of the country. We always have to pay taxes towards the interests on these debts which are due to the sacred financial institutions every 10 years under the renewal of the charter of banks by the federal government, which has created the greatest of all Canadian monopolies, the monopoly of bank credit, which is the absolute and unchallenged master of all other monopolies. I would like to refer to page 614 of Political Economy under the title "The Creation and the Destruction of Money". When the Prime Minister told us today that he must borrow money at a rate of 914 per cent, from whom does he borrow this money? He borrows it from banking institutions. Economists are now admitting what we have always said:
The ability of the banking system to create money is based on the fact that at any moment of time most of the banks' depositors do not require their deposits to be redeemed in currency. Just as the goldsmiths discovered that only a fraction of the gold they held was demanded, and just as banks discovered that only a fraction of convertible bank notes were actually converted, so too many banks have discovered that only a fraction of their deposits would be withdrawn in currency at any one time. Most of the deposits stay within the banking system. Even if I withdraw $3,000 to buy a new car, the chances are great that the car dealer will deposit my cheque in his account, and the banking system as a whole will have merely transferred deposits from one depositor to another. Here lies the secret of the mystery and the magic of the banks' ability to create money while they make money.

Mr. Speaker, it is that racket, that legalized racket that Social Crediters denounce. They want the Bank of Canada to create credit out of the Canadian wealth and when the federal government issues obligations, it is the Bank of Canada which should grant interest free loans on these obligations to the federal government. And that is the biggest rip-off, the biggest legalized racket. When there is talk of monopolies in this House, only small monopolies come under fire. But the monopoly of credit which is the master of all monopolies goes untouched, and it is that monopoly, Mr. Speaker, that we Social Crediters want to touch. I would have a lot of other very interesting papers to quote from those economists.

The banking system in Canada consists of nine chartered banks. The five largest account for 92 per cent of total bank assets and each of them has more than 700 branches.
December 9, 1975

The chartered banks are profit-seeking institutions that allow their customers to transfer deposits from one bank to another by means of cheques. They create and destroy money as a by-product of their operations-by making or liquidating loans and various other kinds of investments.

Mr. Speaker, at page 627, one can read the following:

When the Bank of Canada buys a $100 bond directly from a chartered bank, there is no change in the assets or liabilities of households, but chartered banks still gain a new deposit of $100. They can now engage in a multiple expansion of deposit money.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him is now expired.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to enjoy the same kindness as my-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may continue his speech if he gets the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent. Consequently, I must give the floor to another member. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).

There is not unanimous consent.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) for introducing this motion and for the subject matter, and to console the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on his feeble attempt to reply to what is a major problem in this nation.
Over a period of time the Liberals have indicated that they believe in establishing a fair and just society. We heard the minister in reply to this motion indicate that at best there was going to be rough justice, and he ended up making an appeal for the support of all hon. members and the support of the country for the anti-inflation legislation, knowing full well that that legislation will neither be fair nor just. A large number of people in this nation will be dealt with in an inequitable way. The anti-inflation program is unfair to the elderly, to the disabled, the needy and the young people of this nation. In making his reply the minister did not really say very much about a fair and just society.
The motion indicates that unemployment is one of the major problems with which we are faced today, and there have been a number of suggestions made as to how we will solve the problem and have full employment. The antiinflation legislation introduced previously to cool the inflationary trend created unemployment, and this piece of legislation has done nothing to allay the fears of the average Canadian. Today it was indicated that unemployment has again risen. This trend has been continuous since
Canadian Economy
the government took over in this country and, in my opinion, as long as this legislation is in force the trend will continue.
I asked a question today in the House regarding the problem faced by the pulp and paper industry. I suppose that many people do not know much about the paper industry, but it is one of our largest exports. In terms of labour, pulp and paper mills are under provincial jurisdiction, but there is a strike at Abitibi, in northern Ontario and northern Quebec which started back in July. It has not been settled; no meaningful negotiations are taking place; and the last negotiations were forced on Abitibi, by the Ontario government. When those meetings were held with the employers, the answer was that the formula of the anti-inflation guidelines, 10 per cent the first year, 8 per cent the second year and 6 per cent the third year, would be the basis of settlement. I am quite sure negotiations would have produced better than that early in the year, and certainly before going on strike if there had been good faith on the part of the industry.
There was a slump in the industry, assisted to some extent by the economic climate in the country and the fact that paper prices had gone up. In fact since 1972 the price of newsprint has gone up by 52 per cent, and processed bleached craft paper has gone up by 111 per cent between 1972 and 1975. The economic climate in this country created a situation where the pulp and paper industry has not had to deal with its employees. The government has provided the companies with the kind of loans that will permit them to ignore the plight of the communities in their areas. Most of those communities have only the one industry and are entirely dependent on it for their existence. They are in desperate straits, Mr. Speaker.
In northern Ontario 11 communities are seeking an injunction against the pulp and paper industry so that work can resume. The communities are financially bankrupt and their welfare load is impossible. I am surprised that this House is not giving some attention to this particular strike. The union concerned is a Canadian union which broke away from its international connections several years ago, and it now finds itself without money or support for its members. This is a strike which individuals are having to carry at great expense.
This is only one situation that has developed, Mr. Speaker. In large part the fact there is unemployment affects our ability to operate our educational system in a way that would train people for the jobs that are available. It is all right to bring people in from all over the world, but it hardly makes sense to bring in people who have to be provided with assistance if they do not find work when many of our own young people are unemployed. A few days ago I heard an employer complain that our young people will not work. I think this is true, Mr. Speaker, but I think we share the responsibility. We have either provided them with the wrong type of education or we are not providing them with training in the fields that will enable them to fill the available jobs.
It is true that many of the people receiving unemployment insurance benefits are not employable in the sense that they have a choice of employment. They are young
December 9, 1975

Canadian Economy
people who have worked only for a short period and do not have any experience. Because of this it is almost impossible for them to find jobs, and so they travel across the country becoming more and more disillusioned with the work ethic and our ability to provide employment.
It is interesting too that the Minister of Finance is not deriving any benefit from these young people. When we have this amount of unemployment, whether it be due to strikes or sickness, or any other reason, when people do not go to work, when we maintain a pool of 6 per cent unemployment, or 7 per cent or higher in certain areas, then I say we are not providing the type of leadership that is required to reduce the unemployment factor to a low level.
Members of the Social Credit party mentioned some of the other problems today. I think many of them go back to the financial institutions. While I am not an expert, I believe that we have too many banks in Canada. When banks make the highest profit of the corporate elite in our country then there is something wrong. Banking and finance should supply a service and should not be the greatest money-making business in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: There is always the argument that we should have more banks, and I understand that there are two more applications before us for charters. We have 11 banks already and have gone so far as to give the co-operative movement a bank. We have given British Columbia a bank, and we gave the Mafia a bank. Look at the Mafia bank, Mr. Speaker. I believed it would make a lot of money and it started out that way, but the shares have dropped from $17 to $3 and something. I believe they just changed leadership the other day. Even laundering money does not seem to be as easy to operate as numbered accounts in another country. We are not doing anything for ourselves in creating other banks.


An hon. Member:: Are you on the board of directors of that bank?


William Arnold Peters: No I am not, Mr. Speaker. I feel about our banks in Canada a little bit the way the founder of Christianity felt about the moneylenders in the temple. They are just about as repulsive as the moneylenders in days gone by, as far as I am concerned.
It seems to me the time has come to nationalize our banks. Let us not have the Liberals act so high and mighty about whether they can support this motion. Certainly they can. Through the Bank of Canada which it directly controls, the government made 15 per cent new money last year. All it does is add to our debt, but nobody gets upset about it any more. In the time that I have been here we have only once taken money out of circulation to pay something off the national debt. If we made the Bank of Canada the national bank, and made the other banks operate in the way they are supposed to, and not on the basis of creating new money by deposits-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: -if we were to lend the bank that money then we would be able to lend money to develop housing in this country. We would not give DREE grants to corpora-

tions without equity; we would give them that money and take equity, and if they wanted to buy the equity back they would have to pay for it and we would again get rid of the money in other investment. Mr. Speaker, we are manufacturing money today. Last year the Liberal party were Social Crediters and created 15 per cent new money by turning on the printing press. The Minister of Finance can verify that. In some cases their ideas are even worse than those of Major Douglas, because I do not think they relate to a numbering system so that they can get it back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: We are allowing money to be lent for housing, which is social capital. Few people, I think, take their houses with them when they leave this world. People leave their houses to their children and grandchildren. As most houses are built to last between 60 and 80 years at least, they are clearly part of our national capital. I see no reason why money should not be lent at interest rates just large enough to cover administration charges, because after all such money increases our national capital. I see no reason for lending to people who will merely speculate.
In Canada owning a house is one way of saving. You put your money into a house and hope that it appreciates with the rate of inflation. The psychology of the Canadian public is strange. People on the street were asked what they would do if they won $1 million in the Olympic lottery, most said they would take a trip, finish paying for their house, perhaps buy a new car, and put the rest of the money in the bank. Of 20 people interviewed in Sudbury, everyone said he would put the bulk of the money in the bank. That is how Canadians are. When they buy a house, they consider it the same as putting money in the bank.
Financial institutions have a part to play in developing this nation's economy, and they should work for the benefit of our people. Money, after all, is but a means of exchange. We manufacture it from paper, cannot eat it, do not like its smell; it does not last long, is not fireproof, water resistant or durable. Basically money is but a piece of paper we use for exchange. When we allow banks to lend eight or ten times the amount on deposit, we allow them to create money. They do this for their own benefit, not that of the country. What happens when any multinational corporation operating in this country, or any large business in this country, runs into difficulty? Really, in this regard the comment made a few minutes ago by the hon. member who quoted Lenin is pertinent. The money to help these corporations comes from our banks.
I suggest that hon. members would be well advised to eliminate present day abuses of our banking system and direct their attention to the provision of full employment. We should provide the Canadian public with the money necessary for doing what must be done. This would be better than merely creating money and adding it to our national debt.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us poses two questions. First, why are we in our present situation, and on a course directly opposite to that of our great neighbour to the south and almost every industrialized western nation?
December 9, 1975

Second, how can we best meet the social and economic challenges confronting Canadians?
The motion was moved in the House today because there is a widespread feeling that the Government of Canada has mismanaged its responsibilities. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) knew he was not telling the truth six months ago. He deceived the Canadian people in the last election, not unwittingly. No wonder Canadians now suspect anything the Prime Minister says or does.
The government now has difficulty telling the difference between the underdog and the underworld. Canadians face two great challenges, one being the economic challenge presently being debated in the House; the other, equally serious, the political and moral challenge facing this country. This is perhaps even more serious, because economic problems never start with economics. Their roots lie deeper in human nature and politics. They do not end with economics either.
Take a good look at our nation today. There is disarray at home and abroad. Just as the Canadian people are suspicious of their Prime Minister, so our international neighbours do not trust him either. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that Canada has lost its soul. I am inclined to agree.
As we know, events move in cycles. Look back at the Victorian age, with its strict discipline nationally, socially, and in personal life. It was followed by the so-called naughty nineties. That cycle repeated itself after World War II. Such cycles are part of our attitudes. It takes much longer to change minds than to change laws.
As I said before, this country faces two great challenges, the economic one, and the political and moral one. We must face and master both. What are our chances of success? I suppose it will depend on the kind of people we are. At present we live in what is commonly called a permissive society, which depends for its shaky stability on the spending of capital accumulated by the discipline of the past. Our people were trained by an earlier discipline in selfreliance, self-control, and basically loyal attitudes towards the laws, and could be ruled with a light rein. The trouble is that we failed to condition the modern generation to the same standards. The Prime Minister and government have not been good teachers. The motion before the House mentions the deterioration of our social climate. I agree with what it says.
All the same I believe that the demand for respect is appearing again. The so-called student revolt at the universities has passed its peak, and students themselves are beginning to react against the minority which almost destroyed some of our universities.
The demand for law, order, and discipline is also making itself felt in penal matters. This may be the result of some horrible murders committed in Canada of late. These may make it impossible for the government to resist the demand for restoration of capital punishment. The trend of opinion is there for everybody to see. Even convinced abolitionists are coming around in their opinions. They have come to believe, for instance, that terrorism is a type of crime in which death cannot be the deterrent available only to one side. We are seeing the beginnings of a strong public reaction which must precede any general restora-
Canadian Economy
tion of discipline in our society. Mr. Speaker, I hope it continues.
Probably the greatest single force changing and expanding the role of our federal and provincial governments has come from the push for equality. This has gone beyond the question of rights. The goal increasingly is to level goods and powers, and it has been popular to use the federal government to redistribute wealth and incomes, and equalize differences in education and background. The result is that our Federal government has become highly critical of business and has downgraded initiative and opportunity.
All agree that governments have a responsibility in providing help for the poor, the aged and unemployed. It has been accepted that different people will earn widely different incomes in our market economy. The difference seems to be that, of late, we have wanted the government to use its powers to restructure the economic system and equalize its rewards. I think the strength of this movement has been out of all proportion to the number of people who really subscribe to it. We must ask ourselves if there is a valid reason for insisting that the fast and slow, successful and unsuccessful, should all arrive at the same condition at the same time.
Recently this House passed a bill which will turn over control of this country for three years to a bunch of amateurs. In the past 30 years the bureaucrats in this country have become more mighty. The bill I spoke about will make them almost almighty. It will mean that what is law today can be changed tomorrow, and what is not law tomorrow can be made law the day after. It means the decisions that affect our lives will not be taken by the recognized institutions. They will be taken elsewhere. Some things are right and some things are wrong. This type of law is wrong.
We have tended to transfer the effective power over our lives from the constitutionally visible offices of the government to the vast network that is being brought into being in the name of protecting us from exploiters. It seems the very fact that government has made a start towards equality has created a demand for faster progress, and we see federal spending shifting away from the traditional federal functions, such as defence, foreign trade and so on, and toward federal programs that reduce the freedom of individuals and lessen the power of other levels of government.
We must save billions of dollars to develop Canada. There must be more incentives for Canadians to save that developing money. Unless the federal government simply prints more money, the only way it can get a dollar is by borrowing and taxation. When the government borrows, that limits the money available to private industry. And we all know that taxation directly removes it.
We now carry a great burden in Canada because we have built a monster of law and regulations that is clumsy, inefficient and inequitable and, worse still, one that appears unplanned and unco-ordinated in the response to our real needs. That monster is quite literally threatening to bring us to national insolvency and overshadowing everything. The government is spending, spending, spending far beyond the taxpayers' means.

December 9, 1975
Canadian Economy
There has to be some trade off between the move toward equality and efficiency. It is probable that the best economic solution will be the best social solution. We must have a government that clearly sets goals in that direction, goals we all understand and can work toward attaining. Our pyromaniac Prime Minister having ignited the inferno, now asks us to help dampen the fires of inflation. I do not oppose the fight against inflation, but I do oppose rules and regulations that will throttle our economy and stifle initiative.


Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to thank the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), and I want to say to members opposite that jealousy is a very destructive emotion. Anyone can tell another that he is a poor leader or can criticize a leader, when the critic himself or herself will never have to prove that he or she will ever have to lead.
Anyone can tell us what is absolutely right after the event. That is easy. But who is there in this extremely complex society who can be sure of what is absolute, or whether there is an absolutely right way to resolve the human conundrums? There are many ways to cope with human problems. No doubt there will be solutions that are partially right and partially wrong, but never absolutely right.
There has never been a time in history when our society has been more complex, more crowded, demanding, complaining, worried, and more clearly heard by the leaders of Canada today. In the past, much might have happened. There were wars and there was frustration, hatred and violence, but we did not know because it did not come into our living rooms.
Money today is the measure of success, but remarkably those who have money are greedy to take more. Nationalism is the curse of an immature segment of our society, over-impressed with their false sense of limitless wealth and super worth. These are the problems we face today. Money has become the measure of our success, and greed is the mark of those who never know when they have achieved that success. As a result we are chasing our tail in society trying to find ourselves.
It is in this atmosphere that we must have leaders, and we have them. This is a society where there is a psychic depression greater than even the economic depression. People live in fear and desperation. Worry is worse than the event itself when it happens. Even in affluence we have a large group of professional beggars, people who cry even when they are rich. Crime is so commonplace that we barely get over the tidal wave of one disaster when a new one is floating over us.
That is the kind of society in which you expect leadership. Society is getting leadership. There can be no absolute perfection because there is no absolute in human life. We all want peace. We all want prosperity. The children of the drug and bead cult cried out for peace and love. Every generation wants those two situations. They are the most difficult dreams to achieve since they both require the ultimate in unselfishness.
I could go on, but I want to talk about leadership. I would like to talk about the world we live in, but you people took too much of my time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: We have a leader. You voted with us once and I thought that was magnificent. You were right, as our leader was right, because the opinion count the other night said we were right.
The court of final resort is the people. The court will be heard in due time as it was heard on that most important issue of our time, inflation. The attack on inflation was rightly timed, planned, and carried out. The people have spoken. They are the most important.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is one of the leaders of whom we can be proud. The member on the side of the angels voted with us. Sixty-one per cent of Canadians favour our anti-inflation program. Only 22 per cent opposed it, probably NDP and Conservative, and 14 per cent remained silent.
Our Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) has done an excellent job for this country. He knows about the democratic process of collective bargaining. He knows that collective bargaining is a sacred trust.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: Come on you guys, give a girl a chance!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: The Postmaster General is a trade unionist at heart. How much more difficult for him. He knows better than you and the people at the top.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[DOT] <2140)


Simma Holt: They are not speaking for the rank and file of the trade unions. They are speaking for the elitists who would destroy Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I am still trying to tell you how great the Postmaster General is. He wanted a free vote for the rank and file, but members over there fought it down. It is democracy to give a free vote to the union membership. That is what I would want to see.
Now I come to our Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). Our Minister of Justice knows what is happening in the country. What is happening in British Columbia will spread across the country. The crime rate is tremendous. The minister is listening to the people. He has brought in sound reforms. He is working on them, and his record in the past in other portfolios has been magnificent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Our new Minister of Energy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What about the Whip?


Simma Holt: Our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has a most complex portfolio in terrible times. He doesn't want Canadians to use their energy
December 9, 1975

resources too quickly, yet they need them now. Try to resolve those two problems. Hon. members asked about our Minister of Energy. He is great.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Our Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has already shown great strength in his portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Simma Holt: You started it. You started talking about leadership. I am giving you a roll call of leadership.


An hon. Member:: What about the back bench?


Simma Holt: Oh, the back bench is splendid. But I am talking about the Minister of Transport. He is new on the job-


An hon. Member:: What about the Whip?


Simma Holt: Oh, the Whip is fantastic. Look at all the people he has brought out. Where are your boys?
The Minister of Transport has already shown great strength and courage in his portfolio. His intelligence and vigour will assure solutions to difficulties involving the dredging prices and the chronic problems of our railway system, and maybe we will get equalization of freight rates in the west through him because he is a westerner.
One last quotation. Everybody has used a quotation from somebody else-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order!


Simma Holt: I just wish to put one quotation on record-
The question, "Who ought to be boss?" is like asking "Who ought to be the tenor in the quartet?" Obviously, the man who can sing tenor.


Some hon. Members:: Order! Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section 10 of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the motion and of the supplementary estimates (A) and for the passage through all stages of any bill based thereon.
The question is on the amendment in the name of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin).
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
Canadian Economy


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost.


MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
[Stage Direction]
(A)
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That supplementary estimates (A) 1975-76, laid upon the Table Wednesday, November 12, 1975, be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-79, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1976, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-79, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1976, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought the government would have learned its lesson a year ago when it tried to pull off the same procedure. Now we have precisely the same attitude: the government is wasting time, running over the rules and over the restrictions of the Financial Administration Act and the British North America Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps the memories of some hon. members are not long enough to remember the BNA Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the Standing Orders no debate is permissible at this time. I should caution hon. members on both sides of the House, however, that the point of order being raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is a most serious one and ought to be listened to very carefully.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to engage in debate. I would merely raise the point of order with a reference to your own words and the

words of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) on December 11, 1974. In any event, to found my point of order I would refer to section 54 of the British North America Act which reads:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address, or bill is proposed.
Standing Order 62(1) reads as follows:
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
On the date the President of the Privy Council introduced Supplementary Estimates (A) for the year 1975-76 there did appear at the appropriate date of Votes and Proceedings the following entry:
Mr. Chretien, a Member of the Queen's Privy Council, delivered a Message from His Excellency the Governor General, which was read by Mr. Speaker, as follows:
And then followed the signature of His Excellency, and the following message:
His Excellency the Governor General transmits to the House of Commons Supplementary Estimates (A) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending on the 31st March, 1976, and, in accordance with the provisions of "The British North American Act, 1867" recommends these Estimates to the House of Commons.
The marginal note to clause 5 of the bill at page 3 reads: "Power to raise loan of $2,000,000,000 for public works and general purposes".
There is no provision whatsoever in the estimates, and I invite anyone in this House to examine those supplementary estimates to see if there is any provision, for increasing this loan limit notwithstanding the fact that at the passage of the main estimates earlier this year the power of borrowing was once again raised to add this $2 billion.
I would point out to Your Honour without going into detail, page 2139 of Hansard for December 10, 1974, and page 2142. At page 2139 I raised a point of order by way of a question as to the appropriateness of such a clause. The next day my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), raised a question of privilege precisely on this point. It was interesting to see the remarks of the hon. President of the Privy Council, who said:
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this was a most unusual proceeding. It was one that some of us were not aware of at the time the bill was introduced. I say, however, that a question was raised on a point of order, an explanation given and a vote taken. There was some opposition. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am not defending the procedure that was followed. I hope we can avoid this sort of thing in future.
I would then refer to the ruling on page 2144 of Hansard for December 11, in which Mr. Speaker found against my colleague on his question of privilege in that the matter had arisen the night before, and he ruled that a matter must be attacked or called into question immediately it arose. In addition to which Mr. Speaker ruled that because a vote had been taken and the appropriation bill passed, it was impossible to deal with the point of order.
December 9, 1975

Therefore at this time on second reading, when the bill is presented to us, after the first reading given it a few minutes ago, I call into question the appropriateness of the appearance in this bill of clause 5, which goes away beyond the terms of the royal recommendation. It never appeared there.
We were told one year ago that it was an unusual procedure, that it was wrong, and would not be done again. Now, in direct contravention of a standing order of this House which is clear and unequivocal, and of section 54 of the British North America Act, the government, with this appropriation act, seeks to have this House set aside its rules and run roughshod over the provisions of the BNA Act. I invite Your Honour to indicate that clause 5 of this bill goes beyond the powers of the recommendation of His Excellency, and must be stricken from the bill.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when this question was raised-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) quoted words I used last December, when the same point was raised by him. At that time I was quite unaware that the bill then before us included a clause of the kind which is before the House again today. My remarks were directed to this effect: that I was unaware of this, and therefore would not let it happen again. But this time I am aware.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, not only am I aware, but I have before me a list of acts in which a similar clause is to be found. I have 18 statutes, 18 appropriation acts passed between 1955 and 1974, in which a similar provision was included. On each of these occasions I understand that it was quite in order and quite within the terms of the constitution and the British North America Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Mitch to the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate my support for the position taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I suggest to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that any of the earlier precedents to which he referred must be looked at in the light of what was said when this issue arose one year ago. Surely the statement of the President of the Privy Council one year ago, to the effect that it would not happen again, should carry some weight.
I draw to Your Honour's attention the fact that we are operating under Order No. 28 on today's order paper, which reads as follows:
Consideration of a motion to concur in Supplementary Estimates (A) 1975-76, laid upon the Table, Wednesday, November 12, 1975.
A few minutes ago, after we had disposed of the motion for the day put down by the Social Credit party, Your Honour put to the House a question in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) to the effect that we concur in Supplementary Estimates (A) 1975-76. Thus far I suggest we were operating within the
Supply
rules of this House. However, I point out to Your Honour Standing Order 58(19) which reads as follows-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated earlier, the point of order involved here was alluded to almost 12 months ago. It is a very serious point of order, one in which I would be greatly aided by having the intervention of any hon. member who wants to contribute to the point. I would very much appreciate being able to hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I was about to draw to Your Honour's attention Standing Order 58(19) which is very pertinent to this whole situation. It reads as follows:
The concurrence in any estimate or estimates or interim supply shall be an Order of the House to bring in a bill or bills based thereon.
That motion was passed, the motion in the name of the President of the Treasury Board concurring in interim supply. That, therefore, was an order to bring in a bill based thereon. I submit in line with what has been argued by the hon. member for Edmonton West that the bill that has now been introduced is based in the main on the supplementary estimates that we passed a few moments ago, but that clause 5 of this bill is in no way based on the estimates that we concurred in tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit further that if one goes back earlier into Standing Order 58 and reads what it is all about in terms of the business of supply, he will find it clear that the business of supply deals with the passing of estimates; main, interim, supplementary, what have you. However, the business of supply does not open the door for the government to bring in other measures; financial, taxation, or what have you.
What we have before us now is a bill allegedly based on supplementary estimates that were passed a few moments ago. However, there is more in the bill than was in those estimates. There is clause 5 which is completely foreign to the estimates as a whole.
The estimates deal with the authority to spend certain money. Some of it is new money, some of it is transferred. But clause 5 is an authority to the government to borrow, in addition to all of the other moneys covered in the motion passed a few moments ago, up to $2 billion with authority to do that retroactively to April 1, 1975.
I submit, therefore, that the hon. member for Edmonton West is quite within his rights and is exercising his responsibility in raising this point of order. As you yourself have said, Mr. Speaker, it is a serious one that calls for serious consideration.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, our party, in full agreement with the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, wants to point out the unfairness of clause 5 of the bill before the House. The Prime Minister himself, today, during the question period, stated that the only sources of borrowed money the government resorts to are the taxes of the taxpayers, loans on the foreign market and bonds.

December 9, 1975
Supply
Mr. Speaker, through clause 5, which was never discussed by any parliamentary committee, Parliament is asked to grant the government the authority to borrow $2 billion; this will contribute to indebting Canadians further, under the absolute tutelage of the financial and banking system, without our having had the opportunity of discussing the clause. We oppose that clause, since it was never debated in committee. Never has this government asked permission from any parliamentary committee to borrow or be authorized to borrow the amount of $2 billion. Nor does the government divulge the rate of interest it will have to pay on that amount. As the hon. members for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, the government trespasses on the rights of Parliament by trying to impose upon us a financial and borrowing system that will indebt Canadians further, without considering the opinions of the elected representatives of the people. That is why we respectfully ask that this clause be declared out of order without reservation and, therefore, the whole bill.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the intervention of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member for Edmonton West was here during the time when two of these bills were presented. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was in the House in March of this year when we presented a bill which contained exactly the same provision, and he raised no objection then. We are not contravening the constitution in what we are doing here. What we are trying to do is to obtain authorization for the following funds.
I agree that Standing Order 62 was passed pursuant to the British North America Act. Standing Order 62 reads;
This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or any tax or impost to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House-
We are not attempting to do that. We are seeking approval to obtain moneys by way of borrowing in the usual manner, as provided in the Financial Administration Act.
With reference to expenditure, it cannot be made without the approval of the House. There is no doubt about that. That is the role of the estimates we are presently studying. There cannot be expenditure without approval. However, under the Financial Administration Act there is power to seek funds in the usual way by borrowing on the open market in the manner provided by the statute. These funds are expended under the control of the House.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) dragged a red herring across this argument by bringing in Standing Order 58(19). It is true that Standing Order 58(19) provides that there has to be an order of the House in order to pass the estimates. There is no doubt about that, but the standing order does not prohibit this parliament from-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out to all hon. members that I am taking this point of order, I say for the

third time, most seriously. In order to take it seriously I have to be able to hear the arguments on both sides.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Standing Order 58(19) in no way prohibits the practice that has been adopted by the House and carried on since 1955. Undoubtedly the gentlemen who were sitting in Your Honour's position were made aware of the provisions as the bills were presented, and there is no doubt that the procedure presently followed by the government is in order. I suggest the reasoning of the Chair at that time was exactly that advanced to Your Honour, namely, that the government is attempting at this time through clause 5 of the bill to seek authority to borrow, not to expend funds. Funds can only be expended when the estimates are approved by this House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make one or two suggestions to Your Honour in connection with the point that has been raised. With regard to the historical argument, may I point out that very significant changes have been made to the whole supply procedure since the days referred to by the government House leader.
The most serious point I want to make to Your Honour is that I believe you should adopt in this case a very strict construction, because there are some very unusual rules under which the bill proceeds through the House. There is no provision for debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, in committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister has just made my point for me. He says there is debate in committee-debate on the estimates, examination of the estimates, yes, but absolutely no examination or possibility of debate on this clause. Therefore I content myself with saying that there is very clearly a heavy burden on the government to justify including any measure, whether it relates to borrowing or to divorce, in a bill that cannot be debated. I therefore suggest there would have to be very unusual reasons, which have not been put forward tonight by government spokesmen, for justifying the inclusion in a bill that cannot be debated any provision that was not included in the estimates.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I agree totally with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that you should apply a very strict construction to the words used in section 54 of the British North America Act and in the standing orders. As my colleague from Nipissing pointed out in his very able address, the words "appropriation," "estimates", and, in the case of section 54, the words "vote, resolution, address, or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue" mean exactly that and no more.
These supply procedures are in effect the authority to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund, or to make payments as provided in the estimates for this particular purpose. Section 54 is confined to payments out only. It does not apply to the borrowing authority exercised by the Government of Canada traditionally over the years.
December 9, 1975

The borrowing authority is dealt with by the Financial Administration Act, Section 41, which provides that no money shall be borrowed for a security issue by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of parliament. We are not talking about the case of borrowing for payments out, we are talking about securities or loans issued from time to time by the Government of Canada for the purpose of pay-outs in actual funds. In that sense I would agree with the Leader of the Official Opposition that the strictest construction is to be applied.
When we are talking about the estimates and Section 54 of the British North America Act we are talking about payments out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The borrowing power of the Government of Canada is not restricted by the British North America Act in the same way, and it is for that reason that for many years we have followed this procedure of authorizing this borrowing in this particular bill without having preceded it with the same kind of recommendation as is necessary in the case of payments out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I note that no other hon. members to my right seem to wish to intervene in this very interesting point. There are several on my left who have indicated their desire, but I have refrained from hearing them, a fact which I suppose may give some indication of the position I propose to take.
The practice involved in examining and coming to a decision on the supply of money by parliament to the government has undergone some changes in the recent past. However, this still leads to the situation in which, as this evening, the House has had to address itself to all stages of a supply bill without debate and without amendment.
Accordingly, as I think all members who have participated in the discussion have agreed, the strictest interpretation of the rules has to be applied in terms of all clauses of the bill to which the House is addressing itself.
The practice of including in a supply bill a clause which gives to the government the power to borrow money has been referred to, or defended almost exclusively this evening on the basis of the fact that it has been the practice of the House for many years. The fact of the matter is that in respect of supplementary estimates, it has been the practice only very recently. Since 1955, I may say to the House, that kind of clause has been presented only in relation to the main estimates or, in some cases, to interim supply. Its occurrence or presence in a bill which is related, as is this bill, to supplementary estimates is a most recent occurrence, indeed.
If I were to indicate my disapproval, that would probably be not very important. I must go back a year ago to the disapproval of what was suggested or put forward in this House, in unequivocal terms, by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). This has already been quoted by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), but the remarks I think bear repeating. This was said by the President of the Privy Council almost exactly one year ago, and it is as< follows:
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this was a most unusual proceeding. It was one that some of us were not aware of at the time the bill was introduced.
Supply
He was referring to the presence in the supplementary estimates supply bill of a clause relating to the borrowing power of the government. He said:
-this was a most unusual proceeding. It was one that some of us were not aware of at the time the bill was introduced. I say, however, that a question was raised on a point of order, an explanation given and a vote taken. There was some opposition. However, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I am not defending the procedure that was followed. I hope we can avoid this sort of thing in future.
There is an historical ground or some justification for including in a supply bill which relates to the main estimates, and even a supply bill that relates to interim supply, a clause which relates to the borrowing power of the government. However, the inclusion of such a clause in a bill for supplementary estimates as in the bill before the House tonight, seems to me to be totally without justification, as I understand the remarks and the stand taken by the President of the Privy Council almost exactly one year ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would therefore suggest at this stage, when the supply bill is about to go through all stages before this parliament without debate or without amendment, that in my view it can only go forward through that sort of process if clause 5 can be stricken from it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I might add that according to our standing orders there is no provision for debate or amendment, therefore no provision for discussion of any sort. A point of order has been raised, one that was raised a year ago. I take it as a valid point of order, and I order that clause 5 be stricken from the bill and that the bill proceed for consideration.
It would be most serious and a grave step to interrupt in any way the process of supply at this time and I do not propose to do so. The borrowing-power clause is clause 5, and I ordered that it be stricken from the bill and that we proceed through all the stages of the bill. But this does not open in any way any clause for discussion, debate or amendment. It should proceed quickly and without discussion through all stages.


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the second reading motion was proposed to the House, the hon. member for Edmonton West raised a point of order. That point of order has been taken and has been decided. I have ordered that clause 5 be stricken from the bill and I now put the motion for second reading. Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill be now read the second time and referred to committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill as altered read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Shall Clause 2 carry?

December 9, 1975
Supply


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member for Bellechasse rising on a point of order? May I remind the hon. member that there is no debate, no question, no reply from the minister, and that he must stand at his place to rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Bellechasse on a point of order.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I understand the ruling of the Chair; I wish however to rise on a point of order. I should like us to consider very seriously a situation which occurs every year when-


Some hon. Members:: Quiet!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, did you recognize me so that I could rise on a point of order or not?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I should like hon. members to let the Chair hear the point of order; if there is no point of order, I shall come up with a ruling. However, hon. members must let the hon. member make the point he intends to discuss.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I find your decision quite wise and honest. Here is the point of order I want to make. A bill of this kind is put before us each year, with the same preamble referring to Her Majesty the Queen as if we had to ask for her authorization to run our country, to get the funds necessary to face the administrative obligations and expenses. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this wording is obsolete, that we should use a different wording to express ourselves in a language all Canadians understand.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I must point out to the hon. member that the point he is raising is not a point of order which can be accepted for the moment and, secondly, that it is not permitted in this House to cast a reflection upon Her Majesty the Queen nor upon our institutions. So, I have to tell him that his point of order is not acceptable, and I hope we will be able to move along now.

Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
On clause 6-
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, should not clause 6 be renumbered clause 5?


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed that clause 6 be renumbered and become clause 5?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 5 as renumbered agreed to.
[The Chairman.]


Gérald Laniel: Shall the schedule carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gérald Laniel: Could we have order, please? Some hon. members are coming into the House, and we are voting. We are in committee. We are still in the House of Commons, and I hope hon. members will follow the rules.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Bill reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed. [Translation]
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I think that the microphones, the "mikes" as the Prime Minister would say, are working on this side but not on the other. We said nay to this bill and I should ask you, according to the Standing Orders, if the yeas or the nays have it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall mention to the hon. member that the Chair has ruled and that the motion was passed. The Chair did not think that hon. members who said nay did it seriously.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the hon. member would resume his seat-


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall ask the hon. member to resume his seat. I shall point out to him that each time an hon. member says nay, if he thinks that the Chair did not
December 9, 1975

hear him he just has to rise. If he says it only for his neighbours, it is then very difficult for the Chair to establish what hon. members might think at the time of the vote. I think the hon. member did not rise. He does only after the Chair put the motion, after it was passed. I cannot accept his request to put the motion again.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member rise on the same point of order or another one?


André-Gilles Fortin: No, it is another one, Mr. Speaker. You called me to order saying that I was not serious when I said nay.
Supply


Some hon. Members:: It is true-


André-Gilles Fortin: The Liberals will say it is true. It is because they do not say what they think.
Mr. Speaker, when I said I was against the bill-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I ask the hon. member to sit down because he did not rise on another point of order but is instead continuing the debate, and the Chair is not prepared to allow this debate.
It being past ten o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 11:05 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, December 10, 1975