1976-11-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The continual deterioration of telephone communication to the province of Newfoundland indicates a lack of responsibility by Bell Telephone with regard to serving all citizens of Canada on an equal basis. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House orders that the recent increase announced by Bell Telephone be denied until it can prove that it can provide reasonable and adequate service in line with its responsibility to all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The matter concerns the firing of the chairman and vice chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission and the subsequent appointment of the executive assistant to the Minister of Agriculture to fill the position of chairman of that commission. This is an act of blatant political patronage, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That, because of the actions of the Minister of Agriculture, this House approve unanimously a motion calling for a full public inquiry into the operations of the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLEMENTARY RETIREMENT BENEFITS ACT
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a question of urgent and pressing necessity before this House. It is the question of whether some members of our Canadian forces and members of the RCMP should be further discriminated against and treated as second class citizens because of the subsequent amendments to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act in 1973 which provide the accumulated cost of living increases on a qualification date when a minimum age of 55 plus-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, will he put it forthwith.


George H. Whittaker: 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House urge the government to consider amending the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act to provide for the reduction of the magic 85 formula to 70 and the indexing of the new formula to the cost of living.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be presented to the House only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 15, 1976
974________
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of strong and continuing indications that the general situation at Statistics Canada is much more serious than the minister was first aware or willing to concede, as evidenced by complaints about data interpretations relating to the measurement of the gross national product, complaints from metropolitan Toronto officials about census procedures and so on, 1 want to ask the minister when he is going to or if he intends to come out of his defensive position and provide more positive and factual information about the operations and policies of Statistics Canada, before the credibility of calculations such as those upon which the cost of living allowances in labour agreements come into question and other areas of Statistics Canada purview such as the dairy industry statistics are discredited.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is no point in changing my position, as I am expected to go shortly before a House committee to account for the supplementary estimates of my department and, at that time, if the hon. member wishes to ask me questions in all those areas, I shall be happy to answer them.
This morning I had a long talk with Statistics Canada, chief statistician Dr. Kirkham who told me he would be very pleased to reply to all questions hon. members of this House may put to him, because he is as concerned as I am over the image projected by Statistics Canada. However, I do not think it is very helpful at this moment to go and rummage through files which were reviewed four years ago by the RCMP whom I trust absolutely and who concluded that there may have been a conflict of interest but there was no criminal act. Under the circumstances, I do not see any point in continuing that way but Dr. Kirkham and myself shall be glad to appear before a House committee at the first opportunity.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, as usual I thank the minister for his courteous reply but to put it on a current basis and not go back four years, may I ask why a search has been ordered recently in the public archives by the chief statistician? Would the minister care to indicate why this was done?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the chief statistician of Canada to take all necessary steps to advise me of all incidents which may have occurred within his organization. He must of course carry out a full investigation, and I have asked

him to go as far as possible to prevent any likelihood of his organization breaking up through innuendos. I think that, under these circumstances, Dr. Kirkham has acted with utmost diligence and he has taken all necessary steps to advise us of all the conflicts of interest he might find. I can only thank him for that.
As to the report on National Product Figures, I should like, with leave of the House, to table a statement providing the technical explanations requested by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), and as it is fairly long, I seek the consent of the House to table this report which was provided by Dr. Kirkham, explaining the problems and the remedies he intends to propose.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ALAN JEFFERY ASSOCIATES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister indicate whether all the internal memoranda related to Alan Jeffery Associates such as those documents between Messrs. Snyder, Andrews, Berlin-guette and Dr. Ostry as well as communications to Statistics Canada security and legal officers are being safeguarded and will be available to any sort of impartial inquiry such as the minister agreed to earlier, should he decide to proceed and need those documents?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 
MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF FINANCIAL GUARANTEES BY GOVERNMENT TO CONSTRUCTING COMPANY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources having to do with statements made by Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Ltd. to the effect that one year
November 15, 1976

ago they made formal representations to the cabinet with respect to financial guarantees for the proposed Mackenzie Valley pipeline. In view of the fact that the treasurer of that company, Mr. William Stewart has said before the National Energy Board hearings that such guarantees would be absolutely essential before the company could proceed with its financial arrangements, may I ask the minister this simple question: Have any guarantees been given or does the government intend to give such guarantees and if so, what is the nature of those guarantees?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I should correct part of the preamble to the hon. member's question when he said formal representations were made to the federal government by Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Ltd. About a year ago they did provide to the interested department an assessment of the situation. This assessment would require guarantees on the part of the government but at that time no request was made to the government for such guarantees, nor have any guarantees been given. On the second part of the question as to whether guarantees would be given in the future, that of course will have to await the outcome of the hearing.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. According to the treasurer of the company guarantees were implied in the financial proposals placed before the National Energy Board and according to one member of the board, "to some extent the application of the company is hypothetical." May I ask the minister if it is not necessary either to decide now with respect to these guarantees or suggest to Canadian Arctic Gas Pipeline Limited that they should withdraw their application since, if the National Energy Board should decide to give approval to this company, the Canadian government may find itself in this position: That approval has been given to a company on the assumption that guarantees will be forthcoming and both the government and the Canadian parliament may find themselves in an awkward predicament?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it would be premature at this time to speculate on whether guarantees should be given. I am cognizant that this particular applicant has also conveyed to the administration in Washington the view that, if that happened to be the particular gas line chosen or approved, similar guarantees would be required from the United States government. It is clear that the United States process has by no means run its course yet; nor has ours. Therefore, I think a further statement on my part at this time would be premature.


MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR DEBATE PRIOR TO APPROVAL OF CONSTRUCTION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? In view of the uncertainty with respect to guarantees both by Canadian and the United States governments and since a member of the National Energy Board said the other day that no firm gas
Oral Questions
supply contracts have yet been entered into, will the minister assure the House that if the National Energy Board makes an affirmative recommendation with respect to building the Mackenzie Valley pipeline, no action for proceeding with the pipeline will be taken until the matter has been placed before parliament either in the form of a resolution or in the form of legislation, so that we will not debate a fait accompli in this House with respect to a matter so important as the Mackenzie Valley pipeline?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor made it clear that he would welcome, as I would, a thorough examination of the whole issue. Indeed, I believe the standing committee has made it its business, and the hon. member is a member of that standing committee, over the past year to bring before it from time to time various spokesmen for the various applicants. 1 hope the standing committee will decide to do the same thing during the course of the ensuing months so that it will be in a better position to assess recommendations, when those recommendations are provided to the government.
On the question of whether there should be a particular debate in the House or whether the discussions should take place in committee, 1 think we will need to consider that matter further.


WHARVES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
During the last session, through you, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister on several occasions to give us a progress report on negotiations with the Quebec government on the transfer, from the Quebec government to the government in Ottawa, of the jurisdiction over a number of wharves. On those occasions, the minister replied that he would inform the House of the results of negotiations which were making good progress. Is the minister in a position today to tell the House whether negotiations have been completed and what their results were?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to give me more specific information about the items he has in mind and I can try to give him the specific information.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, to be more specific, I am thinking here of the transfer of jurisdiction of the wharf at Montmagny and other wharves located along the St. Lawrence River, which are used by the inhabitants of the islands to maintain contact with the mainland. Those negotia-

November 15, 1976
Oral Questions
tions, according to the minister, were entrusted to some of his officials and their counterparts of the Quebec government.
As the matter is extremely important because those wharves are deteriorating for lack of maintenance and communications are that much more difficult I must say it is urgent for the islanders to know what decision the Department of Transport has come to in this regard. If negotiations are at a standstill, obviously there will be no transfer. What does the minister then intend to do to keep those wharves in good shape which are absolutely necessary to ensure good communications?


Otto Emil Lang: I will report as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: 
DATA ALLEGEDLY OFFERED FOR SALE BY ALAN JEFFERY ASSOCIATES
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be more appropriate if a statement were made on motions in order that we could have a proper debate on this issue. Nevertheless, with regard to the answers the minister has tabled to written questions by my colleague from Central
(Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).]
Nova relating to the activities of Statistics Canada employees and a possible conflict of interest arising therefrom, will the minister inform the House whether he has received information on any data derived from Statistics Canada sources which was offered for sale to any other organization or individual by Alan Jeffery Associates or any other employees of Statistics Canada associated with Alan Jeffery Associates? The minister failed to answer that part of the question in the written response. Accordingly, the response was incomplete.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I tried to give the most complete answers to all those questions, and I said earlier, in reply to the hon. member for Central Nova, that I would be willing to appear before a committee of the House when supplementary estimates (A) or (B) will be considered. I think there will be a vote for my department. I know that, under those circumstances, hon. members of the opposition as well as those on the government side will have the opportunity to ask me questions. I talked with Dr. Kirkham this morning and he told me he would be happy to answer all those questions. Everyone will understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite difficult to answer such questions during the oral question period. There are so many matters to cover that I will be happy to answer all those questions before the committee. In the meantime, I would be happy to table a written answer to the questions of the hon. member which covers several specific points, but as his question does not appear on the order paper, I did not think I could answer it this way. I thought he would be glad to hear that I expect to appear before the committee to answer all questions.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in a debate about the shortcomings of the committee system with regard to obtaining information from the government. If I may, I will direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Were the R.CMP informed that Mr. Snyder had received authorization for other moonlighting activities regarding other shopping centre sales data from the then chief statistician, and is the minister in a position to detail the suggestions she may have made or authorization she may have given in that instance? What other outside activities of Alan Jeffery Associates, other than the University of Toronto and Ontario government projects were known in the course of that investigation by Statistics Canada officials?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any knowledge of the specific facts the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House. I will be pleased to check into them. I would like to say, however, in answer to his
November 15, 1976

more general question of two weeks ago and that of his colleague, after looking into the matter the RCMP informed me there was no suggestion whatever of any interference or hindrance brought to bear in the investigation of this matter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with permission, I have some information to give the House on this subject. The questions to which the hon. member referred were looked into by the RCMP at the time of the investigation of Alan Jeffery Associates and no evidence of any impropriety was found. In fact, what Mr. Snyder was trying to do was repeat a type of study he had conducted in 1962 with the authorization of the then minister of trade and commerce.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, i have a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. When does the minister intend to introduce the government's bill setting forth proposals with regard to access to government documents so that the House can get on with the business of passing a workable freedom of information act which would have the revolutionary effect of eliminating or diminishing official deception and the hiding of documents, so that situations of the kind referred to by my hon. friend are not likely to recur.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: We are, of course, awaiting some good advice from the committee which has been studying this matter, but quite apart from the operations of that committee a good deal of attention is being paid within the government at the present time to the possibility of taking further steps in the direction we have been following consistently over the past several years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: A good thing you are not on the road!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question will be directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the environmental assessment of the Nanisivik lead-zinc mine located on Baffin Island, reportedly prepared by Mr. P. S. Blackall, a federal environment inspector. In view of the fact that the report, citing unacceptable environmental practices, is alleged to have recommended the cancellation of the mine's industrial water licence, will the
Oral Questions
minister tell us what plans have been made to ensure that the mine meets federal environmental standards? Further, has he set any deadline by which the company concerned must meet those standards?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the company has agreed to rectify the situation. They will file a compliance schedule with us by November 19 and that schedule will have to be implemented before next spring.


William Herbert Jarvis: Is the minister aware that according to Mr. Blackall the mine has yet to implement a number of other recommendations in addition to those concerning water quality? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that the additional quality control structures required are installed? I think Mr. Blackall has indicated that only 33 per cent of the recommendations have been implemented.


William Warren Allmand: I was not aware of those other deficiencies but I am pleased they have been brought to my attention. I will pursue the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As the minister knows, the ministers of the OPEC countries are meeting in Vienna to discuss a possible increase in the price of oil. Has the government of Canada made any representations to OPEC on that subject?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: The International Energy Agency met last week, and Canada is, of course, a member of that agency. A strategy, if that is the proper word, was devised at that time and I am sure an appropriate message has been effectively conveyed to the OPEC countries.


James McPhail Gillies: Given the fact that the government of the United States has made two separate presentations to the OPEC ministers on the ground that a rise in crude oil prices would have a most deleterious effect on the world economy, and particularly on the economies of third world countries, does the minister not think it would be useful and valuable for Canada to make its views known on so important a matter? Indeed, could the minister tell us what Canada's position is?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I agree with what the hon. member has said. Not only do I agree, but we have anticipated him in the sense that my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, has made representations to several of the OPEC countries. I have personally done so, and our position has been conveyed to the OPEC countries per se. I think it is fair to say that we are in the same position as the United States in hoping

November 15, 1976
Oral Questions
there will not be an increase decided on by OPEC at its meetings in December.


GARRISON DIVERSION-UNITED STATES POSITION ON MORATORIUM ON CONSTRUCTION OF LONETREE RESERVOIR
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the government of Canada send a diplomatic note to the United States government on October 12 formally asking for a moratorium on the construction of the Lonetree reservoir as a part of the Garrison irrigation project, and if this is the case, what response has been received?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that on October 12 we did indeed submit a formal note to the Secretary of State's department in the United States along the lines indicated by the hon. member and as reported over the weekend. To date we have not had a reply from the United States administration. I have been advised informally that that reply may be forthcoming within a matter of a couple of weeks, but up to the present time there has not been a reply. Incidentally, if the hon. member or the House so desires, I would be glad to table the note.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his offer to table the note, but in view of the fact that the government had decided to wait for the report of the IJC before taking further action on the matter, is the new Canadian posture based on evidence that there will be pollution and degradation of boundary waters as a result of the construction of the Lonetree reservoir?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think our posture is that we simply do not know if that is going to be the case. Because of the uncertainties, and because these cannot be resolved in the absence of the detailed report of the IJC, this is precisely why we requested the United States administration to refrain from any further construction. In other words, we are not clear, and I doubt very much if anyone can be specific at the moment, as to what impact the construction of Lonetree will produce. That is why we felt that a moratorium should be decided on by the United States pending completion of the IJC report, which I think hon. members are aware will not be completed, because of its complexity, until some time late in the spring of 1977.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of public concern at the travel arrangements of the Minister of Transport over the last few days, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not he is now considering revising the

guidelines dealing with the use of government aircraft, and would he make these guidelines public?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I stated in the House the other day the intent and the effect of the guidelines. They are that planes, government transportation, can be used only when the public duty of a minister is involved. Unless the hon. member has a better guideline, I think that is the one that should continue to be practised and which has been practised in this country for 30 years.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would not the Prime Minister agree that flights such as the one taken by the Minister of Transport in April, 1975 to Saskatoon-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely, the hon. member is prefacing his question with an argumentative assumption. It may have acceptable substance but perhaps he would try again.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Can the Prime Minister say whether or not a trip taken by the Minister of Transport in April, 1975 to Saskatoon, after which he took a group on a sidetrip to Regina on a government plane to attend a private party at-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a very legitimate line of questioning for another forum at another time, but certainly not for the question period.


Mr. Fairweather:: I have a legitimate supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I just want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the guidelines include a clause that would prohibit the minister from taking a government aircraft to a party at his brother-in-law's place, as he did in April, 1975?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister let us know whether he preferred tea, coffee or milk on his-believe it or not-Air Canada trip to Saskatoon last weekend?


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a reasonable question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister indicate whether he has had an opportunity to discuss the task force review report on search and rescue with the Minister of National Defence? In view of the fact that time is of the essence, would he indicate when he
November 15, 1976

will table the report and can he report any progress to the House?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to learn that when the hon. merhber says he has a reasonable question it is a reasonable one, unlike the illegitimacy of his colleague's "legitimate" supplementary question. I am happy to say that the Minister of National Defence and myself have been having discussions concerning the search and rescue facilities, and moves are already underway in relation to the various improvements which will be in the hand. A fuller statement and announcement about all of this will be made in due course with the appropriate background material at that time.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the Minister of Transport will remember, some two weeks ago he spoke to the leader of the opposition in Newfoundland, Mr. Roberts, and said that he would reconsider whether or not to order a judicial inquiry into the sinking of the San Juan off the coast of St. John's West last February. As the minister knows, there are many people in Newfoundland who are not satisfied with the private inquiry that was held by the Department of Transport. The minister then said that he would reconsider whether or not there should be a judicial inquiry. Would he now tell the House whether or not he has now reconsidered and what his decision is?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I indicated at that time that I would certainly investigate the several facts, which were the first facts which had been brought to my attention, which seemed inconsistent with anything that had been contained in the earlier summary report. I have had those facts further investigated, particularly the allegation that the radio on the San Juan was not in working order, which certainly was contradictory of the statements which had appeared as the basis of the report to me on the circumstances surrounding the San Juan incident.
I have since ascertained very firm confirmation of the fact that there was radio contact between the Bartlett and the San Juan at that time. I have also received further very firm information from a person very knowledgeable about the San Juan that the radio did not work well when the engine was running but worked very well indeed when the engine was not running; and of course the particular problem with the San Juan was that the engine was not running, and that explained to me the discrepancy.


John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister agree that justice needs to be seen to be done as well as done? There are many tens of thousands of people and authorities in Newfoundland, including the churches, who are not satisfied there has been a proper inquiry into the loss of the San Juan and who think there is evidence-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary would he put it?


John Carnell Crosbie: How does the minister propose to lay those questions to rest?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 propose to conclude the further investigations I have had undertaken and then make a very full and complete examination of the report which has been made to me and the further report which will be made to me. There were two basic elements concerning the San Juan. One was our search and rescue facilities, and this question is being dealt with in terms of a major overhaul and improvement in our approach. The other concerns the actual facts of the incident. While it is important to have those facts and to have them known, I did not favour a simple second guessing of the judgment of the master of the San Juan and those involved at the time of the crisis. I do not think, in a general way, that persons involved in coast guard duty and the like should be faced with the plight that every time they make a judgment in connection with a very serious, circumstance they will be second guessed months afterwards by people using hindsight.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would he tell the House if, prior to the first ministers conference in mid-December, there is to be a further meeting of federal-provincial ministers of finance to try to arrive at an agreed upon formula for cost-sharing, equalization and revenue guarantee payments, and if so when this meeting is to be held?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; it is on November 29 and 30.


Miss MacDonald:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say if there are any contingency plans to extend the present fiscal arrangements act past March of next year in the event that agreement cannot be reached with the provinces on all aspects of these complex fiscal arrangements, or is it still the government's intention to proceed unilaterally, as it has indicated, say with the termination of the revenue guarantee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the meeting on November 29 and 30 will discuss the whole package of proposed changes in federal-provincial fiscal relations. The hon. member uses the term "unilaterally". Of course, any legislation of this kind is inevitably legislation only of the government of Canada. We are not talking about any joint, mutual or matching legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 15, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out that the payments are all made by the government of Canada to the provinces, so why would there be provincial legislation? On that basis, we see no necessity for any contingency. There have been extensive discussions at the official level through the fall to determine many of the issues that have been discussed in this regard. We think it would be desirable to put this question of the various kinds of fiscal changes to rest as soon as possible and on that basis to enact legislation in this Parliament early next year.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I wonder if the minister would undertake to approach these discussions in a posture of reconciliation rather than in one of continuing confrontation with the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. First I should like to thank him for tabling the document which he did earlier in the day, a document which is essentially a technical rebuttal to the contents of the memorandum which was circulated in Statistics Canada. Would the minister be prepared now to table the internal memorandum in order to clear the air because it seems to me that the inaccuracies which were alluded to in the memorandum can only be cleared up by pointing directly to the memorandum so that those people who use the statistical information of StatCan will be able to interpret it with some degree of accuracy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into that request with much sympathy.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, 1 find it incredible that the Minister of Agriculture is not in the House today to answer questions on the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please put his question.


Jack Burnett Murta: My question is directed to whoever is answering for the Minister of Agriculture today-


An hon. Member:: They are all out campaigning.


Jack Burnett Murta: -who can shed some light on the situation which has arisen in the Canadian Dairy Commission. I should like to ask whoever that person might be, possibly the Prime Minister or the acting minister if he would be prepared to tell the House the reason for firing the chairman ajid vice-chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: There is no particular reason for it, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I might say that the Minister of Agriculture is in New Brunswick meeting with various groups in that province. Of course, as you know, it is an all important province and an all important subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The person who was appointed chairman of the Canadian Dairy Commission is a man by the name of Mr. Gilles Choquette. He is highly qualified. There is no doubt about the move made by the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Burnett Murta: That is the greatest non-answer we have heard in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO OPERATIONS OF COMMISSION
Jack Burnett Murta: I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Because of the apparent lack of confidence in Mr. Choquette as well as in the Minister of Agriculture and the real danger that the supply-management agreement which has been worked out between the provinces and the federal government might fail because of what has happened in the last few days, is the Prime Minister prepared to recommend a public inquiry into the Canadian Dairy Commission in order that credibility in that body may be re-established and also that dairy producers in Canada may come to know exactly what is going on within the commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree completely with the premise of the question in which the hon. member suggested that Mr. Choquette will not have the confidence of the producers and the consumers. Mr. Choquette is a well known expert in this area, and I think the least the hon. member could do is to watch him and judge him by his operations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 15, 1976


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is a kind of S.O.S. sent out to the Minister of Transport.
Since the timetable was modified on November 1, the passenger train for Chambord-Dolbeau operates between 4 a.m. and 6.30 a.m., at a time when any transportation system is discontinued. As the people who are responsible for the stations do not come to work before 8 a.m., all these stations are locked when the train goes through and passengers must stay outside in the bad weather of winter.
Would the minister make a representation to CNR authorities to have these stations opened when the train arrives so that passengers can at least use the phone and wait in a warm place?


Otto Emil Lang: I will take note of the hon. member's representation and look into the matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
DEATH OF ANNA AQUASH [N UNITED STATES-REPORT OF FBI INVESTIGATION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House Leader. In view of the fact it is some five months since the government assured us that there would be an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, and in light of the fact that this House was told on June 29 of this year that the FBI was conducting an investigation into the death of this native Canadian, can the minister tell the House if the FBI report has been received and, if so, will the contents be made public?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member had in mind the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.


Walter (Wally) Firth: In view of the fact it is some five months since the government assured us that there would be an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Anna Mae Pictou Aquash, and in light of the fact that this House was told on June 29 of this year that the FBI was conducting an investigation into the death of this native Canadian, can the minister tell the House if the FBI report has been received and, if so, will the contents be made public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a document in relation to
Oral Questions
this matter within the last week, but if the hon. member would be so kind as to give me 24 hours in which to look into it, I will try to give him a more detailed answer tomorrow because I am not sure whether or not it did constitute a report from the FBI.
I will find out and let him know.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Has there been a meeting of the advisory committee to the Canadian Wheat Board in the last six weeks and was the minister present?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the advisory committee ordinarily meets every month. I did meet with the committee at a meeting which I think was second to the last, but whether or not it was within the last six weeks I will have to check to make sure.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: At the meeting which the minister attended was the question of the unusual practice of dropping the wheat price so quickly discussed and what was the advice given by the advisory board?


Otto Emil Lang: As I recall the timing, it did happen shortly after the public complaint by Under Secretary Bell in the United States concerning the Wheat Board action. So, of course, the Canadian Wheat Board discussed the matter with the advisory committee. Essentially, the comments to the advisory commission were exactly the same as those subsequently made by me and the Canadian Wheat Board commissioners to the public to the effect that the Wheat Board's action was not an undercutting of American prices but a very competitive operation within the market to make sure that we stay in markets where we ought to be.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. First, I wish to commend the minister for showing interest and taking some action regarding traffic problems at Douglas customs station at Surrey, B.C. One of the solutions she has introduced is a new tariff classification for groceries, presumably to facilitate quicker processing of travellers at the customs office. Since at best this can be seen as only a stopgap solution, can the minister tell the House whether she is proposing, together with her cabinet colleagues, any long range solutions to deal with


Benno Friesen: I remind the minister that I have a letter from her to the effect that a new tariff classification is being negotiated with the Minister of Finance.
However, since grocery stores in Bellingham are posting signs over their produce displays advertising their produce as duty free, and since the farming community in B.C. is being wiped out by these shopping practices, can the minister say whether she is working with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Agriculture to see whether GATT or any other agreements are being violated by the American merchant community?


Miss Begin:: We have informed the Department of Finance about the problem. We are not negotiating any change in tariff classification at this time. Separately, we have added four man-years on a casual basis to help process Canadians travelling and buying in the United States.
However, the last news I received, first from the hon. member and later from other hon. members of this House, is that Amtrak is developing a program of excursions for 48 hours into the United States. With Christmas approaching I am afraid we will have more problems, and it would not be proper for me to make promises in this connection. I still am not sure what kind of action the hon. member would like us to take. There is a paradox, and I do not know whether he is trying to help the passengers or the producers and farmers. Where does he stand?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ASBESTOS FIBRES IN WALL PATCHING COMPOUNDS- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ELIMINATE HEALTH HAZARD
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the finding of the National Resources Defence Council and the Consumers Union in the United States that wall patching compounds containing asbe-

stos expose users to a substantial risk of cancer from concentrations of asbestos fibres significantly higher than those permitted by the occupational safety and health administration, has the government taken steps to prevent the sale of these products in Canada, and if not, what measures are planned to eliminate this health hazard?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer this question to the minister for a full answer.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST THAT BOARD INVESTIGATE PROPOSED INCREASE IN PRICE OF CHOCOLATE BARS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Cadbury Schweppes Powell Limited will raise the price of their chocolate bars from 20 cents to 25 cents, a 25 per cent increase, and in view of the fact that other major chocolate companies plan to follow this procedure, would the Minister of Finance, a good family man, have the AIB look into the possible rollback of these prices and make the chocolate manufacturers of this country give the kids a good five cent chocolate bar?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already received substantial representations on this question, particularly at home, and as a result of those representations I can advise the hon. member that the AIB has indeed examined this important area of public consumption. It has been confirmed to me that it is the 51 per cent increase in the price of cocoa which has occurred on the world market which has been the reason for this increase. The board advises me that having examined the costs involved in the assembly of a candy bar, it feels that under the circumstances the companies have made an effective argument that the prices are justified by cost increases.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Tell that to your daughter.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Explain it to Justin.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I present these arguments to my hon. friends opposite, and now with some temerity I will have to take them home.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The kids of this country are going to hate you, Macdonald.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Just like everybody else.
November 15, 1976


WHEAT-ALLEGED SALE TO PRIVATE TRADERS AND SUBSEQUENT HEDGING ON UNITED STATES EXCHANGES
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board following the question asked by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. Can the minister confirm if upwards of 165 million bushels of wheat were sold to the private grain trade at the price of something like $3.25 or $3.35 per bushel, and were these sales hedged on the Chicago and Kansas City grain exchanges?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would ordinarily not want to comment on either particular volumes or prices at which the Canadian Wheat Board sells grain. I was informed, however-and I think I have no problem in relaying this information-that significant volumes of grain were sold by the Canadian Wheat Board at the time to which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain referred at prices which were then current and posted from time to time by the Canadian Wheat Board. The question of how those sales were then handled by the buyer is, of course, something which would not be within the purview of the Canadian Wheat Board.


William Gordon Ritchie: Will there be a change in policy whereby the Canadian Wheat Board will be using these hedging facilities of the American markets either directly or indirectly through the private grain trade?


Otto Emil Lang: 1 know of no intention on the part of the Canadian Wheat Board to use hedging facilities. It would have been the buyers who would have used them.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On November 25 of last year 1 addressed a question to the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning a recommendation within the Carrothers report regarding a decennial review of the political, economic and social development of the Northwest Territories. At that time the minister's reply was that he was giving the matter consideration. 1 am wondering whether in the short time the minister has been in his portfolio he has had time to consider this question.


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That same suggestion was brought to my attention when I was in the north, and I have asked to be briefed on that as soon as possible, but there has been no decision as yet.
_________________________________983
Oral Questions


Douglas Charles Neil: Can the minister advise whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed by the Northwest Territorial Council in which it proposes establishing a committee to consider the future social, economic and political development of the territories, and if he has, does he approve the resolution, is he prepared to give it support and is he prepared to give it funding?


William Warren Allmand: I believe I have received the resolution, but it is presently under examination, and as yet no decision has been made.


QUARTERLY PAYMENTS TO GRAIN STABILIZATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact that by law the government should have by now made three quarterly payments to the grain stabilization account which, according to the minister's figures, could amount to $25 million each, has the minister contacted the President of the Treasury Board to ensure that these payments were made on time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 am informed that the law was carefully followed.


STATUTORY HOLIDAYS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Can the minister now say when he will be introducing the government's omnibus or all-inclusive holidays bill? In view of the fact that this bill will include provision for Heritage Day in February, will the bill be placed before parliament in time so that if we pass it the holiday can be celebrated in February, 1977?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: That would depend on how long it took the House to pass the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: May 1 get the
minister to come back to my question? Will the bill be introduced soon? Let us leave the rest to the House.


John (Moody) Roberts: Soon, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

November 15, 1976


GARRISON DIVERSION-TABLING OF NOTE TO U S. GOVERNMENT
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in line with my undertaking during question period I would like to submit two copies, in each official language, of the Canadian government's note to the government of the United States in relation to the Garrison diversion.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point of order with respect to a matter on which I should like your advice. It concerns the reply to my question No. 764 on the order paper, dated October 21,1976, and, specifically, part 9 of the reply. The question is brief and, I submit, quite clear. Part 9 reads as follows:
Was data derived from Statistics Canada sources sold or offered by the four employees or Alan Jefferys Associates to any other organization or individuals and, if so, (a) what data, (b) to whom, (c) what were the actual or proposed amounts of transactions?
Your Honour, since my question was clear, and the answer to it not complete, only stating that the RCMP investigation indicated that Alan Jefferys Associates produced studies for five other clients, apparently in order to provide complete details the order paper went on and listed some of these, but a key item was omitted. That answer ignored the essential word "offered" in my original query, thereby conveniently failing to deal with an integral part of the question. To this extent, the answer is misleading.
My point of order is simply to ask if Your Honour could possibly clarify, for my benefit and the benefit of other members of the House, whether it would be in order to request the minister to cause the answer to be enlarged so as to reflect more accurately the true situation, or whether it is within the rules of the House that answers which are not complete and which could be misleading can be put forward with impunity. I realize that the answer need not be given at all, but my submission is that if it is given, it ought to be reasonably complete. In view of the fact that I have placed more questions on the order paper today and there are a considerable number outstanding, I am bringing this matter to Your Honour's attention so that I may, hopefully, receive more accurate and complete answers to these questions in the future.


Mr. Chr6tien:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order, dealing as it does with an answer to a written question on the order paper, ought to have been raised when that item is called later in the day during routine proceedings. It has been raised now, however, and I note that the hon. minister responsible for the answer presumably wants to make some comment. Perhaps I should hear that before making any observation.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is not completely satisfied with the answer, and I shall look into that

aspect of it. I tried to reply to all aspects of the question and today I offered to appear in front on a committee of the House where the hon. member can ask me as many questions as he wants. I have a very grave responsibility here. The questions are perhaps put in the House with good motivation. The civil service of Canada is first-class, but they cannot come here and defend themselves, so as minister responsible it is my duty to make sure that I protect their characters.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are not doing a very good job.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Scandals, and so on, have already been mentioned. We have asked the RCMP to investigate, and they have reported nothing wrong. No criminal charges have been laid, but some penalties were given and the names of the people involved were published. But they cannot defend themselves, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is the responsibility of the minister to get up in this House to protect the integrity of the civil servants in Ottawa if others do not want to do so. I am ready to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition on the same point of order.


Mr. Clark:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the minister and his colleagues are interested in protecting the reputation of the public service in Canada, as we on this side of the House are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -one way that can be done is for them to reply completely and in a fashion that is not misleading to questions asked either orally or placed on the order paper. That is the point of order raised by my colleague the hon. member for Central Nova. If the minister would simply answer questions completely and not attempt to avoid his responsibility, members on this side of the House believe that would not only help the House but would help preserve the integrity and reputation of the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think hon. members on both sides of the House realize we have been on a non point of order from the very start. There is no jurisdiction in the Chair to comment on the length or incompleteness or quality of answers given. The hon. member for Central Nova finalized his argument with the point that there is no obligation to answer questions. If they are answered, the completeness of the answer or the quality could perhaps be commented on at another time when debate is permissible or further questions arise. Those further questions in some cases can be put on the order paper, and in some cases by an oral follow-up, but the point raised is not a valid point of order.
November 15, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 40, 165, 185, 196, 199, 202, 700, 777, 778, 782 and 841.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answers to Questions numbered 4,094 and 4,095 of the First Session of the 30th Parliament, which state in part "It is not in the tradition of a non political public service to disclose names of officials who perform tasks in the course of their duty" (a) when was this tradition established (b) who established it (c) what are the reasons for the government to withhold from Parliament the names of public service officials and the tasks that they perform (d) is this a policy of secrecy on the part of the government (e) will this policy be changed immediately so that Parliament's right to full details will be allowed?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: This is a fundamental convention of ministerial government and the hon. member may therefore wish to read, inter alia, Parris' "Constitution and Bureaucracy", Birch's "Representative and Responsible Government", and, of course, Jennings' "Cabinet Government".


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is the government aware of the resolution of the Navy League of Canada that the ship replacement programme for the Department of National Defence includes, "as a matter of paramount importance" a maximum Canadian content?
2.	Does the government accept that any requirement for Canadian design work would guarantee higher ultimate Canadian content than off-shore design?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
The Department of National Defence is aware of the Navy League of Canada resolution.
2. The Department of National Defence intends to include maximum Canadian content to a realistic level.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government any plans to re-open the Kejimkujik Fish Hatchery in North Queens, Nova Scotia and, if so, on what date?
2.	Have any funds been allocated for this purpose, leading up to the restocking of our rivers and lakes and, if so, what is the amount?
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. Continued budgetary constraints have prevented the development of any plan to reopen the Kejimkujik Station.
2. No special funds have been set up. The stocking of Nova Scotia rivers and lakes is a continuing program undertaken by the six hatcheries operating in the province.


Mr. Marshall: What was the manner of distribution of the publication Policy for Canada's Commercial Fisheries in (a) Newfoundland (b) Nova Scotia (c) New Brunswick (d) Prince Edward Island and, in each case, to whom was it distributed?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: (a) The publication was sent out on a request basis to Fishermen's Groups, the Fishing Industry, Memorial University of Newfoundland, University students, High School students and teachers, the business community, community development organizations, municipal and community councils, commercial fishing suppliers, Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Department of Fisheries and Environment employees, other Federal Government Departments, and the general public, (b), (c) and (d) The publication was sent by mail to all Field personnel of Fisheries and Marine Service in Maritimes Region, all Maritimes news media (radio, television, etc.) all industry in the Maritimes Provinces, all Provincial and Federal Departments and Agencies, public requests and public distribution at Fisheries Festivals and Exhibitions in Shediac, Shippegan and Lunenburg.


Mr. Marshall: In regard to the proposed weather station to be located in Corner Brook, Newfoundland (a) where will it be located (b) how many employees will be required to man it (c) how many square feet will be required (d) what service will it offer?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: (a) Location within Corner Brook not yet decided; (b) Two; (c) Approximately 1,500 square feet; (d) The provision of climatological advice and weather information in support of the fishing industry, other marine users, the forestry industry and agriculture as well as weather information for the general public, radio and TV stations and newspapers in Corner Brook or the surrounding area.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Have any experiments to create or increase rain been carried out in Newfoundland and, if not, are there any plans to carry on such experiments at a future date?
2.	What were the results of the Yellowknife rain enhancement experiment which began on June 26, 1976?

November 15, 1976
Order Paper Questions


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1. No experiments to create or increase rain in Newfoundland have been reported under the Weather Modification Act, and DFE has no plans to carry on such experiments in Newfoundland.
2. This preliminary experiment yielded encouraging results. The results were not conclusive and 'more experiments are needed to give scientifically meaningful answers.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Did ihe Habitat Committee produce and distribute a glossy pamphlet entitled Introduction to Habitat and, if so (a) what was the cost (b) which departmental budget was charged with the cost?


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: A booklet entitled "Introduction to Habitat" was produced by the Canadian Habitat Secretariat to provide basic pre-conference background information to countries who might send delegates. It is customary for the host country of a United Nations conference to issue and circulate such a booklet, (a) Total cost was $72,937.76 for 100,000 copies, (b) This cost was charged to the budget of the Canadian Habitat Secretariat.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What position was taken by the Canadian representatives to the InterAmerican Development Bank with regard to the credits granted to the Chilean Junta on (a) March 30, 1974 (b) April 25, 1974 (c) March 13, 1975 (d) June 19, 1975 (e) December 11, 1975?
2.	Have any votes been prompted by loans to Chile since September 1973 and, if so, how has Canada voted?
3.	Has the Chilean debt to the IDB been renegotiated since 1973 and, if so, what are the terms and circumstances of renegotiation?
4.	What is Canada's position on the $86 million IDB credit currently being negotiated with Chile in view of the serious questioning by business and economic sources of Chile's "financial stability" and its capacity to repay its debts?
5.	What Canadian exports have gone to projects financed by IDB loans since 1974?
6.	Have any studies been made of the net costs and benefits to Canada of participation in the IDB?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. To date, all loans have been considered by the Canadian Directors of international financial institutions on the basis of their economic and technical merits. Respecting loan agreements to Chile signed to date with the lnter-Ameri-can Development Bank, all such loans since 1974 were considered economically and technically sound.
2.	Yes, there has been one such vote. On June 18, 1976 an official vote was called on a Bank loan to Chile. Canada voted in favour along with all the Latin American members of the Bank.
3.	No.
[Mr. Marshall.)
4.	There is no credit to Chile for $86 million currently under negotiation between it and the IDB.
5.	Engineering and consulting services, construction services, electrical generating equipment, control equipment, transmission equipment and materials, agricultural equipment.
6.	The costs and benefits of Canadian participation in the IDB are monitored constantly by officials.


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	What is Canada's present policy toward World Bank loan credit applications from Chile?
2.	(a) Did Canada vote on the recent $33 million World Bank loan to Chile and, if so, how did it vote (b) what was the Canadian position on the particular loan in question, in view of the serious questioning by business and economic sources of Chile's "financial stability" and its capacity to repay its debts?
3.	Docs the government have any intentions to review its policy toward foreign loans so as to reconcile the contradictions that exist between the concern for humanitarian principles that have been expressed by External Affairs, on the one hand, and the previously staled criteria by the Department of Finance, which does not take these into consideration?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. All loans made by the World Bank are currently considered on a case-by-case basis on their economic and technical merits.
2.	(a) Yes, in favour, (b) The loan in question was considered economically and technically sound.
3.	The Canadian Government agrees that loans made by international financial institutions should be considered on economic and technical grounds. Its aim with respect to such loans is to promote the well-being of the people of the country to which the loan is extended. To adopt other than objective technical and economic criteria would have an adverse effect on the financial viability of the institutions themselves. The Canadian Government's concerns regarding humanitarian questions are made known bilaterally and through the appropriate international bodies.


Mr. Bawden: 1.	What is the name of the contractor for the Bank of Canada Building on Wellington Street?
2.	On what date was the contract awarded and at what price?
3.	Will the Building be completed at the original bid contract price and, if not (a) by what amount has the completion cost increased and what are the details of such increases (b) in what manner was the bid contract renegotiated?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See reply to Question No. 3,229 tabled in the House of Commons January 26, 1976.
November 15, 1976


Mr. Horner: Has the government decided to purchase any of the DASH-7 STOL aircraft and, if so (a) has a contract been signed between the government and DeHavil-land Corporation (b) on what date (c) what are the details of the contract?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, November 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that Bill C-19 is very much a bill about the style of this government. It is a bill about how far the government judges it must go in order to restore some measure of confidence among the people of the country. It is a bill which consists, it seems to me, in a large amount of vagary and, to use the current fashionable expression, it is a purely cosmetic operation. It is because of this sham, because of this posturing, that the government finds itself in deep trouble with the public of Canada, a matter that I think should worry us whether we sit on this side of the House or on the other.
Canadians do not mind shell games at some fall fair or agricultural exhibition. They are amused by the sleight-of-hand and the speed of the operator. They are prepared to lose a dollar or two as the game goes on. But they care very deeply if the sleight-of-hand is perpetrated by ministers of the Crown. If any bill has evidence of this, it is Bill C-19 which is one of the most interesting shell games outside an agricultural fair that I have ever seen. What has happened, of course, is that the columns of figures have been moved from one page of government ledger to another. In clause 15 the government notes that basically this part of the bill will affect people who do not have as much clout and who do not have as much power and cannot bring as much pressure to bear on the government as others. So the cosmetic operation continues.
Members of parliament on this side of the House are asked to buy this bill. I may say that if it had not been for the most eloquent and positive speech of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) last Wednesday, I do not think we would yet have heard the government's proposal which was given by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) about the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
When ministers move millions of dollars from one column of government ledgers to another, the public understanding, the public cynicism, the general malaise of the public of Canada is only accentuated. This is why I wanted to take a minute or two to discuss the bill and explain why 1 characterize it as a measure of the style of this government. It is a style which has effectively disillusioned the vast majority of Canadians who doubt the government's capacity for leading the country. Bill C-19 which we are now debating is, in the vernacular, the son of Bill C-87, with the same inherent defects. The government has brought the bill forward because it persists in its arrogant assumption that the people of Canada will swallow anything. That is partly why members of the opposition, in discharging their obligation to the people of Canada, must take a day or two debating a bill so patently phony in conception.
Let us talk about clause 1 5 of the bill which, as I said, seeks to repeal section 272 of the Railway Act. In the name of restraint the government sought to abolish the subsidy on the movement of grain and flour through the ports of Saint John and Halifax. Many members-I shall be more generous than the Minister of Transport-on both sides of the House reminded the government how serious the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act would be for those eastern Canadian ports. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Halifax finally smoked out the government. As my colleague said on November 10, as reported on page 957 of Hansard:
Nothing can justify this-this thoughtlessness; perhaps I should not use the word "arrogant". Nothing can excuse this ineffectiveness and indecision .. . Unless the minister is prepared, right now, to disclose in some detail what he has in mind, this bill should no longer be debated at this time.
The hon. member for Halifax threw down the challenge, and 1 must compliment the government because the challenge was taken up; the big guns participated in the debate. Following the hon. member for Halifax, the Minister of Transport said, as reported at page 957 of Hansard:
When the earlier bill was on the order paper I stated it was our intention to do some serious work on the question of movement of grain and flour which could and should take place after the old section 272 of the Railway Act was no longer in existence.
I am prepared to congratulate the government for belatedly and reluctantly facing the facts, namely, that opposition to the repeal of section 272 of the Railway Act made it impossible, and properly so, for the government to secure passage of Bill C-87 in the previous session. Such opposition threatens to delay the progress of Bill C-19 of the present session. Although I am not privy to all the secrets of the Minister of Transport, and 1 shall disclose one or two of his secrets in a minute or two, I think he will agree that the extensive criticism and debate of the previous session was not in vain for it brought about a deathbed repentance on the part of the government.
The minister, in his somewhat restricted vision, could only remind the House that the hon. members for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas), South Western Nova (Miss Campbell), and Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Landers) were concerned about this bill. I prefer to take a more generous attitude than that of ministers

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
who think that nobody but government backbenchers could support such an important bill.
May I interpolate this: if the government had been more generous in accepting opposition suggestions and criticisms, its legislative program would have enjoyed easier passage in the House. As I say, I prefer to take a more generous attitude and would add the official opposition and New Democratic Party members to those who resisted the government's blandishments and its vague promises that it would work to see what the effects of amending the Railway Act would be. It is apparent that in the intervening months it did not do this work. In my opinion, such work should have preceded the introduction of Bill C-87. That is why I talked about the style of government.
I was fascinated to note that despite recommendations made to the government, despite suggestions made by government backbenchers and put on record by members of my party, the New Democratic Party and the Social Credit party about the serious effects on the economy of the deletion of this section in the Railway Act, the government paid no attention, as was evident when it introduced the bill. Months went by. The bill was introduced, but little progress was made. Then the bill was brought forward for debate. Finally, on November 10, 1976, after the hon. member for Halifax had challenged the government to put up or shut up, the Minister of Transport stepped out of his hangar, if 1 may put it that way, and with an attitude of "full ahead go", if I may use the expression, said action would be taken and that the Canadian Millers' Association had accepted a government proposal.
In a memorandum to the cabinet dated May 25, 1976, the following recommendations were made for cabinet approval. They involved, first, the introduction of a new program of assistance to the Canadian milling industry, based on a direct payment for all export flour shipments except aid and shipments to U.S. destinations equivalent to the benefits of "at and east" rates, the level of payment to be announced following discussion with the Canadian Millers' Association. Second, the initiation of an inquiry by the Canadian Transport Commission to establish the actual cost of "stop-off' for milling in transit purposes. Third, the announcement of the above initiatives before further progress was made with Bill C-87.
I will never know why the cabinet did not accept those recommendations until November 10. During the question period a member of the cabinet spoke of the efficiency of the public service, an observation with which I am happy to agree. Yet here was a memorandum prepared for the cabinet by senior civil servants and it had to wait until November 10 for acceptance. Apparently the government is riding roughshod not only over parliament but over advice given to it by senior public servants in the form of a memorandum. This, I believe, accounts for some of the cynicism abroad in this land.
If the government had accepted the sensible recommendations made to it, by now either Bill C-87 or its progeny, Bill C-19, might be the law of this land. It is reasonable to expect that if the government had followed the advice it got from the public service, or parliament, Bill C-87 would now be part of

the law on our statute books. But because that is not the government's style, because the government expects parliament and the public to take it on faith-and never before in our history has such faith been more fragile, because the government did not have faith in the advice of its public servants and did not follow the advice of parliament-it has found it difficult to secure quick passage for its legislation.
I say all this because hon. members opposite keep asking the opposition if it wants restraint. Mr. Speaker, the opposition wants it, but it wants some genuine, hard evidence to show that the government is concerned about restraint. Second, in the concept of the amendment to the Railway Act, the public wants evidence that the government wishes to keep viable the two large ice-free ports of Saint John and Halifax, wants to continue the movement of grain and wants those two ports to continue the movement of flour as has occurred in other years. As I say, this comment is made with a great amount of graciousness to the Minister of Transport, who was smoked out by the hon. member for Halifax, that all sides of the House wanted to get on with this legislation when the government's intentions were known.
I have another minute or two and I want to go back to the matter of faith. If I can be philosophical for a minute, faith is a concept that needs underpinning; it needs evidence to support it. This government keeps trying to bring down the faith of the Canadian people. It keeps saying it will do this, it will do that, and it will give certain undertakings. Then the government, because it does not take its own advice or the advice of its public service, makes it impossible for those of us who feel very deeply that faith is an essential component in the democratic process. We end up unable to have any faith in the government. In a way, we become accomplices to the cynicism that is abroad in this land. It is abroad largely because of the indecisiveness, rudderlessness, lack of leadership and Johnny-come-lately, cosmetic style of government that should, in my opinion, for the sake of Canada, go to the people for their opinion so that needed changes can be made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly happy to enter the debate at this time, following the very eminent member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). Outside the political context he and I usually agree. However, before getting to the substance of the matter I wish to take up a few of the points he mentioned. First, I do not believe the hon. member is serious in his suggestion that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) did not listen to or work on the difficulties with regard to reductions and subsidies under the Railway Act which had been provided to millers. He cannot be serious in suggesting that that decision was made in the House last Thursday after the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) spoke. If the hon. member had listened to or had read the minister's speech, he would have known that it was only on that day the minister received an indication from the millers
November 15, 1976

that the program which had been discussed and offered to them was workable and that their exports were secure.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is exactly the point I was making.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Halifax was very opportunistic. I do not see anything wrong with that. The hon. member for Funday-Royal also wanted to take a bit of the credit. I agree that when they speak in the interest of the Atlantic provinces they should get some credit. However, I want to put on the record that the Minister of Transport had been discussing the problem with the millers for a long period of time.
What the hon. member for Fundy-Royal expounded on this afternoon proves that the government was correct in questioning the process by announcing, in Bill C-87 last year, some reduction in subsidies. What happened was that an alternative that apparently was more efficient in economic terms, in terms of marketing and in many other ways, was subsequently developed by the millers and the government. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal said that the government was acting by fakery or in a cosmetic manner. In fact, the hon. member confirmed that sometimes when a program has been in existence for a long time it should be looked at. For example, it is sometimes necessary to say that a subsidy which has been in effect for a period of years is being looked at, it may have to be reduced and we will discuss a more efficient way of dealing with the situation.
In dealing with this bill, the hon. member spoke about fakery and cosmetics. When he does that he is, in fact, saying that during the previous election campaign the Conservative party was engaging in fakery and cosmetics. They talked about the elimination of Information Canada. I do not recall any talk about the abolition of the Company of Young Canadians. However, they talked enough about government spending to lead people to believe that government spending is waste. If this bill is fakery, then the Tory platform for the past six or seven years is also fakery and cosmetics. They cannot have it both ways. I cannot let my honourable friend, and 1 use the word "honourable" in the best way, get away with the comment about fakery in government. I know where he stands with regard to public accountability and the honesty with which he deals with politics. However, he is part of the political game, like 1 am. He knows that to talk about fakery, in the terms he talked about it, is just an illusion.
I do not believe that ordinary people have an overwhelming faith in their government. Let us not forget how the British people defeated Winston Churchill as the last world war was ending. During the war it was easy to attract people and tell them they had to defend the country. Because of the adversary position of politics, the credibility of our public institutions is impaired. However, that is the price we have to pay for what I think is the best system in the world.
I want to again rub the hon. member a bit. While he may not personally be one of those who acts in dishonest ways, he is a member of the Conservative party. When he says that no government in history has had a worse problem with regard to
Restraint of Government Expenditures credibility than this government, I remind him there is a government in New Brunswick with which he is at least indirectly associated.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: And proud to be.


Herb Breau: It is suffering from credibility. It has deceived people in the recent past. Looking at the honesty of positions taken by this government, and the honesty of positions taken by the government of New Brunswick, if 1 were the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and had his public respect, I would not engage in this kind of attack against this government when the honesty of the Tory government in New Brunswick is being seriously questioned.
I will now get to the substance of the bill. Most of the debate this far indicates one thing. People, particularly those in the Conservative party, are concerned about the government's share of gross national product. The standard question we have put to them over the years has been, which program would you cut out? I do not necessarily want to deal with that; however, when people make a big case about the government's share having increased from one-third some to 40 per cent in the last decade, they are not being totally honest in their comparisons, or they do not have the facts. It is one or the other.
A great deal of government expenditure in the past decade is not expenditure in the conventional sense. It is, rather, a shift of resources from one group of taxpayers to others. Take medicare, for example. People were paying for medical services before the act was passed. The difference now is that the cost is shared, instead of being borne by individuals, and that the administration is in the hands of the federal government and the provinces. Thus, if the intention is to make an honest comparison, the cost of medicare services should be left out.
The same holds true in the case of the Canada Assistance Plan. It is true that hospital insurance was in effect before the beginning of the last decade, but a tremendous increase in cost has taken place since then. So this component should also be excluded from the calculation. The same applies to such allocations of funds as the oil subsidy to cushion the effect of rising prices in eastern Canada. This is not government expenditure in the true sense of the word; it is a transfer of funds from one part of the country to another, a re-channelling of resources for the purpose of ensuring greater equity.
Consider government participation in the Syncrude project. This expenditure was undertaken in the national interest in view of the uncertainty of future oil supplies. When some of the original investors pulled out, governments, both federal and provincial, bought equity in Syncrude to ensure that the project went ahead. So perhaps, when making a comparison, one should exclude this component also. There are many other elements of government expenditure, if hon. members want to call it expenditure, which ought to be excluded.
To sum up my position on this, I say it doesn't matter a damn-
990

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Herb Breau: Well, it doesn't matter a darn-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order. Parlez en fran?ais.


Herb Breau: Well, cela ne fait pas une maudite difference-it doesn't matter one iota-what percentage of the gross national product governments take. The essential consideration is the way in which the money is being spent: is it being spent productively? 1 hear the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) growling. I could not find a better example. I cannot think of anyone more likely to growl when I mention something like this.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Where does the money come from? You get it from taxes.


Herb Breau: Yes, by taxing the productive sectors of society and by taxing people on the basis of their ability to pay. I am not saying that all government expenditure is wise, nor am 1 asserting that the ever-increasing share we are taking is being spent all that productively. That is not the essence of my argument. My point is this: the main thing is not the level of the government's share, but how well it is being spent. The hon. member can growl all he pleases. I can give example after example of government intervention in the economy where the effect has been productive both in the immediate future and in the long term.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and there have been as many boondoggles, too.


Herb Breau: I will come to the boondoggles later. But once the objective has been decided on, how are the mechanics of implementation working? One of our difficulties, as a western democracy, is that very often a worth-while objective can be "fausse"-the word is French-by the manner of administration. One thing of which 1 am certain is this: when we intervene in the economy, we should make very sure we intervene in areas which are productive economically, socially and culturally.
A great many people suggest that the channelling of funds through unemployment insurance is unproductive. I challenge that assertion today, as 1 have in the past. In an area like mine, it is an accepted fact of life that not everybody can be permanently employed. Many individuals have been brought up to accept the custom of working for only part of the year and staying home for the rest. These people receive unemployment insurance benefits. But the fact that they are, as it were, unemployed does not mean the funds they receive are being spent unproductively. It is part of a tradition that a lot of people repair their homes during that period. If they are fishermen, they repair their gear. If they are loggers, they repair their logging equipment. What happens in other levels of the economy? Similar repairs are made from time to time and the expense of doing so is included immediately in the cost of the product. So what is the difference if an individual
[Mr. Breau.)
carries them out in the course of the winter while receiving unemployment insurance benefits?
It seems to me that when we are talking about the percentage of the gross national product the government should take, we should bear in mind what I have said. Instead of being 30 per cent or 40 per cent, it could be 50 per cent and the process would still be productive. I do not believe it is necessarily bad when government intervenes, nor do I believe'that government should necessarily intervene. There are, of course, areas in which intervention is necessary. The arrangements under which federation was agreed upon do not, in any case, make economic sense. The present political fabric is a result of a series of deals made between various regions or economic areas to unite under a parliamentary form of government. In accordance with this overriding decision, one of the first things to be done was to direct the economic affairs of the country east-west. In my part of the country that does not make any sense at all, economically; but it was upon such considerations as these that confederation was made possible. The final result, however, was the emergence of a country in which there was a singular need for intervention at government level if the country was to flourish and survive.
I cannot complete my remarks on this subject without mentioning the hypocritical attitude adopted by some members, particularly those in the Conservative party, when they continue to blather about the evils of government intervention. It is nonsense to suggest that government intervention could be avoided in the context of the Canadian reality. Absence of such intervention would mean prosperity for only a few special areas; the rest of the country would face disaster and eventually confederation would break up. This becomes evident in other fields. What, for example, should be the response to inflation? The traditional response is to tighten up fiscal and monetary measures, a strategy which worked effectively in Japan. Some people say that it worked effectively in the United States. I am not so sure about that. It worked in economic terms, but I should like to study the social cost of having fought inflation by fiscal and monetary means in the United States. It worked in West Germany. I do not think it works in Canada.
Surely we do not have to start giving these kind of fundamental lessons on political economy in a House like this. The economy must serve the people first, not vice versa. The simple fact is that if you fought inflation, in the Canadian reality, with fiscal and monetary policies alone, you would have five provinces bearing the brunt of fighting inflation while the other five continued to produce and to prosper.
I mentioned the ambivalence or hypocrisy of some. If you read the speech of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and others, they talk about the terrible effect of eliminating the subsidy under the Railway Act. They talk of the terrible effect of the stabilization act and say that payments will be delayed. They talk of the terrible effect of a few other things. On the other hand, whenever the president of some bank or some big
November 15, 1976

corporation gets upset and says that there is too much government intervention, we see the Tories popping up in support of him, pursuing their particular point of view. That is what I call ambivalence. Tory members speak of the necessity of intervention to provide grain stabilization, to stabilize prices and to give a subsidy to the millers, but the simple fact is that you need government intervention in the economy.


Mr. Gilbert:: Right on.


Herb Breau: I have another example of where-


Mr. Elzinga:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Herb Breau: Surely.


Peter Elzinga: I could not help noting the hon. member's comment regarding government intervention. I might ask whether he supports his government's throne speech which was recently brought down, in which the government themselves state that they believe there should be less government intervention? Would he tell us whether he is advocating his own policy or the policy of the government?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member is new to the House, but he has been here long enough to know that I cannot speak for the government. I speak for myself.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I thought you were a parliamentary secretary.


Herb Breau: That was a year ago. Government policy as put forward in the Speech from the Throne is not that there should necessarily be less government intervention. What the government said was that we have to be more careful about the kind of intervention, that we should make sure that when we do intervene, we intervene in a productive way. That is precisely the point that I was making. I should like to give the House an example of what I mean. I believe that today and forever more this country is going to need a network of day-care centres, not only for social reasons but for economic reasons. 1 suggest this should be obvious to anyone unless they live in an area unlike mine and do not have to deal with the kind of welfare cases I get in my constituency office and here. The Economic Council of Canada, in its recent report, stated that somewhere between 1982 and 1985 there is going to be a shortage of productive labour in this country. The fact is that a lot of mothers and women today who could be productive have to stay home to look after the kids. It would make more economic sense, quite apart from the social value of this, for the federal government and the provinces to set up a network of day-care centres.
Another area of concern is unwed mothers. We must accept the fact that morality and behaviour have changed, whether we like it or not. We are not a church; we are a political body and are limited in the extent to which we can impose morality upon the people. While some members would like to do that, 1 do not think that we can. We have to respond to moral behaviour and the comportment of society.
Restraint of Government Expenditures
A lot of marriages are breaking up and mothers and fathers are left with one or two children; or sometimes the whole family splits up. There has been a change in attitude and in the lives of people, and this is one further reason why we need government intervention. Lately I have come across case after case of marriage breakdown and either the father or the mother is really put in the position of being unproductive. They cannot work or hold a permanent, productive job precisely because there are no day-care centres in their community. This is why we need more government intervention; the economy of and benefit to the country demands it.
It seems to me that it is all right to question the means by which government intervenes, to say that there is too much bureaucracy, or that the return we get from the bureaucracy is not productive enough. But in this regard I should like to hear hon. members put forward ways in which the bureaucracy can be made more responsive and productive in the kind of society in which we live. I think this is a problem most western societies have to deal with. It is not a simple one; it is a very complicated and complex one. It may be okay in a certain area to say that the mechanics of implementation become too complex and complicated, that they are too much borne down by procedures, that we should eliminate them and start afresh. But it is illusory to talk about the dangers of too much government intervention, and in the Canadian context it would be a disaster, generally speaking, if government were to decide massively to reduce its intervention in the economy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: Don't take us for a trip to the outports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is making his maiden speech, and therefore should not be interrupted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Some maiden!


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; that is certainly a wonderful suggestion, in making my first address to this House of Commons, it is, of course, a great occasion for me to speak in this chamber with so many years of history and tradition behind it. I hope I will be able to meet the standard of debate in the House and make some contribution.
In making my maiden speech, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be remiss if I did not congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), on his elevation to that post. As all hon. members know, he is a Newfoundland member, and every Newfoundlander is very proud of the fact that he has been promoted; I think it is a promotion for him to go to that post.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On a personal note, may I say the hon. member was a very good friend of my father and was associated with him in business many years ago. They always had a
80001-631/2

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
very close relationship, and I know he would be thrilled to know that Don Jamieson is today Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada and making such a good job of it. That does not mean to say that I am not going to be critical of the minister, Mr. Speaker, because I am, and I will be on other occasions. He is not perfect, but all Newfoundlanders appreciate the job he is doing and the fact that he has had this confidence placed in him by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
If I am allowed to stretch the rules a bit on this occasion, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), my Progressive Conservative colleagues in this House from Newfoundland, for their very distinguished record here, the hon. member for St. John's East since 1957 and the hon. member for Humber-St.George's-St. Barbe since 1968. It is a great pleasure to be in their company in this House and to have them advise and guide me.
I should also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for the reception he had for myself and the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) when we were sworn in. It was a great occasion for me and my family. I should like particularly to thank the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), both of whom attended. It was a great privilege to have the former prime minister, the former leader of our party, and the present leader of our party-who will be the next prime minister-present on that occasion.
I do not wish to try the patience of hon. gentlemen opposite, but I want to speak on the restraint of expenditures bill and say that in my view the policy of this government with regard to the restraint of expenditures is a pernicious one, a phony one and one which ignores the realities of life in Canada and ignores the needs of our disadvantaged areas, in particular the Atlantic provinces. It is a policy which I will not support in this House of Commons. I believe, as we all do, that inflation has to be fought. I believe, also, in the concept that expenditures must be restrained. But surely we must look at the various areas of this country and see where expenditures need to be restrained and where they do not need to be restrained as much.
It is beyond my comprehension how any government can restrain expenditures in an area of the country which has an unemployment rate of 13.9 per cent. It is, in fact, positively cruel and inhuman for any government to apply a restraint policy equally across this country as though every section of it is the same. It may be a policy of restraint that is quite apt for provinces like Ontario, Alberta or Saskatchewan, perhaps, where there are now high employment figures, but it is not proper to apply it blindly to Newfoundland which has an unemployment rate of almost 14 per cent.
There are two things on which I should like to speak, Mr. Speaker: the restraint of government expenditures in connec-
[Mr. Crosbie.)
tion with the services which the government of Canada gives directly to people, and the restraint of the moneys it transfers to other governments in Canada, because in both respects this government is ignoring one of the basic premises on which it was elected in 1968 and since then. 1 think there were supposed to be two great themes, one being bilingualism and dealing with the French question, and the other the Prime Minister's statement that he would overcome regional disparity. The Prime Minister has not overcome regional disparity one jot or tittle. He has now apparently despaired of that policy and is casting it aside, because no effort is being made now by the government of Canada to try to overcome regional disparity.
I mentioned the unemployment rate in Newfoundland. Construction is down. New car sales are down. There is no recovery there. Payments of unemployment insurance are up. The economy keeps going because of the transfer of payments and pensions and payments in other directions which they are entitled to as are other Canadians.
When we look at government expenditures and compare the two governments, we find that the provincial government is strapped, it does not have great financial resources, and is borrowing what money it can to keep the economy operating in Newfoundland. It is borrowing more than it should to keep some construction and some employment going in the province, while the other government, with unlimited resources, with the Bank of Canada in its captivity and with power over currency and credit, ignores our conditions and treats us in the same manner that it treats every other part of Canada.
We might just look at the record. In 1974-75, DREE spent in Newfoundland, together with the provincial contribution, $67 million. That was two years ago. Last year, 1975-76, the expenditure declined to $62 million, and in the present year, 1976-77, the expenditure has declined to $55 million as the estimated cash flow from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in Newfoundland. At a time when the government should be expanding its spending, at a time when it has before it many proposals from the government of Newfoundland, at a time when the people in Newfoundland are spending in order to help overcome regional disparity, the federal government has reduced its expenditure by $12 million compared to two years ago.
For the government of Canada to spend the same amount, taking into account inflation, as it spent two years ago it would need to spend $80 million this year in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. When we look at that department which is supposed to carry out the great policy of overcoming regional disparity, we see that the effort is less, not more, and is considerably less when we take into account inflation. When we look at public works, we see the same thing. The public works agency in Newfoundland of the government of Canada is strangled for funds and unable properly to maintain the facilities it has there because its spending has been cut back and restrained in an area where it should be spending more to
November 15, 1976

create employment for the 26,000 Newfoundlanders who are out of work.
In respect of small craft and harbours we have the same story. Two years ago, in Newfoundland, the expenditure for small craft and harbours was $6,801,000: that was in 1974-75. In the following year it was reduced to $4,200,000. This year they are spending something like $4 million on small craft and harbour works. There are excellent people in charge of that agency, but they can only perform if they have the money with which to perform. Why would any government cut back the spending on projects like that which create employment and which are useful services needed at a time of high unemployment? That is a question this government should answer. We have cut-backs in DREE, in public works and in small craft and harbours.
One thing I cannot fathom about this government is its parsimonious attitude, its mean attitude with respect to the question of offshore mineral jurisdiction in Newfoundland. When we entered confederation we brought with us the oil and the gas and the claims to the continental shelf which Canada now has. Sixty-five per cent of the whole offshore area on the east coast of Canada was brought into confederation by Newfoundland. If Newfoundland had not joined, Canada would have had to take a back seat at the law of the sea conference. Canada would have no claim to the oil and gas that lie offshore in Labrador and northeast Newfoundland. One would think that the central government would be delighted that a have-not province like Newfoundland would have a chance to become self-sustaining through the development of those resources if that government would recognize our ownership and control of them. But rather than that, the government of Canada says that it owns and controls the natural resources that Newfoundland brought with it into confederation.
The government bases its position on the legal possibilities involved in a case in British Columbia some eight or nine years ago. Why would not the government say it recognizes that the province of Newfoundland, a have-not province, has a great chance to be financially self-sustaining, so that it would not need tax equalization and transfer payments, and welcome that possibility and confirm that the province owns and controls the use of those resources? Rather than that, the government of Canada wants to keep us dependent upon it. It wants to keep us under its power and control. That is the only reason I can see for the policy the government adopts with regard to our main economic chance in Newfoundland. That is why this government has to be changed.
There was no spending by the government of Canada in our province on defence or search and rescue until the last several weeks, as a results of the efforts of hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The government's transportation policy is brutal with respect to Newfoundland. The letters "CNR" stand for "Canned Newfoundland Railwaymen". Those letters also stand for "Cannibalize the Newfoundland Railway", because the present government of Canada is permitting the CNR to do as it likes in Newfoundland and to lay off men as it likes, to
Restraint of Government Expenditures reduce its services as it likes and to force the freight and express traffic on to the highways.
The pitiful little two-lane highway we have across Newfoundland must now endure tremendous quantities of freight and express traffic because the CNR wants to fix the situation so that they can argue to the government of Canada that it need no longer operate a railway in Newfoundland because there are not sufficient goods being transported in that province. Their labour policy is brutal and shameful. There is not an employee of the CNR in Newfoundlad now who knows his job is safe for the next year or for the next five years. There are 3,900 people working in the CNR, in dry dock and rail service in Newfoundland, and not one of them has job security. They have seen the shameful manner in which they have been abused by the CNR in Newfoundland over the last ten years. We will fight that and we will change it when the next government takes over.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I should like to speak for a few moments on government to government transactions, I have painted a bad enough record of cutbacks and restraints of expenditures by the government of Canada in Newfoundland when they should be helping to combat our fantastically high rate of unemployment. Many hon. members here do not have the experience I had when I was involved in the political campaign with dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of men and women coming every day looking for jobs. One cannot find them jobs because there is no new construction and there are no jobs. I know there are abuses of the unemployment insurance system and of the welfare system, but the fact remains that 90 per cent of the unemployed men and women want jobs, they do not want to be sitting idle, they are looking for work in Newfoundland, but the government of Canada is doing little to help them.
What did it do with the Opportunities for Youth program, another program which was cut back? The government is knocking down the Company of Young Canadians in this bill. They became too dangerous or radical for hon. gentlemen opposite. In 1975, in Newfoundland, OFY brought jobs to 2,950 young people, at the cost of $2.8 million. There is nothing wrong with that. It gave people in universities a chance to work in the summer. In 1976 this was eliminated, but not because the unemployment rate had gone down. I do not know the reason. This year we have the same high unemployment, which will be higher in the next few months, yet we are offered a measly $8 million for LIP projects, not even matching the $12 million spent last year. We are offered some $4 million less in Newfoundland, with unemployment just as bad, and likely to be worse. What kind of humanitarian instincts motivate the government opposite? Why do they cut down on the Opportunities for Youth program? Now we hear this palaver of propaganda that it will be replaced by something much better. Let us see it where it counts. I cannot tell my people in St. John's West that there is anything better coming, because it has not been proven to me yet.

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
These are some of the problems of government-to-person direct programs. The capital winter works program was eliminated. It is bad enough for the government to eliminate the direct services of the government to individuals who live in Newfoundland and in other disadvantaged areas, but now they are going to squeeze provincial governments. They will squeeze the governments of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I have been lucky enough-or perhaps unlucky enough-to attend most federal-provincial conferences in the last five years. I found in the last two years a noticeable change in attitude. The change is that the government of Canada does not care any longer whether the weaker provinces in Canada sink or swim. They have given up hearing. Every time we look at a government program, we see the squeeze being applied, such as on tax equalization. The government of Canada wants to change that program because expenditures have been escalating more than was originally contemplated. In Newfoundland that is a very important program.
The programs I will speak about now account for 52 per cent of all the revenue of the government of Newfoundland. So the federal government want to change the tax equalization formula, and a few months ago they announced they would change the revenue guarantee program in connection with the reformed income tax structure, and change it retroactively. That will cost Newfoundland $8 million if it goes through. It will cost Ontario a lot more. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is unbending; he will not bend one iota, although 1 am informed that he is bending slightly now. He will soon be broader bent than Ed Broadbent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. gentleman will have to give, Mr. Speaker, because the government has recognized that across Canada, not only the ordinary people but governments, no matter of what political stripe, whether Liberal, P.C. or NDP, will be called an anathema. They are all fed up with the performance of this government.
First there was the revenue guarantee, then there was medicare. The government of Canada instituted the medicare plan. They followed the example of the hon. gentleman who sits in the House now, the former premier of Saskatchewan. For provinces such as Newfoundland, with our low ratio of doctors, a large part of the expenditure for the first few years came from the government of Canada under the provisions of that plan. But now that is changing. Now we have to pay about 64 per cent of the cost of medicare. Along comes the government which instituted the plan and suggests they will put a ceiling on it.
This government does not have to bargain collectively with CUPE or with other unions which represent hospital workers; it does not have to deal directly with the fantastic increase in hospital costs. Who could argue that hospital wages should not be improved, compared with what they were three or four years ago? So they want to leave hospital insurance to the provinces and they want to leave medicare to the provinces.

They put their ceiling on the plans, a ceiling which has no relationship to the cost which the provinces have to bear in operating hospital insurance and medicare for many years to come. The result will be that provinces such as Newfoundland will no longer be able to carry on even the services they now have, much less improve them. If these plans and schemes come into effect, the province of Newfoundland will not be able to maintain its present services because more and more of its budget will have to go into medicare and hospital insurance programs already in effect.
The government of Canada put a ceiling on post-secondary education expenditures. I believe they will permit an increase of up to 15 per cent a year. Last year, post-secondary education cost Newfoundland $1.6 million more than it would have if that arbitrary ceiling had not been imposed. If the federal government had met its original obligation, Newfoundland would have had $1.6 million for those programs. That is not calculated to help the disadvantaged provinces in providing proper post-secondary educational services to their people. So in every direction we look, whether government-to-person or government-to-government programs, the record of the government opposite is a sorry one, and it is getting sorrier every day.
Another change that has brought major consequences with it is with respect to the RCMP. The RCMP is the police force in Newfoundland. Hon. gentlemen opposite are squeezing the government of Newfoundland and other provinces where the RCMP is operating. Formerly they shared 50-50 with the provinces the cost of the services of the RCMP. This year the government wants to change it to 52 per cent. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that when I said that you thought the government of Canada was going to take 52 per cent itself, that this great big, wealthy and healthy government was going to pay 52 per cent of the cost. Not at all. They are saying to the provinces that they want their share to decrease to 48 per cent, and our share to go up to 52 per cent this year. Next year it will go up another percentage point and this will continue until it reaches 56 per cent. They are not even prepared to continue to pay half the cost of the RCMP in the provinces where they now operate. What kind of policy is that? Of course they need the RCMP. They should have had more RCMP on duty last weekend when 11 prisoners escaped. However, that is another story. We do not know where they are headed for today- probably a polling booth in Quebec. Eleven of them escaped in one weekend alone. If this keeps up another few weekends, there will not be a prisoner left in Canada's prisons. So even with respect to a minor service like the RCMP, the federal government is squeezing the provinces. It does not matter whether one province can less afford it than another; the same policy is being applied to them all.
The former premier of Newfoundland is still actively engaged in politics.


An hon. Member:: He is now back with the Liberals.
November 15, 1976


John Carnell Crosbie: We will see what a circus there will be in the next ten months and we will see how long he will stay after the next leadership convention. The hon. gentleman once said that you should not treat Canada like the bed of Procrustes. He always had a very apt illustration. 1 believe Procrustes was a gentleman who was longer than his bed, and to get people into his bed they had to be broken up. At least, 1 think that was the point. That is what is happening here. The present government has gone back to the policy of Procrustes, that we all have to suit its mould and we all have to suit its financial restraint programs. That is where it has ended up, and if this policy continues the disadvantaged provinces will be in serious financial straits within the next year or two; there is no question about that.
To come back to transportation, not only is there an attempt to downgrade our services, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), with unparalleled arrogance, last July whipped out from under the jurisdiction of our public utilities commission the CN buses which operate in Newfoundland. Hon. gentleman will remember that a few years ago the Liberal government of Newfoundland agreed that if the government of Canada helped finance the TransCanada Highway, and finally gave 90 per cent of the cost, they could phase out the CNR passenger service and replace it with a bus service. It was agreed that the buses would come under the jurisdiction of the Newfoundland board of commissioners of public utilities for regulation purposes, and that continued. In fact, there were appeals, even to the Supreme Court of Canada which confirmed that. However, a few months ago the CN tried to raise its bus rates in Newfoundland by 130 per cent-and there is no rail passenger service left-but the board of commissioners of the public utilities reduced that increase to 30 per cent or 32 per cent.
The response from the Minister of Transport, the bionic minister who is headed for $6 million in travelling expenses before this operation ceases, was to snatch the buses out from under the control of our public utilities commission without any warning or consultation. He passed an order in council and put them under the Canadian Transport Commission. They will certainly have a cosy nest under the arm of the CTC, which knows nothing of conditions in Newfoundland, which could not care less, and which is 1,600 miles away. Of course, we know who the chairman of the CTC is and from which ministry he came. This is unparalleled in the history of Canada. The government thinks that Newfoundland is a small, puny little province which is afraid, which will not fight back and which can be treated with contempt and arrogance. The government thinks that Newfoundland does not matter, that the people in central Canada will not know about it and that they are the only ones who count.
The thing which matters to the government is how it can put itself over on the media in Ontario and Quebec. Newfoundland and its problems are booted around and do not get much attention here; but Newfoundland is going to get some attention as long as I can be heard in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Restraint of Government Expenditures


John Carnell Crosbie: In every way the record of this government with regard to transportation in Newfoundland is terrible. I said today that I would not criticize my hon. colleague for Burin-Burgeo, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. 1 will pass over his misdeeds and misdemeanours and leave that for another occasion. I will pass over how things have been arranged so that Port aux Basques gets all the transportation money in Newfoundland, and St. John's West, St. John's East, Gander, Twillingate, Bonavista, Trinity and Conception and the rest get the left-overs. That is something 1 will expand upon on another occasion; 1 do not want to mention it today. I am not sure what the time limit is in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not want to be partisan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I thank hon. gentlemen opposite for being so quiet while I am making this speech. After this, of course, I expect no mercy. The record of the government is a sorry one, one which has to be changed. It is too late for the government to change its ways. There is no way it will survive the wrath of the electorate when it comes to meet its maker in the next 18 months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I believe the facts I have laid before the House today should illustrate that the present government is arrogant, lacks feeling, is unbending, is uncaring and casually assumes its own superiority. That is its hallmark. The government assumes that it is superior and that it will be here forever. The government will be disabused of that notion very shortly. The government is cynical. It first fights against wage and price controls and brings them in 16 months later. That is what disturbs the people of this country. They are not disturbed by wage and price controls themselves.
This reminds me how delighted 1 was to see Premier Bla-keney of Saskatchewan when I was in Saskatoon this weekend. He admonished the federation of labour out there and told them that as a socialist he believed in a planned economy and that a planned economy meant controls on income. He asked the federation why it was fussing so much about wage controls, because a true socialist believes in income controls. All this charade of labour unions across the country beating their gums about wage and price controls, when the NDP supports it, is but a laugh. They do not understand that the party they support supports controls on income and if that party ever gets into power we will have our incomes controlled; there are no two ways about that. Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan is a clear-thinking man who says what he believes, and he made it quite clear what he believes in. In my opinion, he put the union people out there in their place. What tripe for them to support the NDP and then fight against an income controls program. They can fight against this House and the ministers, but not against the concept of the program.

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
We accuse the government of this country of economic mismanagement, and we accuse the government of giving up the attempt to overcome regional disparity, as 1 mentioned when I started. This is not a new situation; it is the same kind of situation as that which existed in 1957. In 1957 there was a confident, smug Liberal government which thought it was destined to rule forever. Mr. St. Laurent and his colleagues went to the people of Canada, and the right hon. member for Prince Albert led the revolution of revulsion which had been brewing and simmering in the people of Canada for the previous couple of years and swept them out of office. The right hon. member for Prince Albert was from Alberta-


Some hon. Members:: Saskatchewan.


John Carnell Crosbie: -and in a year or two years, or perhaps 15 months-it cannot come too quickly; perhaps it will come during the winter or spring-the hon. member for Rocky Mountain will lead another revolution of revulsion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No partisan speeches.


John Carnell Crosbie: My next speech in this House will be from the other side.


An hon. Member:: Is that all the speeches you are going to make?


An hon. Member:: Are you going to change party again?


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. gentlemen opposite have enough of a leadership problem. The worm soon turns. I do not believe that the main issue in Canada is bilingualism, and the people of Canada do not believe that. We are not going to be fooled by it; we are not going to have the wool pulled over our eyes. The people of central Canada may visualize that as the main problem, but they are fooling themselves. We in Newfoundland believe in the policy of bilingualism, but our belief in that policy has not helped our energy differences with the province of Quebec. Bilingualism does not help us there; it is a problem of provincial or interprovincial politics. We do not think bilingualism is a problem.
I believe that the problems are, first, the nature of Canadian federalism. Are we going to have a unitary state, as the Prime Minister and the government seem to be heading toward? They are at full gallop toward having all power centred in Ottawa. That is the impact of their policies. They do not care about the regions, or want strong regions. That is the true nature of federalism. Are we going to have an overwhelmingly strong federal government with five or six weak counties and a couple of strong provinces, or a true federal state? That issue will be decided in the next election, as our leader believes in the second alternative.
Overcoming unemployment is another problem and it is much greater than bilingualism. It is true that 7.6 per cent
[Mr. Crosbie.)
unemployment may not be a fantastic rate across Canada when you take into account that today there are a lot of two-job families with women working, and so on. These excuses can put unemployment to 14 per cent, but unemployment in any part of the country is unforgivable and there have to be ways of overcoming regional unemployment. That is why in St. John's West, on October 14, the New Democratic Party candidate did so well. It is why I was elected, and why the Liberal candidate was completely trodden underfoot with only 16 per cent of the vote in a province that has been Liberal since confederation. It is a sign of what is to come, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the true nature of Canadian federalism, Mr. Speaker. There is the question of overcoming unemployment and keeping inflation under control. No area of this country should come anywhere near 14 per cent unemployment. The third problem is regional disparity. The government is tired of wrestling with that difficult problem, but hon. members over here want a chance to grapple with it. The right hon. member for Prince Albert made a breakthrough when he was in power, and this party is ready to tackle that problem again and overcome it.
The fourth problem is to make Canada productive again. I put that well ahead of bilingualism. The so-called Canadian nationalism is, in my view, merely a reflection of Ontario provincialism. We are supposed to be Canadian nationalists over whatever issues excite the people of Ontario. But they are provincial in their view and think that the Foreign Investment Review Act and such things are the greatest issues that interest the people of Canada. But they are far more interested in the things I have mentioned.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for being so patient. I know I may have been a bit more partisan than was expected, but the people of St. John's West have not had a voice here for 14 months because the Prime Minister shivered and shook in his boots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: They have not elected me to come here and be quiet for the next six months. Their problems are too great, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to express those problems here, as will members opposite and members on this side. In Newfoundland, 530,000 people feel aggrieved because they have not been looked after properly by the federal government. They think it has gone off the rails. They are concerned about bilingualism, about feeding their families, about having jobs, proper services and transportation, and about keeping the jobs they have. Those are the things on their minds, not bilingualism. They are prepared to deal with that question, too, but after the more fundamental things.
If the government keep on with its present policies of restricting expenditures as illustrated by this bill, if they continue with their policy of squeezing the provinces as they are doing at the federal-provincial conferences, then in New-
November 15, 1976

foundland the theme song is going to be "Throw out the lifeline". Someone is going to have to rescue them, and that is going to be the hon. member for Rocky Mountain when he forms the next government.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on his maiden speech. It seemed to me to exhibit both poise and expertise, but hardly the undue modesty that one attributes to maidens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Bill C-19 is entitled an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures. The very basis of the bill is the obligation of the government to restrain spending. In the days of inflation this is obviously a desirable and urgent objective, but the restraint must be applied in the right places in order not to destroy constructive efforts to expand production or cause great hardship to those who can bear it least. My colleagues have discussed the detailed provisions of the bill and 1 should like to deal with a related matter which is not covered by the bill itself, that is, the whole question of restraint in government spending in the area of defence.
The point I wish to emphasize is that restraint in connection with government expenditures on unnecessary defence installations should be given serious consideration. The tendency of nearly all modern governments-and not only governments but the press and some parts of the public-is to treat government expenditures on defence as sacrosanct, that is, touch everything else but do not touch defence expenditures. It is not a popular subject, but it is an important one. On the other hand, I suggest there is no more inflationary expenditure than that on defence. It produces no consumer goods and does not produce extra goods. As we have all observed, defence spending has a self-perpetuating tendency. Defence installations go on and defence alliances go on whether they are necessary or unnecessary. I think this is a subject which requires careful consideration.
In Canada, not only have we embarked already upon substantial expenditures for military purposes whose usefulness may be doubtful, but the former minister of national defence spoke triumphantly in this House about a year ago saying that his department was not to be subject to a ceiling on expenditures but was to be allowed an increased capital expenditure of 12 per cent per annum for five years. I suggest that was clearly inflationary.
The tendency is the past has been to make these expenditures taboo and not a subject for discussion. The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence can examine the details, but in this chamber in the past, with the governments we have had, there has been no tendency to consult with that committee on the major projects that are contemplated. A notorious example is the purchase of the Orion, the LRPA, from the Lockheed Corporation. This was sprung on the Canadian people, with a minimum of discussion
Restraint of Government Expenditures about its basic purpose, at a price that turned out to be over $ 1 billion. There was a lot of discussion about the details and the ineptitude exhibited in handling the negotiations by the government which did not have a word in writing.
There has also been discussion throughout the world about the mismanagement in Lockheed and its worldwide system of bribery. I hasten to add, Mr. Speaker, that no one suggested any Canadian was bribed. It would appear that our defence department was ready to accept the advice of American officials with an interest in the financial stability of Lockheed without serious question. The fact is that the Orion had different purposes and roles. One major role assigned to it was participation in long-range and submarine warfare in the Atlantic. The scenario provided for an attack by superior conventional forces of the U.S.S.R. and Warsaw pact in Europe, followed by a protracted war in Europe in which the North American continent would seek to send supplies by ship to Europe. This method of supply would be countered by submarine warfare in the North Atlantic. It was proposed that long-range patrol aircraft could be used to fly across the Atlantic to detect and destroy submarines and thereby protect the sea lanes of the Atlantic.
The weakness of this scenario is that it is hardly credible. It is most unlikely that such a war would emerge in the missile age. Indeed, in the two great wars fought in the past the containment of the submarine menace was of the utmost importance, and strenuous measures were taken for dealing with submarines. It would be a grave mistake to transfer to the present day the thinking which applied to the totally different circumstances existing during those wars. It is hard to believe that if, as assumed, the U.S.S.R. were to launch even a partially successful attack on Europe, the war would not quickly develop into a nuclear war.
This situation has been foreseen. For example Air ViceMarshall Stewart Menaul, head of the Royal United Services Institute for Defence Studies, London, says that present NATO strategy means that only immediate use of nuclear weapons would stop a Warsaw pact assault. In the series called "Power at Sea," one of the Adelphi papers submitted by the institute of strategic studies-by Professor Hedley Bull who is well known in the field-analysed what small powers can do in naval warfare and recommended that their role should be the defence of coastal waters and fishing zones out to the anticipated 200-mile limit. By the same token, he gives reasons for thinking that extended submarine warfare is not a suitable role for the forces of a small or medium power. So far as Canada is concerned, preparation for this sort of submarine warfare is a waste of time and money. In addition, we are committed to spend some $184 million on German Leopard tanks which are to be used mostly in the central plains of Europe. If it is necessary for Canada to continue this role, perhaps that is a reasonable expenditure. In any event, that proposition, too, requires review either by parliament or the defence committee.
80001 -64

On the other hand. Bush said, the U.S. has many weapons systems that the Russians cannot duplicate.
That is enough to illustrate my point. It is not that these figures are necessarily correct. They may well be wrong. It is not that we should close our eyes, drop our guard, or any other expression you want to use with regard to a careful study of what is required-an awareness. We live in a world that could turn very hostile. Therefore, I am not asking that that be done. What I am asking is that we do not rush into every heavy expenditure proposed by certain defence sources merely because of some panic created about what is supposed to be the situation in the U.S.S.R.
I conclude by making an appeal to the House, especially the Minister of National Defence, to start a new era in this matter of defence spending, an era in which the policies of the government shall be open. 1 know there are secrets that cannot be divulged, secrets that have military significance. However, the over-all purpose and the over-all role we have to play can well be discussed by intelligent people. There is a lot of expertise required in this field. People who know what they are talking about have often stated that intelligent people directing their minds to these matters can come up with rational, common sense and worth while conclusions. We in this House have not been given the opportunity to do so.
I hope the new Minister of National Defence will usher in a new era, partly through the committee and partly through statements in this House. I hope he will make sure that what we do is needed to be done, that the people of Canada understand why it is being done and, if it is not necessary, the restraint which we urge in other fields will be applied in this field as well.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saint John's West (Mr. Crosbie) on his maiden speech. I can honestly say that 1 have a certain affinity with the hon. member. Coming from British Columbia, we are used to the idea of people changing political parties like they change their socks. Therefore, 1 can understand the hon. member for Saint John's West. I hope that hon. member follows the example of Joey Smallwood who, as a Liberal, brought Newfoundland into confederation. He wavered at some point, but recently announced he has rediscovered that the Liberal party is the party of mainstream Canada, and he has rejoined that party. I only hope the hon. member for Saint John's West will have a similar happy reconversion in his political life. He will find out that the Liberals are a forgiving party and do not hold animosity against people who wish to change their party at any given time.
I wish to comment briefly on a particular point raised by the hon. member for Saint John's West. He discussed where DREE money goes within his very beautiful province. If I am not mistaken, the hon. member was a former finance minister in the province of Newfoundland. It is the provinces which decide where DREE money will go. They set the priorities. Therefore, the hon. member for Saint John's West is criticizing himself for not having put DREE money in the right areas
Restraint of Government Expenditures of that province. I have had similar experience with the province of British Columbia. 1 cannot get a sou of DREE money on Vancouver Island. It is not because the federal government will not pay it; it is because it is not a priority of the provincial government. The hon. member spoke about DREE money going into certain constituencies. That amazes me, because obviously it was his government that put it there.
1 realize this was his maiden speech, but I had to make a few comments regarding his remarks. It is not being done with any malicious intent, but merely to set the record straight. It is the province that sets the priorities, not the federal government.
If 1 had my way, 1 would like to have a lot more say about where this money is spent, rather than have the provinces have all the control over how the taxpayers' money of Canada is spent within the provinces. 1 may be from Missouri, but I sometimes wonder if the provinces are being honest on occasion in putting money into areas that might meet their priorities for several reasons but are not in the best interests of their provinces, at least from the federal point of view. If we are going to spend money in the provinces, we should have a lot more say than we have had in the past.
I do not like to see members come here, especially an ex-minister of finance of a province, and say that the federal government is directing it, when the truth is exactly the opposite. As a former minister of finance, the hon. member for Saint John's West would have had more say about this than probably any other cabinet minister in that particular government. I wanted to make those few remarks before dealing with Bill C-19.
I, too, would like to express the problem that I have as a new member of parliament. Whether you are a new or an old member of parliament, or whether you are in provincial or municipal politics, I am sure one meets the same problem. Day after day the opposition chastises the government for spending too much money. They ask why the federal government has such an enormous budget which has grown by 300 per cent in the past ten years. They say that if they were in power they would certainly do something about it. They say they would bring in legislation which would do one of two things. The hon. member for St. John's West says we do not spend enough money in his area. However, generally speaking, the position taken by the official opposition is that we should cut down the amount of money spent by government and be more prudent with the taxpayers' money. But whenever we do this members over there complain we are at fault and should, rather, be making our economies in some other direction.
Is this politically honest, when a definite effort is made to restrain government spending? Surely the opposition should cheer these efforts and pound their desks. Or is it a fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has so far failed to produce a policy? Are members over there still trying to decide where they stand? Must we wait two more years until they come up with an answer? At least the official opposition should have the courtesy to let us know whether or not they
80001 -64%

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
have made up their minds. I do not care which way they decide to go; I only wish they would go one way or the other. The people of Canada expect the opposition to take a stand on questions of national interest. I do not think the people are getting a fair deal from the official opposition at this time. I suspect they are taking money under false pretences. As an official opposition, members over there have a duty not only to oppose but to offer constructive criticism. I have been listening to this debate for several days and I have not heard a single concrete suggestion from over there. How is it possible to carry on a debate when only one side has a position?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: I should like to take a few moments to discuss one of the clauses of Bill C-19 which has to do with family allowances. Instead of being negative, perhaps one of the speakers for the Conservative party would like to comment on the question whether the government should be tying family allowances in with family income; in other words, whether a family with an income of $50,000 a year or more should be getting a family allowance amounting to $22 or $23, or whatever it is, as opposed to a family with an income of around $7,000 a year.
We have set precedents in the past under the old age pension program and other government programs. We recognize that some people have less money than others, and we say to them, "When it comes to federal funding, we shall place the main emphasis on the needs of those with lower incomes." We do not give equivalent grants of money to those who have been successful in life. Rather, we have concentrated on those who, in many cases through no fault of their own, have lost the ability to make the same kind of income as more fortunate citizens enjoy.
What does the official opposition say about this? It would obviously be possible to save money by withdrawing the allowance from high income earners and redistributing it among families which are finding real difficulty in meeting the burden of inflation, families in which the breadwinner might have serious problems about holding a job in present economic circumstances. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether it would not be better for us to address ourselves to this problem rather than to the question whether the $22 should be frozen or not. Ought we not to be asking ourselves whether the money which is presently going into the economy under this plan is being used to the best possible advantage? Speaking for myself, 1 have some doubt as to whether this money is being directed to those who most require it.
We all know that the costs of raising a family have increased tremendously in the last few years. Young people starting out in marriage today often decide that both shall work for the first five or ten years, not because the wife particularly wants to go out to work, or because the husband wants to come home and cook TV dinners, but because it is very costly to bring up a family during times of inflation. If we accept this situation, should we not be asking ourselves, as members of parliament, whether the many millions of dollars

which go out in the form of family allowances are going to the right people? Is the present egalitarian basis of distribution, in accordance with which the same amount is sent to everyone, regardless of income, in direct proportion to the number of children in a family, really in the interests of those who could best use a helping hand in the raising of their families?


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Statistics Canada; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Energy.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Benno Friesen: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider holding a national referendum for the purpose of making a survey of public opinion on the issue of capital punishment at the time of the next federal election.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have submitted this motion to the House because I believe that many Canadians feel they were betrayed by parliament last summer. Never before has there been such a consistently uniform expression to all members of parliament by their electorate as on the issue of capital punishment. For about the past five years every reliable indicator has shown that about 80 per cent of the Canadian people wanted to see a return of the death penalty. Members of the House were fully aware of this desire, yet chose not to ignore it but to recognize it and then to override it. This is why people all across Canada today feel that their elected representatives have betrayed them.
November 15, 1976

The Liberal government achieved the majority vote it sought on that issue by using the age-old tactic of the decoy and thereby fragment the opposition. The Liberal cabinet voted as a block and were, in fact, expected to show solidarity behind a government-sponsored bill; but each other member of the House, on the surface at least, was supposed to vote independently. This gave the government not only the advantage of an immediate block of about 28 votes but also the influence of that block for persuading others.
The decoy strategy centred on promoting the idea of a "free" vote or "conscience" vote, incidentally thereby absurdly implying that none of the other votes taken in parliament are either "free" or "conscience" votes. In my mind, Mr. Speaker, this is what has destroyed the respect Canadians ought to have for the institution and the elected members who make up this body. It is this superseding of private wishes over the wishes of the Canadian people that is making every thinking and feeling elector distrust all those men and women who run for public office.
I can well imagine that during the 1974 election every member of this House, in one way or another, said to their electorates, "Vote for me; I want to be your representative in Ottawa". Two years later they had their greatest chance. They were faced with a vote that was openly non-partisan, a vote that gave them the clear opportunity to represent the wishes of their constituents without any prior commitment to any party policy. Every member was aware of the numerous national polls on this subject; probably all members had approximately the same ratio indicated in their mail when the public was speaking out on this issue. The government, faced with this reality, had to find some way to defeat the will of the majority. They found it by declaring that the vote on capital punishment would be a "conscience" vote, again implying that members do not exercise their conscience on any other votes.
So the debate on capital punishment as a subject itself was really an exercise of diminishing importance, except for the very important factor of providing the electors with information on how each member established his position and justified his vote. In the end, the vote was really not on capital punishment as much as it was a test of whether or not parliament was an expression of the will of the people. Clearly, we failed. We failed because all of us, to one degree or another, bought the validity of the concept of the free vote. Faced with the choice of representing their electors or representing themselves, many chose to represent themselves.
1 said during the debate that such a response was nothing but elitism. It is, in effect, saying that regardless of what the majority of Canadians think on this issue, and regardless of how definitively they have expressed themselves on it, the members here know better and, therefore, can override the will of the majority. I am not forgetting, Mr. Speaker, that sometimes this is the case, that it is in fact the job of the member to study issues in detail, to use all the resources at his disposal, resources that may not be available to the general public, and then as a result perhaps arrive at conclusions that are unpopular and possibly misunderstood. But the issue of capital pun-
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment ishment has been the most talked about, the most studied, and the most thought-out issue by the public in recent years. The public was not uninformed or unthinking on this issue.
Is it not curious, Mr. Speaker, that when the Liberal government were elected in 1974, they took pride in how intelligent and insightful the electors were in choosing them to govern, yet within two years they were saying that those same electors, who two years previously were so smart, were now so dumb they could not be trusted with such an issue. 1 think the public now knows it has been used, that it has been had. Is it any wonder we face a problem of voter apathy in this country? Too many voters have been convinced by such decisions as this one, isolated from the will of the voting public, that such candidates and members of parliament come to them only out of necessity at election time. Such actions by parliament have convinced voters that their vote will have no real effect on the destiny of Canada.
I know that those who disagree with what I am saying will counter by saying, in effect, "What do you want a member of parliament to be, an automaton, slavishly repeating what he has been told by a partially or ill-informed public? Are we to have parliament made up of a delegate system, where members go home to a committee to receive instructions as to how they should vote, making parliament a kind of council of supreme Soviets, or presidium or, at best, a convention? Not at all; that is nothing but argument by the ridiculous; and the Canadian people don't expect that: they expect members of this House to be capable of intelligent and independent decision-making. But they also expect to be listened to and to be heard, and heard in earnest. Also, they expect honesty at election time. If candidates and members plan to ignore or disregard the will of their electors once they are elected, they should be honest enough to say so at the time.
If ignoring the will of the majority can be justified in any way at all, then why, pray, go through the expense and ritual of redistribution? Why enlarge the scale of possibilities to disillusion the electorate? This House seems to be perfectly capable of acting autocratically with its present size. Presumably we plan to enlarge the House to give better representation to the Canadian people. Presumably the additional members will permit all of us to get closer to the people and thereby get a better indication of the wishes of the people. But, Mr. Speaker, with this kind of rationale, all the increased size of the House will provide is an increased number of opportunities to disillusion our people.
For the past two years members of the cabinet have been travelling across Canada trying to get a consensus from various sectors of our economy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has been seeking this for the government's antiinflation program. The former minister of finance met with groups of business leaders all across Canada trying to enlist them in a voluntary restraint program. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) has been seeking the same kind of co-operation from labour leaders.
No one would agree that this is not important or that the approach is not a useful one. But why does the government

November 15, 1976
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment
take this approach only on economic issues? Why not get a much broader consensus on so-called moral issues? There is precedent for it. The Mackenzie King government had a referendum on the issue of conscription during World War 11. It could be done again on this issue.
I do not think anyone wants to see government by referendum. Members of this House have been elected to be decisionmakers. But on this issue 1 believe parliament has won the distrust of the Canadian people by disregarding their wishes. 1 see no other way to restore the confidence of the people that parliament deserves. 1 see no other way but to give them a direct and personal voice on this decision. Let them decide by referendum. This will relieve parliament of the onerous burden it now bears. If the people vote in favour of the death penalty, they will also carry the responsibility. If they reject it, they join themselves to the present decision. Either way, they will at least know that the will of the majority rules.
One last point, Mr. Speaker. In a democracy it is easy to be caught up with the notion that the majority is right. It may be, but not necessarily. In fact, in some cases it is probably not. "Broad is the road that leads to destruction and many there be that go in thereat". As a matter of fact, the majority of the world is now under totalitarian rule, but does that make it right? Obviously not. While we must always be concerned with the rightness of issues, and wrestle with them in a democracy and make our individual decisions on the basis of what we think is right, it is the majority which rules, not the rightness of the majority. And the majority has the right even to be wrong. Obviously the majority exercised that right at the last election.
In my maiden speech in this House just over two years ago 1 referred to the statement and the concern of John Stuart Mill, that great Liberal member of the British House of Commons 100 years ago. Always concerned that government should always be sensitive to the rights and feelings of minority groups, he spoke out strongly about the tyranny of the majority. But on the vote on capital punishment this concern has been reversed. We must now worry about the tyranny of the minority over the majority. It is time that the so-called "conscience" vote of the members was transferred to the collective conscience of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the people of Canada deserve to have, and must have, confidence in parliament. They have lost it. I believe a referendum on this issue at the next election would go a long way to restoring that confidence. I trust the government will give the people that opportunity. I believe it is fortuitous that the one who will respond to this motion is the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Lee) who also voted in favour of capital punishment and who, therefore, I believe will support me in this motion.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I say that I am very happy the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) introduced this

motion, because there was an explosive situation threatening this House and I hope we will take drastic measures this afternoon to overcome the crisis.
I think I should explain why I am speaking this afternoon and the context in which ! do so. Indeed I have taken part in the deliberations of the Committee on Procedure and Organization when it was considering the matter pf parliamentary reform. I then said that since the procedure followed for private members' business, was so outdated, I had decided that as long as the House did not accept to amend this procedure, I would participate as little as possible in the private members' business hour.
As a matter of fact, I think 1 must now correct this statement a little. I intend to stick to my remarks about bills introduced during private members' business hour, special business reserved to members, and I think that in the case of notices of motions, as the one introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, the situation is somewhat different and that the procedure such as it is, with all its faults, is valuable for these motions. When it comes to bills, though, I think that to make this hour really meaningful, the amendment proposed by the Committee on Procedure and Organization should be passed by the House.
This aside being over, I would like now to concentrate on the contents of this motion which, under a rather naive, even oversimplistic appearance, is in my view a real menace for our institutions and more particularly our electoral process. In fact if one cannot object to the idea of a referendum to find out and probe the majority opinion on this issue, I still think that the framework within which this motion is presented is a serious danger. I shall return to this point shortly when I draw a parallel with the present Quebec situation, in which, with the polarisation of votes, as far as a referendum is concerned, we end up by distorting the electoral process, that is the fundamentals of our institutions.
As far as the contents of the motion is concerned, as I said previously, 1 have nothing against it. It amounts to going directly to the people to find out what they think about the death penalty. As far as I am concerned, as far as my party is concerned, I do not share the same preoccupations as the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen). I think and I hope that the House has solved this problem once for all. We are the representatives elected by the population. I think we have the responsibility to act on behalf of the population, when the need arises. We do so each day in the House, especially on the questions which are debated here, as finances, consumption, the protection of the consumer, justice. By the way, we acted similarly as far as the death penalty was concerned and, again, I say I do not make the same reservations as the hon. member when he said that the decision that the House took on the subject of the death penalty was almost an abdication in the face of undue pressure from inside or outside. I think most hon. members took the decision in their own conscience, taking into account the pros and cons and I for one accept this decision, whichever way I voted on that question.
November 15, 1976

Consequently, the hon. member wants to leave it to the citizens for them to decide, for them to reverse the decision of the House, if they really decide to reverse it, for them to overrule the elected government, for them to take the place of their own members of parliament, in order to take an extremely serious decision, with multiple consequences, as human lives are at stake, and, without willing to come back on the substance of a very long debate we had in the House on that question, I will say once again that, as far as I am concerned, this question has been solved, members of all parties have presented their arguments to each other during the debate. 1 think that everything has been said on this subject and there is no need to start again an extremely emotional debate on the death penalty.
This being said, I am not opposed to the motion of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on a matter of substance but rather on a matter of form because it is the form of the motion that is dangerous in these circumstances. Let us read it again. It is important! The hon. member proposes:
That in the opinion of this House the government should consider holding a national referendum for the purpose of making a survey of public opinion on the issue of capital punishment at the time of the next federal election.
There are two extremely important words, "national referendum" and there is also the words "at the time of the next federal election". Let us talk first about the referendum. Canada has never made it a tradition to hold referendums. Certain societies, certain systems are used to this practice of referendums but it necessitate a high degree of discipline, that we be highly accustomed to the process of referendums, that the population be very mature, and as this system has not been used regularly in Canada, 1 do not think it would be appropriate to use such a dangerous tool, because a referendum is very dangerous, it can divide the population into two clans, two factions, and afterwards it is extremely difficult to heal the wounds.
So I do not think that in our system the technique of referendum should be used to settle once and for all such a fundamental, emotive and personal problem as capital punishment is. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the capital punishment issue is one that is settled here, within one's heart; this is not something which can be reasoned. One has to weigh the pros and cons and decide whether he is prepared or not to sacrifice a human life for such and such reason. Some say yes, and I respect their opinion. Some say no. I am one of them, and I also think that this opinion should be respected by those in the opposite faction.
But if this debate is transferred to the public place, I can imagine what will happen. We will see the professional opinion makers come and go across the country with petitions, buy full pages in newspapers, and try to fill the debate with emotion. And how can you expect an individual who has certainly other things to do to examine all possibilities and choose among other alternatives, how can you expect him to come up with an enlightened decision on a situation such as this, when he is the object of conflicting opinions and excessive advertisement.
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment Again, there is evidence of this in other jurisdictions, whenever there is a referendum-and I am referring here to the entry of Great Britain in the European Common Market-there is absolutely unheard of propaganda from both sides.
How can you expect an individual to come up with an enlightened decision when he is the object, as undoubtedly he will be, with conflicting opinions? 1 put myself in his place and I say that this is impossible. Of course, under the present circumstances and in view of his own perception of events, with bloody titles published every day in newspapers and broadcasted by the news media, which, as a matter of fact, are to be blamed for stirring the emotions of the public. How anyone, Mr. Speaker, can expect the individuals concerned to reach an enlightened decision is beyond me.
The hon. member alluded to some statistics a while ago. I could quote him others, but it is a fact, I believe, that in the present situation, according to the information at our disposal, the majority of the people seem to be in favour of capital punishment. That is true. Let us admit it. Let us admit as well that we may not necessarily have all the facts. Now, what is a referendum? It is a two-edged sword.
If they are informed, they are enlightened; and if they are too well informed, they are completely lost. When one does not have the experience of the principle of the referendum, of the instrument it is, one does not realize it is a means to feel the pulse of the people. Without that experience, and, on such a touchy subject as that one, it is inadvisable to experiment, and that is what the hon. member would have us do, experiment. Let's go ahead and have a national referendum, a widespread debate on capital punishment! Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to tackle that adventure. And why not? I shall tell you right away. The idea of a referendum is not new. In Quebec, we know what referendums are because some people have been talking about them for six years now.
And to come back to the fact that the hon. member would have us hold a referendum on the occasion of a general election. Can you imagine that? The hodge-podge the Canadian people would have to face if a referendum on capital punishment were to be added to a federal election? How could we hold an intelligent election when every time problems, financial, economic or, as I mentioned a while ago, environmental, or anything else for that matter are approached, capital punishment would hold the center of the stage and its pros and cons be brought up again. How can an election be held under such circumstances? It is impossible.
It is impossible to hold a referendum at a federal election. I see that the hon. member opposite is smiling. It is true that I insist on a matter of form, but it is precisely this point which concerns me in his motion. Thus, each member would run for election and try to advocate, in the case of the official opposition, an alternative to the government program and, in the case of the government members, to defend the plans already implemented and all of a sudden capital punishment would be back on the floor. Each time we would want to discuss an intelligent matter, all of a sudden people would talk again about capital punishment. Mr. Speaker, the issue of capital

November 15, 1976
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment punishment has been settled here in the House of Commons. That's it! And if the hon. member is not satisfied with the decision of the House, there is nothing which keeps him, given our actual system, from presenting a bill. Let him introduce his bill we will debate it once again since it has to be done. But let us not rely on a referendum during federal elections. It is not possible. We cannot do such things; we cannot proceed blindly, trying small experiments, new systems, approaches or mechanisms to consult Canadians and thus jeopardize our democratic institutions. I am definitely against that.
That is exactly what is now going on in the province of Quebec. There is one particular political party which recommends a certain option. This option, Mr. Speaker,-facts and figures prove it-is rejected by the majority of the population. What did this party do? It is very smart. They said: we are going to set aside for a while the fundamental option which is the very reason for the existence of our party. We will set it aside for a while and when the time comes to discuss it we will then proceed by referendum. So here we go for the referendum.
But what is happening practically? During the provincial election of 1970, of 1973 and even today, Mr. Speaker, every time they come back to the same thing-referendum. What is happening? The real concerns of Quebecers are shelved. Economic problems, consumer issues, problems relating to industry, fishing, transportation, all that, Mr. Speaker, is thrown to the basket because what is important is the referendum, the basic option: people voted in 1970, in 1973 and again in 1976 for or against that option.
Do you see the danger, Mr. Speaker, of putting an issue before the people, at the time of a federal, national or municipal or provincial election, and of telling the people: We have to hold a very serious election, but for the time being the election is not important, because we must find out if you are in favour or against such and such a thing. It is not an election according to our system, it is not a matter of voting for or against something.
We know what happened for instance-I was not born yet at the time-but 1 learned what happened during World War II regarding conscription. But what happened? The conscription issue divided the country, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because the people were asked to vote for or against conscription. What happened? A segment of the population and, in this case, once again a certain province of the Canadian Confederation said no, and because it was a majority decision, it resulted in strike and unrest among the population. There were arrests, there were conflicts and wounds, and it took a long time before they healed.
Mr. Speaker, a referendum is dangerous. I am not against it in principle, but we cannot throw it before the public and say: Let's try it and see what will happen. It is something that needs preparation, that cannot be improvised. It is serious, and when 22 million people, are involved, Mr. Speaker, experiments are out of the question. A referendum is dangerous but a referendum on the occasion of a general election is inadmissible. It is not even dangerous, it is inadmissible because it
(Mr. Lachance.]
completely distorts the system. And I want to insist again on this subject. I do not want any referendum but still less on the occasion of an election because then you have the situation we are witnessing in Quebec: People do not have any choice; they no longer vote for a party, they no longer vote for ideas, they vote for an option, Mr. Speaker.
And what happens over the years? In the case of the province of Quebec, this creates dissensions, factions, and the province can no longer operate with factions. And if factions are created in Canada on the basis of the results of such a referendum, or of one option, or another Mr. Speaker, there is no room for Canada in the world.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of rising in this debate, but certain things were said that I absolutely cannot leave unnoticed.
First of all, I congratulate the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) for giving us this opportunity to speak on the matter of the capital punishment. The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) said earlier that the people had already forgotten all about that. I wish he knew how much the people have not forgotten. As an illustration, let the Progressive Conservatives come to power and bring forward capital punishment, and we will see how the liberals will lose on that issue. They forced abolition upon this House. They found a way so that the opinion of the minority could win in this House. This prime minister (Mr. Trudeau) moved heaven and earth to have his idea accepted because when he has something in mind, there is no way anyone can take it out. He tried four times-I was here every time-and the last one, when he saw he would not get a majority because some of his own supporters would not vote with him and had the courage to stand up, what did he do? He called for Cabinet solidarity. He forced all his ministers to follow him, some of them against their own wishes. He forced them to. We saw that, I do not have to give names because everyone knows them. He did not have a majority, he forced his will and everyone said the minority had won. Because 80 per cent of Canadians, as the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont rightly stated, favoured retention.
Each time the matter came up, I took polls in my constituency and others as well. Every time 80 per cent favoured capital punishment. But someone's mind was on abolition. The government had sworn to abolish capital punishment despite everything and everyone else. And so they did. We asked for a referendum, and like the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont I feel that a referendum as part of a general election, is manipulating both the election and the referendum.
You have the same thing, the same result as in today's Quebec election. Mr. Bourassa's election issue is the patriation of the constitution, and look what happens: Mr. Bourassa's administration is entirely forgotten; all the other parties were trying to put that subject back into discussion and they did, so that Mr. Bourassa has completely lost face. The people wanted to discuss his administration.
November 15, 1976

Come election time that is what ought to be discussed, the administration of the government in power, in order to point to the good aspects, if any, and denounce the bad ones. There is always something good or bad in any government. I have no worry in that respect. Having to vote against a motion like the one before us is an impossible task. It would be defeated because I do not want capital punishment or issues as serious as that to become the issue of an election when an election should mainly deal with economic issues. An issue like that must be deal with individually, separately, through a referendum only. The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) suggested that it is such a personal question that it must not be interfered with. It is up to everyone's judgment. That is why I always blamed the government for going against the judgment of the majority of the people. And it is all very well to say that the people are too ignorant but, Mr. Speaker, the heart, as the hon. member suggested earlier, cannot be ignored.
It is all very well to apologize for voting against capital punishment because the general public was uninformed. I do not accept that. 1 did not say so, the hon. member who spoke before me said so when he suggested that it was a matter of feeling. The feeling was too strong. It was a personal question. That is why we must go to the people and ask for their assent. And as we say in democracy, if one really want to be democratic .. . Furthermore, 1 always considered that this government could not care less about democracy in all its actions either with the provinces or with associations. If you want to be democratic you start by meeting the wishes of the majority of the people on capital issues. And then the people will start saying that you are being democratic and that you want to remain so. That is why I am and I have always been in favour of a referendum on that issue, and I will always be. The day a government decides to be honest by calling a referendum on that issue, 1 will start to take it seriously.
We saw what happened in the United States. It was said that it was settled and dealt with. Other U.S. states restored it; they had abolished capital punishment and they were forced to reinstate it. You will see that the French-Canadians in a few years will be forced to restore it, as will the Canadian government. Let us wait and see who is right. But that will never stop me from speaking for the people on those issues, and as long as they express the wish to have a referendum on that issue, whether for or against, 1 will follow the thinking of the majority of the people. Those are the few comments 1 wanted to make and I am sure that even if this hour ends inconclusively as all the others we will still have the opportunity to discuss that question later.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) has eloquently stated his reasons against a national referendum. 1 will add only a few words.
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment

I find it very interesting that the two speakers who have spoken in favour of referendums, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), have spoken really about the substance of capital punishment. Apparently they were on the losing side of the vote on that question, and it appears, judging from their arguments, that for that reason alone they want to reopen the question.
Some hon. Members; Shame!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am not rising to speak on the subject of capital punishment. We have expressed our views on that in this parliament; a vote has been taken, and I have no desire to challenge that here. [DOT]! find it hard to understand that hon. members could rise in this House and urge us to change our whole parliamentary system merely because they are not satisfied with a particular vote. But this is somewhat easier to understand when we consider the confusion which is latent in the motion as introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. 1 must draw the attention of the House to the words of the motion, which are as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider holding a national referendum for the purpose of making a survey of public opinion on the issue of capital punishment at the time of the next federal election.
In the language of political science the word "referendum" has reference to a binding expression of national opinion. You can clearly see that the author of this motion does not have that concept in mind. He uses the word referendum where he should use the word "plebiscite", which is a non-binding expression of national opinion. Worse than that, and this gives an indication of the kind of problem that can arise, we do not have the mechanism in our system to make a referendum legally binding. If we were to have a referendum, it would have to be followed by an act of parliament, with the members of parliament being bound by the referendum not having the right to vote independently on the issue. In effect they would be bound by something that happened outside this House, and that would be destructive of the whole parliamentary tradition.
In those places where they have referenda they are part of the constitution, and the free vote of the electors itself changes the law. They do not have a subsequent vote by the state assemblies in the United States to ratify what the voters have done by the referendum. The voters do it by vote. But that is a different system.
What I find most astonishing is that this innovation which our friends would introduce is the type of thing that they would decry in other circumstances. They are the first party to complain about any departure from the British tradition, and yet they are trying to introduce an aspect of the American system which would have the effect of entirely vitiating the system we hold so dear.
I repeat that the issue before us this afternoon is not capital punishment. I can appreciate that feelings on capital punish-

November 15, 1976
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment ment are strong in the country. Feelings are always strong on moral issues. Why have a referendum on this one moral issue? Are we going to have another one on abortion? We could hardly distinguish between these questions. If the hon. member were to say the distinction would be based on the precondition of a free vote, I would point out that his system would replace the vote entirely. Then do we have a referendum on the questions of divorce, of gun control- where do we stop? If we were to introduce a device of this kind we would be in a position where at least all issues of moral content, in the generally accepted sense of the word, would have to be submitted to the vote of the people. There is no possibility of isolating a single vote of this kind and treating it as something separate.
It seems to me that in our system the only case in which a referendum could be justified would be one dealing with the system itself. There are various ways of changing the constitution. If what we are talking about is something which is in effect a change in our system, if it is like the vote in Great Britain on entering the Common Market, which is a limitation on the sovereignty of parliament and does change the course of British history, then perhaps there is a case for it. If we had a similar case here which was changing our future course, or a vital question dealing with the government itself, that would be different, but if we are dealing with ordinary moral issues they are all on the same plane. While some people are concerned about capital punishment, others are concerned about abortion. Sometimes they are the same people, and sometimes separate groups, but one group has as much right to have its issue put to a national referendum as another. In my view no group has that right in a parliamentary system.
I do not have to explain to hon. members opposite the historical genesis of parliamentary government and how we fought for it in Canada with the result we see in the party caucuses. We were the self-governing dominion in the British Commonwealth which developed the party caucus because we were all united against the governor. The higher-ups in all parties met with the ordinary representatives because they were all together in their struggle against the governor. From that arose our caucus, which has few parallels in the world, where frontbenchers and backbenchers meet together. It functions very effectively in our system-almost all of our system is functioning very effectively, or it was until our friend, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, got into it.
I appreciate the fact that hon. members opposite, not having the responsibilities of office, do not have to be responsible in the motions they put forward, but on this side we have to take the longer view, especially when it is a question of responsible government itself.
I can see that this debate is provoking great concern in the House. Members on both sides would not want to lose the privileges they have attained through centuries of struggle for responsible government. Even members opposite, as a result of the things that are being said, may be persuaded to reconsider this thoughtless and unwarranted suggestion that in one aspect would change our system in a way that could drive a wedge that would eventually change its character entirely and run the

risk of creating in Canada, or importing, the kind of institutions that have been developed in the United States.
I am sure most hon. members know, and certainly those on this side do, that there is a considerable difference between the spirit of the people and the spirit of government in Canada and the United States. We have a more relaxed notion of freedom and a different concept of government. We do not believe that everything should be put to a popular vote all the time. We think representatives should be elected to make decisions for the people on an orderly basis, themselves responsible to the people and the government responsible to them, so that throughout the system there is a chain of responsibility.
The American system is different. They believe in what many would refer to as an excessive democracy-that everything should be decided by everybody all the time. It is in that kind of spirit that referenda came to be part of the American system but I do not think it is a characteristic we would like to duplicate. There may be some things for which we envy our friends, such as their more material achievements, but I do not think members of this House want to ape their governmental institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Perhaps I have said enough to indicate to members opposite the necessity for reconsidering the views they have so lightly put forward this afternoon. I should like to allow other members to add their indignation to that which I have already expressed on this suggested change in our system.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that this motion has come before this House today. Earlier this afternoon we heard one of the greatest flights into fancy, presented by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), that I have heard since I have been in this House. A few minutes ago the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) went on one of the greatest flights of sophistry it has ever been my lot to witness since coming here.


Benno Friesen: What does that mean?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: It means talking out of both sides of your mouth. Parliament expressed its will last spring on the issue of capital punishment.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Not with a free vote.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member for Surrey-White Rock claims the people of Canada have been betrayed by parliament.


Benno Friesen: Right on!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: How a member of parliament can make a claim like that and retain his seat in this House I cannot understand. That is what I mean by sophistry, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say that over the last
November 15, 1976

five years every credible indicator in this country indicated that 80 per cent of the people were in favour of capital punishment. I wonder what he means by a credible indicator. Is he one of them? Polls have been conducted for many years on many issues. Thank God this country is not governed by polls.
It is obvious from their reluctance to put forward a stand on any policy that hon. members opposite would like to see a referendum on any issue which is the least bit contentious. Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the elected member of parliament to take his place in this House and vote on issues, whether or not they are contentious. The member of parliament must look at all aspects of the issue, study all aspects in detail, and then make a judgment. I want to make it clear that when I cast my vote on capital punishment it was not a vote of conscience; it was a vote of judgment.


An hon. Member:: It was a free vote.


Donald W. Munro: No, it was not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite raised a point with which I shall now deal. It is a point raised by those who voted against the abolition of capital punishment. Many such hon. members, including the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) say repeatedly that it was not a free vote. Nobody has ever suggested that the cabinet did not have to show solidarity; it was a government bill. That was clear from the beginning. Unfortunately some of the opponents of the bill, including some members of the press, tried to create the impression in the public mind that pressure was brought to bear on Liberal backbenchers to vote in favour of the abolition of capital punishment.


An hon. Member:: There was.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is an absolutely shameful, spurious charge which cannot be defended. The hon. member wants a referendum, according to what he says. In his own words a referendum would relieve the member of parliament of responsibility for making a decision. That is what I mean by sophistry. We are here to exercise responsibility in the making of decisions.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not mind the hon. member's paraphrasing what I said but he should not say that he is quoting me when he so garbles my words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that is a point of debate and not a question of privilege.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: After one has listened to the kind of garbled logic put forward by the hon.
Public Opinion on Capital Punishment member this afternoon it is hard not to garble one's paraphrasing of it.
The issue of capital punishment involves complex questions which must be dealt with. 1 suggest that the hon. members for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and Windsor-Walker-ville (Mr. MacGuigan) dealt in detail with some of those issues. They are complex and cannot be resolved by plebiscite or referendum.
As the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville said, a referendum implies a binding decision by the electorate; yet the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock requests a referendum for the taking of a survey. I suggest that Dr. Gallup has taken many surveys without the authority of a referendum. A number of complex issues to do with the questions at issue cannot be solved by referendum. They must be solved by hon. members of this House who must look in detail at the questions at issue and make conscious decisions. Some of those issues involve the judiciary itself, the functioning of law enforcement agencies and the prison systems. Such complex questions cannot be dealt with by referendum.


Mr. Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: How about conscription?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member opposite mentioned conscription. It seems to me that the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont dealt with the question in his speech. Obviously the hon. member opposite was not listening. Not only do hon. members opposite garble their speeches, they seem to suffer from garbled hearing as well.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Some questions to do with capital punishment, such as powers of discretion and the caprice with which that form of punishment has traditionally been applied over the years, require much detailed study. Whether capital punishment is a deterrent in itself is a complex question requiring much study and detailed information. Where is the electorate to get this information?


An hon. Member:: From Benno.


Benno Friesen: I will give it to them.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The hon.
member no doubt is referring to the sort of information which came forward during the debate in the spring. But we must deal with other issues as well having to do with capital punishment, issues concerning which it is difficult to obtain information.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' hour having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Andras that Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, this is becoming a habit. The last three times I have spoken in the House I have been interrupted by private members' hour. It is sometimes difficult to resume at exactly the same point you leave off. In any event, at five o'clock I was discussing redistribution of income through the family allowance plan.
The government, the official opposition, and other parties in the House may want to comment on whether it can be justified that family allowance be paid to all families in Canada regardless of income. I would rather see a cut-off point and the moneys not go to families with adequate or large incomes, but redistributed to families with lower incomes. If we look at Statistics Canada figures or other statistics we see that the larger families are at the lower end of the income scale. That is another reason why more money should go into that area, especially during times of high inflation when the costs of raising a family are increasing and families must make the purposeful decision of whether to have children.
Although this is not the total reason for having a scheme where money will go to those families that require it the most to have more children, certainly it is something this House could well consider. All parties should look at it. I hope there will be comments on this.
In discussing a bill like C-19 you get into the whole philosophy of government spending. There are several ways you can look at it. First, the government should spend less or spend more, depending on which side of the table you are on.
One of the interesting aspects of government spending is what it should be directed toward. Should it be for increasing services such as medical and various other services? Should the money be utilized in areas which will increase employment and increase our national revenue? I wish to use an example. With regard to the salmon enhancement program, the federal government will have to decide whether to spend $300 million for the doubling of the salmon catch in the next ten years. It is an interesting concept. If that $300 million goes into this program on the west coast, it is estimated by fisheries officials that this will double the salmon catch within a ten year period.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
Doubling the salmon catch will do a number of things. First, it will provide more jobs for fishermen. It will spur the construction of new fishing boats and cause new processing facilities to be built. In general it will affect the economy of the province of British Columbia to a large extent.
This will have to be a government program. How could the fishermen or the processors become involved in a program which requires the reclaiming of streams, the conservation of the resource and people patrolling to ensure that laws are not being broken? The answer is that the private sector of industry cannot do this.
This is an area where government spending can well be directed rather than the money going down the well to provide short-term employment which may be finished after six or eight months. Hon. members are aware that we do have programs like that which try to take us over the peaks of unemployment such as during the winter months, or for the unemployed students during the summer with programs such as LIP.
Although it takes a longer period of time to bring the benefits on stream, I suggest that governments are well advised to put their money into long term projects such as the one I mentioned, the salmon enhancement program. This will double, triple and quadruple the amount of landed value of the catch. The money will go through the Canadian economy having a greater impact over the long term than a program set up for a short period of time. It may cost $100 million such as the LIP program, but will have a more long lasting effect. The LIP program does not generate itself through the economy year after year.
In addition to the intent of Bill C-19, to reduce government spending by $1.5 billion, this House should direct its attention to how this money will go from the federal government into our economy and ensure that we get a reasonable recovery of that money. We should make sure we recover at least part of this money annually, just as in the forest industry they replant to ensure that the harvest continues-not just one harvest, and that's the end of it.
I would also suggest that government money might well be spent on improving small craft harbours and docking facilities on the west coast to provide better landing for the commercial fishermen as well as improved facilities for the growing number of pleasure craft owners. A program of this kind would bring people to the west coast. It is thought by many that the forest industry has now reached its peak and cannot be expected to expand much further. But we on the west coast have a plentiful supply of fish available to us and a climate which is the envy of all Canada. This being the case, we might be well advised to direct our attention away from the exploitation of primary resources which have reached the point of maximum utilization, or close to it, and take advantage of those other features of west coast life which I have mentioned.
I refer to the tourist industry, the recreation industry. The opportunities available in British Columbia already attract
November 15, 1976

people from every part of Canada and are certainly the envy of the United States. Would it not be a wise move on the part of the government to develop small craft harbours and launching facilities for small boats in conjunction with the fishing industry, one which is itself an unexploited industry capable of playing an increasingly significant role in the economy as time goes by.
Again, in building up the economy of areas such as Newfoundland or Vancouver Island, care must be taken to put money into search and rescue facilities, services which are closely related both to the fishing industry and, in increasing measure, to the tourist industry because tourists are taking to the sea in ever-increasing numbers. The saving of life is a matter of great concern to any government; it is a subject which cannot be approached in terms of dollars alone. Admittedly an effective search and rescue service is expensive. It costs money to build 65-foot cutters, ships which are able to accommodate helicopters and stay at sea for lengthy periods. When an incident does arise at sea it is important that help should arrive quickly, that a ship equipped with a helicopter can put out in a matter of minutes rather than hours, since a person struggling in the water, especially during the winter months, can survive only a very limited time, and unless help arrives quickly I suppose it can be argued that it is pointless sending any help at all.
Hon. members who come from maritime constituencies are aware of the expenses involved in search and rescue equipment. They are also aware that during a time of monetary restraint it is difficult to pry money from the public treasury for what is basically an unglamorous project, especially when one considers that the majority of Canadians do not live on the coast line. It is hard to convince the people of Quebec, say, or of Ontario or the other inland provinces of the importance of building up an adequate search and rescue fleet. Hon. members will recall, however, that the House did spend a considerable time discussing a subject which involved human life-not on the same plane, admittedly, but certainly a life is a life no matter how it is saved. In one case it might mean imposing deterrence upon certain classes of society; in another it might mean providing a safe and reliable rescue service on our west and east coasts. It behoves the House to spend some time considering this proposal, since in doing so we shall be talking about lives, not talking about dollars and cents.
While on the subject of the way in which the government should spend, or refrain from spending, public money I should like to mention briefly an area which up to now has had more impact upon the city of Ottawa than upon an area such as mine, the riding of Comox-Alberni on Vancouver Island. I refer to expenditure in connection with the location of government departments and related costs of building and so on.
The government has been criticized both in the press and by the Mayor of Ottawa for proposing to move government departments away from Ottawa instead of centralizing them here. As a member of parliament from another part of the country I can only say it would be the height of folly at this time in our history, given all the means of communication we
Restraint of Government Expenditures have at our disposal, to contemplate having the administration in one central point. It would not matter if one took the Department of National Defence and stuck it at the north pole: you would get exactly the same service as you get now with the department located in eastern Canada, in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: Better.


Hugh Alan Anderson: It might even be better. Perhaps there are fewer distractions at the north pole. On the other hand it is an act of common sense to have the civil service spread out in various parts of Canada rather than being centralized in one place. I might say there are, I am sure, people on Newfoundland and on Vancouver Island who would swear to God there is no government because they never see a government official from one year to the next. They do not hear about government from one year to the next. Ottawa, to them, is just a fairy tale land because it has no bearing upon their lives.
Those who suggest that staff should not be moved from Ottawa because civil servants might be disturbed or because there might be accommodation left over are being unrealistic. I need not tell hon. members from the west that the people of Alberta have a tremendous feeling of empathy with the provincial government. It is something one can almost touch. Their signs are up on the bloody roads.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Hugh Alan Anderson: The people are aware they have a government. But what do they have in Churchill, Manitoba, or Alert Bay in British Columbia? They don't have a bloody thing to do with the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Hugh Alan Anderson: The only thing we do down here is write laws which cause them problems. That is their only connection with the federal government. 1 am not thinking about decentralization alone. Taking departments to Winnipeg, Calgary and Edmonton is equally a waste of time, money and effort. The city of Edmonton does not require any more civil servants and neither does the city of Winnipeg.
If we are to have a federal presence outside the Ottawa area, Mr. Speaker, for goodness sakes let us put it in smaller communities and not provincial capitals. Vancouver has a population of over one million people and there is no point siting the revenue department on the outskirts of Vancouver when, in the city of Vancouver, there is a housing problem and a shortage of land. Both federal and provincial governments have been saying for years that it should be the object of government to move people outside the greater Vancouver area. Yet what does the provincial government do? It wants to construct its buildings inside the city of Vancouver.
What has the federal government done in this regard? If you look at the Vancouver telephone book, Mr. Speaker, you will find page upon page of federal government agencies listed within the city of Vancouver, agencies which should be in

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures places like Courtenay, Campbell River and Nanaimo, where they could do the job equally as well with their tie-in computers and telephone lines. It does not cost any more to send a letter to a small community than to the city of Vancouver.
In my area this winter unemployment is going to reach 15 per cent of the population. Putting one or two government departments in my constituency would significantly cut down that rate and provide jobs for the area.
The leader of the NDP would transfer massive amounts of federal money to given areas of low unemployment, such as Vancouver. Moving these departments into areas of high unemployment would result in lower building costs and would stimulate the economies of small communities that will be in the doldrums this winter. There would also be a federal presence and people would say, "Yes, I guess we do have a federal government".
Speaking only of western Canada now, Mr. Speaker, if we continue to put mints in provincial capitals, if we continue to put search and rescue into Vancouver and Vancouver alone, the decentralization program of this government or of any other government is not going to be worth the powder to blow it to hell. All you are doing, Mr. Speaker, is sending departments into other large areas that did not need further growth in the first place. People will say, "The bureaucracy has done it again. It has taken departments out of the greater Ottawa area and put them into the greater Vancouver area, the greater Calgary area and the greater Edmonton area, which does not benefit any of these communities". In this way we have shown we are not intelligent enough to formulate a policy that puts priority on moving federal departments into areas of high unemployment, and thus solving some, at least, of the unemployment problem.
What are we saying to the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps we are saying to them this: "Look, you guys, you might as well get out of Newfoundland and vacate the bloody place-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -because you aren't going to get any money there anyway; move to Edmonton or Calgary because you guys will always be sitting at the backside of the cow". Is this what we are trying to say to these people, Mr. Speaker? I hope not.
I would ask my hon. friends in the official opposition to make a few comments on what they want to see happen in Canada. Either they do not know or they will not tell us. They are entirely mute on the subject, except for the hon. member who represents an area of Ottawa who asks whether a few office buildings are going to be left vacant. I do not care if there are 10 office buildings vacant in the city of Ottawa; I say get government departments into other parts of Canada. I guarantee that the city of Ottawa will continue to thrive and grow whether we move some departments out or not.
Since we are talking about government expenditure, what can we do as a government to make sure that money is shared equally among the people of Canada but that areas that need

help are given some assurance that we are at least aware of their problem? Let us not talk about saving $1.5 million when we can put this money into, say, fisheries in Newfoundland, I will not say in St. John's because there are better places in other parts of Newfoundland. Let us spend money in some of the outlying areas of Newfoundland and British Columbia, instead of crowding into centres and accentuating our urban problems. Is that planning? No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so.
I hope that out of our discussions on Bill C-19 we will arrive at a more rational way of making sure that the money we spend as a government, whether it be $42 billion, $39 billion or $36 billion, is spent wisely and in the best interests not only of larger centres but of the small communities that I consider are the backbone of Canada. Unless we start helping them pretty soon, Mr. Speaker, we will not have to worry about these areas much longer because no one will be living in them.


Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity of listening to spokesmen for the government side and I can appreciate the fact that they have been pleading with members of the official opposition to come forward with some answers to the problems facing Canada today. We have all realized for quite a long time that the Liberal party is completely bankrupt of ideas, and the results of their programs throughout the nation have caused their popularity to nosedive so far as public opinion polls are concerned. I think this is an indication of the Liberal party's frustration and anger, and they are now trying to turn the tables on the official opposition by saying we are not helping them out or telling them what to do, and this is why they are stumbling around.
With all due respect to my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), we do sympathize with him. We know he is labouring under severe handicaps. The Liberal party has followed the same course it followed previously. The Progressive Conservative party would propose programs, and in desperation the Liberals would pick them up, put them into operation and get something done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alexander Bell Patterson: It was reported a short time ago that a meeting of Liberals was held to try to figure out why their showing in the public opinion polls had indeed taken a nosedive over the past few months. It seems to me that that is a completely unnecessary exercise, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet ministers do not know what the problem is, then all they have to do is mingle with the grassroots Liberals, or the former grassroots Liberals, and they would certainly tell them what was what. They are not hesitant about telling us, and 1 am sure they would be quite willing to pass the information along to the government in an attempt to try to rectify the situation we find ouselves in today.
In reviewing my correspondence from my constituents I am reminded that one of the main criticisms of the Trudeau
November 15, 1976

administration is its mad spending spree at the expense of the taxpayers of the nation. The resources of our people are not inexhaustible, yet the government is engaged in a spending program that has enraged Canadians. They are enraged because of the magnitude and the nature of many of the projects. In the past the government finally reached the conclusion that it had been less than successful, to put it rather mildly, and has decided to endeavour to put in place other programs that will work more effectively and efficiently in meeting its goals and objectives.
I fully realize that some of the programs we have had in the past, some of which the government has already indicated are to go by the boards, were created to meet certain critical situations and problems. But instead of defusing those issues and problems we find that the government has created others, some of similar and some of greater magnitude.
I must say that some of the programs have brought some benefits to the Canadian people. I think particularly of the Local Initiatives Program. It was a horrible mess at first but as time went on, after the government listened to some of the suggestions made by some of the people in the various communities, some effective and efficient work was accomplished. We find, however, in the over-all picture that these programs have not been adequate to meet the need, and therefore the government has indicated its intention to replace them with other types of programs.
The government had been making noises about reducing government expenditures, but actually these have only been noises. The estimates which are tabled from time to time indicate a substantial increase in expenditures over the previous year. Certainly this does not appear to fit in with the government's proposal for a reduction in expenditures. We admit there may be a reduction in the amount the government had intended to spend, that it had programmed, or that the departmental officials and ministers had asked be allocated to their departments, but that is a far different story than a reduction in expenditures as viewed by the Canadian people.
When we think of this particular issue 1 say that the people of Canada have placed almost in the number one slot government expenditures as something that has created a great deal of distrust and resentment right across the nation. It has been placed on the record that the habits of the government are so excessive that its spending has practically quadrupled in the last ten years. One of my colleagues pointed out that it took the government 100 years to reach a budget level of $9.9 billion in 1967, that this administration doubled that figure in the next three years, and in the last four years doubled it again to the present $42 billion spending estimates we have before parliament. So we see just how far we have gone and the extent to which the government has increased the expenditures of this country.
One of the main concerns of the official opposition on the matter of restraint is that when we look at the proposal before us we see that it is too little too late. I should like to point out that in 1965 the total government share of the Gross National Product was 30.3 per cent. In 1974 the total government share
Restraint of Government Expenditures of the Gross National Product had risen to 40.4 per cent. In other words, over the period of a decade the government's share of the Gross National Product had increased by one third. It is granted that there are many factors which lead to inflation but I believe it is recognized and acknowledged by authorities from coast to coast and in various parts of the world that unreasoned government expenditure is by far the most serious factor in the inflationary cycle.
1 should like to refer to an editorial by Mr. Edward Belitsky, Editor of the Canadian Automotive Trade magazine. Talking about the tax-hungry government he said:
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is running the federal government very much as Jean Drapeau is running the Olympics. The money we sink into it seems to be disappearing at an ever-increasing rate.
That is the first paragraph. The concluding paragraph of the editorial states:
Every time the minister of finance or head of the treasury board or any one of Trudeau's other torpedoes goes on TV to tell us the latest bad news regarding taxes, budgets or whatever else is currently amiss, we get the feeling that the country is being run like the world's biggest protection racket.
We can understand something of the feelings of the Canadian people when we consider some of these quotations and references I have brought to the attention of the members of the House.
I should like to refer to some of the make-work programs the government has indicated will be eliminated, and the reason given. Surely when the government frantically tries to put in place programs to give people work there must be some reason for this, and some objective the government has in mind. I suggest the reason for so many make-work programs is the government's bungling and ineptitude in providing leadership for the nation. The responsibility of the government is not to provide jobs but rather to create the economic climate in which private enterprise can work to its full potential in utilizing the human resources of the nation in productive and remunerative employment. I suggest this is something the government has failed dismally to accomplish. I say the opposite is true.
Restrictions, undue interference, and confiscatory taxation have all tended to undermine initiative, limit development, and undermine the will to succeed in chosen fields of endeavour. I believe this is the reason why the government has so readily resorted to make-work programs in order to try to pick up the slack. 1 refer to the government's bungling and ineptitude in creating the climate conducive to a developed and orderly policy in our nation.
We recall that some time ago the Prime Minister stated that the free enterprise system in Canada had failed and that the result would be greater government involvement and interference. There was quite a reaction to that statement, as we know. It came from the business community. It came not only from the larger business area but also from the small business community and from a great many organizations and agencies, as well as from individuals right across the nation.

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
Then we found, when the government brought in its Speech from the Throne, that the Prime Minister seemed to reverse himself, whether it was a death bed repentance 1 do not know, but he came to the conclusion that, after all, the private enterprise system is very worth while and therefore he ought to draw back a bit so far as government involvement is concerned. So as we consider some of the statements made by the Prime Minister we begin to realize that perhaps the government is finally realizing that possibly it has been making a mistake, it has been following the wrong line of endeavour and it should consider some other activities.
With regard to government expenditure I should like to refer to a speech made by my leader. This might be of some interest to those who are asking what is the thinking and what are the proposals of the official opposition. I have here the notes for remarks made by our leader to a public meeting in Whitehorse, Yukon, on July 9. It is worth reading the entire speech into the record, but I will not do that. I will just commend it to the reading of the Liberal members. Perhaps it will enlighten their minds a little on what course should be followed and what might be more beneficial to the Canadian nation than the course which their leader has been following.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) stated:
The most visible inflationary hot-spot to all of us, no matter how many thousands of miles away from Ottawa, is the area of government spending.
He went on to point out:
The Trudeau administration .. . has increased its spending by over 35 per cent over the last two years. My government . . . would put a restraint on that spending. But that kind of restraint doesn't necessarily mean fewer jobs. We will not accept that kind of simplified premise on the part of the Trudeau government. Restraint can and will mean new jobs, if the savings are passed along to the taxpayer through personal tax cuts to lower income groups and through direct incentives to the private sector. The enterprise system is in danger of erosion in this country because of increased government intervention in the economy and also because of a denial of the need to stimulate and support a decentralized economy based on personal commitment and willingness to take risks and try new ventures.
With reference to small business he said:
The small business entrepreneur has an important part to play in the decentralization of our economy and the need for strengthened development in our regions. The people willing to take risks need our support. We should be offering incentives to stimulate that kind of development.
He went on to point out that what is needed is leadership in the development of our national economy at present. We can understand the frustration of the Liberals and their pleadings with the Progressive Conservatives to give them the answers. I remember when not too long ago they had all the answers and they told the people they knew better than anybody else. Of course they still try to tell them that, but the people are catching on. This is the reason that there is such a decline in their support across the country. Of course it is accentuated when we read in the paper that the Prime Minister referred to the lack of understanding and the credibility gap between government and people. He said that he can understand why there is such a credibility gap when they consider the bungling that they have been doing.

It is not necessary for me to impress upon the supporters of the government what the problem is. Their own leader admits it. I hope that for the good of Canada he will come to the point some day when he will try to put into operation some of the plans that will help to pull the nation out of the doldrums in which we find ourselves, but I must say I am rather cynical on that point. I cannot see how he is going to do it and I cannot see any possibility of that happening under the present government.
The government has announced its intention to eliminate some of the make-work programs to reduce expenditures.


Mr. Benjamin:: What programs?


Alexander Bell Patterson: I know your party is bankrupt of ideas. If you had been listening to the speeches made by members of this party in the House in the last several days, you would have a lot of answers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What would you reduce?


Alexander Bell Patterson: Possibly you are not paying much attention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Alexander Bell Patterson: As I was saying, the government has announced its intention to reduce expenditures, but it is going to introduce in another form year round programs to the tune of $350 million in the first full year of operation, or so we are told by one of the government spokesmen. To me that does not sound like restraint. It seems to me it is just a transfer of money from one pocket to another or from one portfolio to another. It is not a reduction, it is a transfer.


Mr. Railton:: Explain how you can do that.


Alexander Bell Patterson: How do 1 do that? Is that what the hon. member is asking? Why does he not ask his own party leaders who are talking about restraint on the one hand and who are transferring one type of program to carry on what has been done by other programs?


Samuel Victor Railton: Give me an example.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I know that hon. members over there are confused.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) has the floor and he should be heard.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 appreciate the interest that is being shown over there. I assure the hon. member that not only are we interested and are they interested but the whole country is interested in what the government will do and in how it will fulfil some of the promises it made through the years that it would wrestle unemployment to the ground and it would fight inflation, but every time a budget or a throne speech comes along we hear a rehash of the same things over and over again. We find that we are not making too much headway under this government.
November 15, 1976

In this connection I should like to offer a suggestion. When we talk about make-work programs I suggest that in working out the details and in putting the plans and programs into place and establishing the goals for the development of their area, municipal authorities should be taken into careful consideration because 1 believe in this way something really worth while can be done. I am not saying that nothing was done under LIP or other programs, but I suggest that if the government worked in closer co-operation with municipal governments it would find it could move forward to the realization of those objectives that representatives on that level of government have been studying and trying to put in place. If the federal government will co-operate along that line, we will see something really worth while being done. There are plenty of opportunities for activities of this kind.
We can go back to the winter works program of some years ago. Very worth while work was done under this particular program, but while we find the government spending a great deal of money in other types of operations, we find that municipal governments are strapped for finances, and they are not able to carry through to the realization of their objectives.
I listened to a talk show just a few days ago, and a mayor was the guest on the show. He remarked that he would be very happy if he could provide the residents of his district with recreational facilities equal to those provided in one of the penal institutions by the penitentiary service. I suggest that spending money in providing facilities in communities would be much more beneficial and productive than spending money on so-called rehabilitative programs and facilities which have failed to achieve their objectives.
I am just pointing out in this connection that if these programs were operated in conjunction with programs at the municipal level, we would see the fulfillment of some of the dreams of the people in these communities, and there would be some facilities which would be for the benefit of all the people.
Be that as it may, the fact remains that this is not a bill to facilitate restraint of government expenditures. It only transfers to other programs amounts that are now being allocated to the old types of programs. My colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), pointed this out quite clearly in his intervention a few days ago when he talked about how much the government was proposing to save by cutting off the cost of living increase in a certain type of program. Then he pointed out that in all likelihood if the people were not able to qualify and fulfil their objective of being retrained for other types of work, they could conceivably fall out altogether and go on unemployment insurance or on welfare, and the money would be taken up and spent in that way.
We could go on with many other things, but in conclusion I would like to say that Canadians do not object to the introduction of programs designed to assist those who, through a variety of reasons, are unable to compete successfully at a highly competitive time. Canadians do not object to the financing of programs which contribute to the over-all de-
Restraint of Government Expenditures velopment of our national economy. They do not object to being called upon to provide those services which we as individual citizens are unable to provide for ourselves. They do not object to providing assistance to underdeveloped countries, if that aid is carefully and effectively disbursed to alleviate human suffering. But Canadians do object to the squandering of their money in ways which undermine the will of some individuals to pull their share of the national load. They object to governments implying by their policies that the citizens are not intelligent enough to spend their own money, care for their own needs and discharge their own responsibilities, and that therefore government has to withdraw their money from their pockets and hand it out again in some other form.
Canadians object to being looked upon as an inexhaustible source of dollars to support governmental programs which have been growing wild ever since this government took office in 1968, and the benefits from those programs have been extremely limited.
My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), this afternoon laid out special priorities which are essential in his area of the country, and when we talk about curtailing expenditures, immediately the government raises the cry: "What do you want to cut out?'' It is not exactly a matter of cutting out; it is a matter of setting priorities in a way which will enable people to understand what is being done and in a way which will prove to the people that something worth while is being accomplished, and the government should be sincere in its desire and in its effort to pull the economy out of the doldrums and lead the nation on a path of progress and development.
1 am not hopeful at all that this government is able to do that, but I believe that when the next election rolls around, the people will effect a change-a change which is indicated very strongly in the polls across the country today-and I believe that the government which will be installed under the leadership of our leader, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), will be able to set in place the type of program which will get the country on the road again to development and progress, and which will enable this nation to reach some of the objectives which incorporate the aspirations of its people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, as I am rising to take part in this debate, the voting is over in the Province of Quebec and the TV networks are broadcasting the results of the election. This is probably the reason why I am the only French speaking member from my province to be in this House at this time. In any event, it is evident that the whole of Canada is watching most attentively the development of this political campaign which is a source of enormous interest and understandably so.
However, Mr. Speaker, we, the hon. members present in the House of Commons, have responsibilities which are particular to us, and I for one intend to assume them and do my best, in co-ope-ation with other hon. members, to provide our country

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
with the best possible administration, so that families, individuals and business may survive, to make sure that our people as a whole enjoy a decent standard of living and to preserve everyone of our individual and collective rights.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-19 which is now before us, is an omnibus bill.
We have seen omnibus bills introduced before in the House, bills which put the members in an excessively difficult situation. Indeed, we are in favour of some part of the bill, but we are at the same time opposed to another part of it. And when we want to accept what is good in the bill, we are forced to accept what is bad also, and when we refuse to take it all, we are accused of being opposed to what is good. This is a most unfortunate situation, but we have to make do with what we have. With this bill, it is proposed to change the Chapter 14 of the Adult Occupational Training Act, 1972. Secondly, it is proposed to change the Chapter 44 of the Family Allowance Act, 1973, to change the Industrial Research and Development Incentive Act, to abolish Information Canada, and to change the Western Grain Stabilization Act, all this in the very same bill. We could easily agree with some of the provisions in the bill and disagree with others. However I feel this is done deliberately. And I regret once more, Mr. Speaker, that the government still tries unfortunately to generate confusion with omnibus bills. However, it seems to me that with the army of civil servants and advisers working for the government, it could proceed as expeditiously and less confusedly. There is always too much confusion. We particularly need clear and precise legislation because it is the public that has to cope with the legislation we pass in the House, and if we want the people to cooperate with the administration, we must first of all give them precise and intelligent legislation so that the public can accept, in the proper time and place, less beneficial legislation, and under other circumstances, beneficial conditions.
Mr. Speaker, on November 5, I had the honour to introduce in the House and to propose Bill C-206 which is at second reading and which, I hope, will be referred in the House at the proper time for debate. I consider that this bill contains provisions which should be discussed more fully in the House, in committee and at the report stage so that situations which precisely compel the government to introduce Bill C-19 in order to restrain government spending be corrected. During the debate on second reading of Bill C-206, one member said: the member for Bellechasse did not spend much time preparing his bill because it is not thick. Mr. Speaker I always beware of thick bills, of bills which are really confused, which compress too many things at the same time.
I would rather have fewer pages and know what they contain because I understand what the Canadian people are likely to understand. That would really be interesting and would prove to the people of our country that we really mean well, that we want to take concrete measures that are easy to

understand. The population must be able to use laws in the same sensible way we use to develop and pass them.
Bill C-19 is intitled an act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.
Mr. Speaker, it is terrible. It reminds me of the banker who gives an umbrella when the sun shines, but when it rains, he takes it away. The government offers us some programs when private enterprise is ready to provide jobs; when the economic activity is in full swing, the government has programs. It is precisely when the economic activity slows down, when private enterprise is no more able to absorb the available labour, that we need government intervention to counter-balance the lack of jobs. It is then that the umbrella is taken away by the government, that it deprives us of the benefit of certain laws, such as the family allowances act and that providing for a job-creation program which is commonly called LIP. Mr. Speaker, I think that the provision of the bill designed to save money at the expense of families is bad for Canada, because Canada is made up of families, and we have to make sure that our legislation always protects the rights of families, and even more so. And when families will be in good economic health we will have a country in good economic health.
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to be surprised that young couples today refuse or nearly refuse the arrival of a newborn in their homes. But why? Is it because they are worse than the generation which preceded them? Not at all! It is because they must suffer overly difficult economic conditions that we now see a decrease in the birth rate in Canada and more particularly in my province of Quebec of which I am proud indeed. I have difficulty realizing that Providence gave us so much, so many resources of all kinds and that we should administer in a way that creates concern among the young and that they should not want to accept the continued existence of our people in a normal way. We must reflect on that and think about it twice.
Yet I had a bit of hope when on October 12 in the Speech from the Throne one could read-we are not told the year but simply:
On January 1 family allowances will again be indexed to the increase in the cost of living in 1976. I am prepared to take it that they meant January 1, 1977, but until then there will still be a period of twelve months in between. Until then I think the families of this country will be deprived of a necessary income, an important income that would have helped put economic blood in our system. When families have supplementary incomes in general they spend those incomes on neccessities of life, and when those families buy more milk, more clothes, more necessities of life they help directly to dispose of production. And when production is disposed of, industries operate at fuller capacity and automatically families help create employment, reduce unemployment and circulate in our society the economic blood of the nation-money.
Mr. Speaker, I am offended that in 1976 a bill should be introduced to reduce the increase in family allowances that had been provided for in 1975.
November 15, 1976

Mr. Speaker, a 7 per cent reduction in the income of members of parliament during 1976 is acceptable because this is only affecting 264 families, but a reduction in family allowances directly affects a huge number of families, and this is more serious.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the members have accepted that their income, their expense account be reduced by 7 per cent since last July, when Bill C-81 was passed and every member gives back $58.33 to the federal Treasury each month. Did the newspapers report that fact to the people? Were the people told on television that the members of parliament were setting the good example? Did the radio stations broadcast that information? Never. If our income had increased by 2 per cent, that increase would have made the headlines on the newspapers: "Members of Parliament are having it good, they increase their income by 2 per cent". We accepted to make a sacrifice to set a good example but nobody mentions it. Furthermore, a bill is introduced to reduce the income of our families, of those who accept to bring up children, and perhaps somebody will say that this is a scandal.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday 1 met at least 1,000 people in my riding. I attended the Remembrance Day ceremonies, when everyone displayed a reverent silence, following the church service. In the evening, I met about 500 mothers, members of the Daughters of Isobel Order. We did not meet just for fun, we met to think about the future of our country, about the role of the mothers and, Mr. Speaker, we came to the conclusion that we must take the necessary steps to guarantee them a sufficient income. They have an important role to play in our country because without them, there will be not Canada.
The rights of the mothers, those who accept to give birth, must be recognized with legislation. We must make sure that they will not fear tomorrow, that they will have enough clothing or enough money to buy food for their offsprings.
However, if our country was lacking natural resources, one could say: We must share, we must deny ourselves for one another, but this is not the case. Mr. Speaker, in our country, we are presently punishing those who produce, he or she who gets up early in the morning to go and work for 10, 15 or 20 hours, we punish these persons more than the ones who refuse to go to work. Let us take the case of the dairy producers in Canada. I do not want to indulge in petty politics but I would like us to be realistic. Those people have been managing their businesses for years, looking for ways to improve them, to make them more profitable, to provide a livelihood to their small communities. Automatically, they had to expand with time, the business was sound, with a climate favourable to farming entrepreneurship. But now we have a policy punishing those who produce. Not only are they punished, but revoltingly the milk they produce is not paid, and on top of that they incur a penalty for producing.
This is totally irrational, when it is known for a fact that even in this country there are families and small children that are not provided on a daily basis with enough food to fill their stomachs. Some may point to Christ saying that there will
Restraint of Government Expenditures always be poor people among us. But he never said to the House of Commons; Thou shall enact laws to be poor people. We must not make Christ lie. What is our role? It is to look after those people, those groups of Canadians who do not have the talents, the opportunity to get out of a situation which we might not accept ourselves. What is our role? It is to accept what Providence sends us, to distribute it in a fair way satisfactory to the people.
Admittedly, we are facing difficult times, but those who lived through the 30's should remember those years. I remember something that happened on October 29, 1932 when I had nothing to eat in my hut. I remember I had the good fortune to see a deer two acres away from my house. I had a gun, and I got it. But one hour later came a game warden, asking if 1 had a permit. I said yes, my permit is being able to get the game Providence sends me. He told me: I have to seize your deer, because you have no permit. Well, I was not a revolutionary, but this I answered: "My friend, I don't know you. You may have authority, but I will tell you this much: The man who will carry the deer, away, the man who will take it away from my stomach, he isn't born yet. Do you understand?" Well, we understood each other, and finally he decided to leave it there.
I shared it with the families around, because it was a gift of God. So we must now do the same thing.
Today, circumstances have it that I am here as a member of this House, like every other member, to speak and make laws in the name of my fellow citizens, in the name of Canadians. We must always make laws to ensure minimum of security to the smallest person in our society. Let others be millionaires, that does not matter as long as the smallest in society is assured of the bare essentials. Canada can do that.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept that family allowances are not indexed to the cost of living. Surely there are numbers of other ways to practice restraint other than at the expenses of Canadian families. The government should refer to the Auditor General's reports which I had the opportunity to read since I came to this House. The Auditor General of Canada has made suggestions year after year to indicate to the government where there is squandering, where savings could be made, but the government has failed to act upon them. The Auditor General does mention in his reports: "I do not have the necessary staff to work more efficiently." And he has been requesting additional staff to enable him to perform a truly responsible work and ensure an adequate management of our national affairs in co-operation with the government. It is stated in the Speech from the Throne that the government is willing to grant additional staff to enable the Auditor General of Canada to do his work in the best interests of the nation without consideration for the government.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot bear the sight of so many young men and women whom we have raised, educated, clothed and sheltered, their arms full of diplomas wander from one Manpower centre to another. Some of them call on the personnel directors of various companies and are given this answer: Sir,

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
do you have any experience? Miss, do you have any experience? One must be naive, Mr. Speaker, to ask that question to a student who tells you: I have just completed my studies. I have a diploma, I did my best, so I am available now on the labour market. And then, he is asked stupidly: Do you have any experience? It is simply killing. They do not understand anything! That is the kind of reasoning. If we really want to develop our labour, our youth for the benefit of this country, let us start by giving them a chance. Let us start by opening them some doors, and then we will see whether they are likely to acquire some ability. They will probably do, and we will then have an opportunity to use our human resources for the benefit of the development and advance of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that a government prefers to hand out unemployment benefits which are often more costly than wages paid in local industries, that they agree to support strong young people through welfare, whereas we spend half a million a day, or if we spend $1 billion a year to pay for benefits, for allowances to people who do nothing, why should we not be clever enough to take the risk of paying the same amount and enable these people to use their intelligence, their skills, the diplomas they have received? It seems to me this would be appropriate in difficult situations.
I, for one, do not always blame private enterprise, Mr. Speaker, because according to available data, the private sector provides 60 per cent of all jobs in Canada. But because of the various pressures it is subject to, this sector ends up being less effective, and this is why the number of unemployed increases, even though some governments boast that they have created 100,000 or 200,000 new jobs this year. This is not what is important, Mr. Speaker. We must consider each year how many healthy people are really at work and productive. This is why I am not very pleased with the provisions of this bill, if we have to impose restraints of this kind under the pretence of saving some money.
We have something tremendous to build in Canada. We have lakes, the St. Lawrence River, the oceans. God has been good to us. We could very well have our own merchant marine. But to build that, we need human resources. We have men, qualified solderers, mechanics, why not put them to work building a merchant marine for our country? It seems to me quite logical.
Mr. Speaker, I would not want to act like a demagogue and accuse governments of all the sins of Israel. Not at all, but let us make it quite clear that basically, the actual problem is a dollar problem, a money problem. And if we are aware of this money problem, aware that our financing system up to now has not adequately safisfied our country's needs, let us be honest and reform it. Let us take a chance, things could not be worse than they are now, because, Mr. Speaker, this government, the government of Canada, under the pretext of helping the provinces, I explained it on November 5, under the pretense of helping Quebec build low rental housing for retired people, they are claiming a 17 per cent interest rate. When a government has to pay 17 per cent interest rate to build public utilities, how could private enterprise survive with a competitor
[Mr. Lambert (Bcllechasse).J
like that? It is in that direction, Mr. Speaker, that we ought to direct our research.
We shall find out things pretty quickly. All we have to do is follow the indications of the Auditor General of Canada, and listen to the well informed opinions of some free economists, I do not mean economists who allowed themselves to be bought out, who are working for loan sharks, I mean really free thinking economists, objective economists who are able to view the economic situation in its real context and provide public administrations with means to make our economic system and all our activities more efficient, so that we stop talking nonsense, wasting away our energies to try to put bandaids on a wooden leg.
There was an old beggar in my parish who had a wooden leg. Even if he had put bandaids on it every day, it would still have been a wooden leg. The same goes for us. If we put bandaids on this and that, on things, means, systems that give no results, what do we achieve? Let us change method.
That is what 1 am suggesting to the government, this evening, on the occasion of the debate on Bill C-19. Mr. Speaker, you who are listening to me, for the love of God ask His Honour the Speaker of the House to bring back to Parliament Bill C-206 as soon as possible that we might continue to study it in depth, in order to find some solution or other that would enable the government to give administrative results of which the people can be proud. I could not care less what party does it; whether it be the Conservatives who perform the reform, I would rejoice, whether it be the NDP, I would rejoice, and whether it be the Liberals, I would be happy; just as long as something positive, concrete is done. It is the results that count. It is the results that we want.
I do think, Mr. Speaker, that we have here an intelligent assembly. In fact I know all my colleagues of the House quite well; I have always had considerable respect for each and everyone of them.
We can have different opinions but we must not disagree on the means to meet the objective. I worked a lot in the building industry and I happened to have foremen who had opinions which were different from mine on how to erect a scaffold, but the objective was not the scaffold, the idea was to be able to put the roofing and the last layers of bricks; this was the objective. If we are in Parliament, it is to build, no matter what materials we want to use; it is our objective that matters.
The objective, Mr. Speaker, is to give our country a sound administration, to give our young people, our children who are going to survive us, a heritage of which they will be proud and then they will say among themselves: do you know that these people were not that foolish; they did not have the education we have, they did not have the advantage to wear out as many seats in universities, but they used the little education they had to make something really positive and then they will say: it is not as bad as all that; we must do better.
And with this in mind, they will go on with renewed vigour instead of being discouraged as they are now because it is discouraging to see them act the way they do. I see it every
November 15, 1976

weekend. I meet the man on the street, Mr. Speaker, because we must go down to the grassroots level, hear what people are saying and open our eyes. We must be able to understand them better.
I am not pessimistic by nature, you can be sure of that. I have faith in my country's future, but we must wake up, bring about the necessary reforms while it is still time. And one such reform would be to eliminate the provision with regards to family allowances so that they can be indexed even for 1976. If we could finally realize this, we would show that we really intend to build our country on that most precious, fundamental unit that we call the family and Canadian mothers would not be afraid of having another child and perhaps we would hear a little less of suicides and abortions.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not expect to be as eloquent or as boisterous as the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), partly because 1 acquired a head cold while attending ceremonies on November 11. Nor shall I attempt to say much about the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) whom I congratulate on his maiden speech in the House today. However, since he was not able to stick to the facts and, 1 would say, distorted the position of the federal government in the field of expenditure, I shall return to the hon. member shortly.
I intend to follow the line taken by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni who drew attention to certain very beneficial aspects of Bill C-19. I do not mind telling the Canadian people that I am happy to enter the debate this evening to speak in favour of that bill.
On December 18, 1975, among the many steps the government was taking to bring inflation under control, certain reductions in planned government expenditures for the fiscal year 1976-77 were announced. These reductions were categorized as the deferral of planned expenditures, the elimination of planned expenditures, and the elimination of activities. This was not something the political party which happens to hold power was anxious to do. Obviously, with the majority we have in the House and the able politicians we have in this party, we were not interested in bringing in restraint legislation. However, I am satisfied that the Canadian people appreciate the beneficial effects which will come about economically as a result of the steps taken. This bill is an example of leadership, which is what the Canadian people wish us to exercise.
The steps taken to reduce expenditures involve measures to terminate various programs which were felt, in some instances, to have worn out their effectiveness, for example, Information Canada, the Opportunities for Youth program and other agencies. We shall see them, no doubt, in the not-too-distant future in other forms as various aspects of those programs are reintroduced in co-operation with the provinces, picking up where we have left off.
The total reduction in planned expenditures on these and many other items was about SI.5 billion, of which slightly
Restraint of Government Expenditures more than half corresponded to reductions in budgetary expenditures; the rest were reductions in non-budgetary expenditures. Had these reductions not been imposed, the main estimates which were tabled on February 18, 1976, would have been about $1 billion higher than they were, and the capital budgets of Crown corporations, which are approved by orders in council and which are tabled in the House, would have been about half a billion dollars higher.
Levels of expenditure affecting some of the items involved in these reductions are regulated by specific provisions in acts of parliament. To effect the reductions it is necessary to amend these provisions.
Hon. members will recall that the bill before us, or a similar bill, was given first reading on March 8, 1976, but was not proceeded with prior to the summer recess or the end of the last session. Consequently a bill with minor revisions, but substantially the same, was given first reading on November 1, 1976. The revisions relate to the effective dates of certain amendments. The purpose of the omnibus legislation now before the House is to provide the authority necessary to enable certain reductions in planned expenditure to be made.
One area of attention is the Adult Occupation Training Act. As one coming from the province of New Brunswick, I say, of course, that anything which can be done to assist our people in preparing them for jobs is to be encouraged. As hon. members know, the Company of Young Canadians is, of necessity, eliminated along with other large programs which we all supported; however, ways will be found, in co-operation with the provincial governments, to provide effective assistance for young people through various other programs.
I do feel we have shown an example of good leadership in being able to put the lid on certain programs and bring in these restraints. We are asking the Canadian people to understand that these measures are absolutely necessary in order to maintain the stability of the economy.
I turn my attention again, to the hon. member for St. John's West. A former Liberal, he sits now as a Conservative who was minister of finance in the province of Newfoundland. This afternoon he took it upon himself to criticize the regional development program introduced by this government. What else could this be but blatant hypocrisy when one considers the amount of federal money being poured into the Atlantic provinces?
In New Brunswick, 50 per cent of the total budget of about $1 billion is provided by federal dollars through the equalization grant. In Prince Edward Island it is 75 cents on the dollar. In Nova Scotia one third of a total budget of $800 million is federal money. The same situation exists in Newfoundland where something in the order of 50 per cent of the budget consists of federal money. What has the hon. member for St. John's West got to complain about or criticize when assistance is given to his province on that scale? I fail to understand how the hon. member could take the opportunity afforded by his maiden speech to make such contradictory statements as he did, attacking the very government he has just left, attacking the Moores administration.

November 15, 1976
Restraint of Government Expenditures
If the Moores administration is poor, why should the hon. member come into this House and criticize the federal government without mentioning the billions of federal money which are going into Atlantic Canada to assist provincial governments in almost every phase of their activities-education, health and welfare, infrastructure, transportation and so on? Identify any area you like and you will find that the majority of the dollars going into that program are federal dollars.
I have talked about equalization payments but I have not said a word about the DREE money which is going into his province. It is time it was stated publicly that we should be proud that we are putting this money into places like eastern Canada to assist people in Atlantic Canada attain the same standard of living as the people of Alberta.
I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) does not talk with the premier of Alberta and some of his people in that province who last year told us in the east to freeze in the dark. Has he said anything about assisting us through the use of natural resources, which are Canadian natural resources? As Canadians we are entitled to share in the benefits derived from those resources. But no, Mr. Speaker, the premier of Alberta wants to salt the money away and get interest on the investment at the expense of Canadians. I submit there is a heavy onus on the Leader of the Opposition to speak to the premier of Alberta, since they are of the same party faith. The hon. member for St. John's West would also be well advised to speak to those in other provinces if he wants to cry about the problems in his own province.
As I said earlier this evening, I support Bill C-19 because these are measures that the Canadian people want the government to take. We have reduced federal expenditures to the tune of $1.5 billion. It would be nice to spend $2 million, $5 million or $10 million in some of these small municipalities, but people will always keep demanding more and more services, more of everything, and we all know there is no bottomless pit. There must be a halt to these kinds of pressures.
When one realizes what it costs to operate this House, Mr. Speaker, it is sad that no reasonable suggestions come from the other side. I wonder why the official opposition do not put forward reasonable alternatives if they are concerned at the expenditures of the federal government. Why do they not come to grips with the realities of life in Canada today? Why do they not accept their responsibility and be serious about providing a reasonable opposition in this parliament?
I am convinced that the steps being taken today as a result of the dynamic leadership being shown by the government will be proven in years to come to have been necessary measures to take at this particular time. In the province of New Brunswick federal money is pouring in, but what is the Hatfield administration doing with its allotted federal funds? Some $9.5 million are being allotted to bilingualism over and above the half billion dollars provided New Brunswick in the form of equalization payments, and over and above all the DREE grants, the $35 million spent on water and sewage systems, the $60

million poured into route 11 for the construction of the highway between Moncton and Campbellton, in regard to which that particular Conservative administration has been dragging its feet, refusing to accept its responsibilities, its promises and commitments to the people of the province. The members of that administration have failed miserably in carrying out their duties in office, duties they promised to perform at the last provincial election.
1 am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that all members must accept the fact that large amounts of money must be poured into areas such as Atlantic Canada. The day will come when the hon. member for St. John's West will have to reconsider some of the statements he made this afternoon. He did not take the opportunity to tell the House that Mr. Smallwood and the two or three members of his independent party have just recently returned to the Liberal party in Newfoundland. In view of the stature and character of a man like Mr. Smallwood, the hon. member for St. John's West should get in touch with him and discuss his political philosophies. Perhaps he will see the error of his ways and, having gone from Liberal to Conservative, come back to the Liberal side again, where obviously he should have remained in the first place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: La meme chose.


Maurice James Harquail: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says, "La meme chose." I would agree with him, as I have the pleasure of doing from time to time when he brings forward reasonable suggestions in the House.
I want to take the opportunity this evening to say how important it is that the money saved through the cutback in expenditure be directed to those areas that need additional financial support. We have talked about provinces that are better off than other provinces, and in the riding I represent we need every dollar we can get in order to survive and to develop at a pace that will ensure our survival in the future.
I agree with the government that it should make cutbacks in the civil service. In view of the over-expenditure and abuse that has taken place in the civil service sector, there is no question that we must take dynamic action and see that various positions are analysed and, where feasible, cutbacks are made. In almost every department one can find inefficiency and low production. We would be well advised to make some additional in depth studies in this regard because I am confident that there are some more savings to be made which would reduce federal expenditures in this time of restraint.
In recent months even people in the labour movement have spoken of the benefits coming from the restraint program. Recent statistics bear this out. I am not referring to political statements by the government; these are facts, and they show that the program is working and that the people are satisfied with the action that has been taken by the government.
I would not want to miss this opportunity as a member from New Brunswick of saying I support the decentralization program. Not only do I support it but I am very interested in where jobs will be relocated. One of the first moves that was made was to Matane, Quebec. Then another section of the
November 15, 1976

civil service moved to the greater Moncton area and then into the Bathurst area. I think this is good. Not only should the government go to Atlantic Canada but also I agree with some of the previous speakers who suggested that some of these offices and departments should be moved to western Canada.
1 am certainly convinced that the offices which are being decentralized can work very efficiently for the Canadian public in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island, in Nova Scotia, in Newfoundland or indeed on the west coast, just as they can here in the nation's capital, Ottawa. I understand the concern of the local people. Naturally there would be concern by the mayor and the people in the area about space being left vacant because of the movement of the people. I understand this and am most sympathetic about it. No one wants to be moved or disturbed, but of course there must be some understanding and realization of the situation. There are the realities of the thing.
The government has not said it intends to move all the departments from Ottawa. However, when the media and others become involved it sometimes seems as if the government is moving toward decentralization of all agencies, Crown corporations, and departments to some other part of Canada. This is not true.
There has been a well considered plan in respect of the movement of some branches and departments to other sectors of Canada. Why not? As I mentioned in respect of fuel, Canadians in eastern Canada are entitled to enjoy the benefit of the natural resources in Alberta, just as the people of Alberta, British Columbia or Manitoba would want to enjoy the natural resources we have in Atlantic Canada. We share these things. It is a two-way street, and should be. This is the way it should be if we are to have a good strong country.
Notwithstanding the results, 1 was surprised that throughout the election campaign which was conducted in the province of Quebec we did not hear much reference to the federal money that has gone to that province, and to the specialized programs such as DREE and so on through which the federal government assists the provincial government. Depending on the final result we will have to take a serious look at all these projects and the way in which they affect all the provinces and the territories.
To use an expression used by members of the opposition, it seems passing strange that it is very convenient to talk all around something and not tell the truth about the actual programs that are being implemented and the number of dollars that go into the provincial programs from federal funds.
It certainly can be said in respect of my province that the Conservative administration in New Brunswick has not said one word about the 50 per cent of the budget that comes into the province is federal money and DREE money. The administration conveniently forgets to mention the number of federal dollars involved in provincial programs.
Business of the House
I want to conclude my remarks by re-stating that I support Bill C-19 just as I support all the other comprehensive federal government programs that are being administered today.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to correct the record in respect of statements made by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). The hon. member for Restigouche used the phrase "tell the truth". It is encouraging to hear one member on that side of the House use such phrases. Now all we have to do is impress on members opposite that they must understand the meaning of such phrases so that Canada and Canadians will have an opportunity to enjoy the benefits which should be ours as a result of an intelligent government. This government has just become a leaky utensil which can no longer hold water. It plugs a hole here, and then the water runs out somewhere else. This is what has happened.
This afternoon the hon. member for Gloucester said that the government had to have increased revenue. I should like to refer to the increased revenue that has fallen into the lap of the government. In 1969 from all forms of tax, municipal, provincial and federal, the Canadian people paid $24,914,000,000. In 1974, five years later, this figure had almost doubled to $48,461,000,000. The question we as legislators have to decide is how this money will be spent. This is a very important issue. Perhaps the government does not understand how this money should be spent.
There are many ways in which money can be wasted. The vessel is leaking so badly it can no longer hold water and it is therefore spewing out all over the place. We must realize that this government probably is one of the most wasteful governments Canada has ever had trying to govern this country. Every member on that side of the House is living a lie because of the fact that he was elected by misrepresentation, both in respect of the issues and otherwise, because of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated time and time again that he was opposed to controls in Canada and then, a few months after the election, the government brought them in.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask someone on the government side what the business will be for tomorrow and possibly for the balance of the week if the Prime Minister does not plan to issue a writ and go to the people after the results of this evening in Quebec? Is there someone over there who can tell us the business of the House?


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I understand that tomorrow we will continue with the discussion of the bill we have had before us today.

November 15, 1976
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[English |
A motion to adjourn the Elouse under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one of the things I have learned during the years I have been in this House is that if one has a good cause and stays with it long enough he will win. The sad part of it is that sometimes it takes a lot longer than it should but in the end persistence pays. So it is that the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) and I are here tonight to discuss a good cause and I dare to hope that he and I agree that it is a cause that must be won.
My appearance on this late show arises out of a question which I put to the minister on Thursday, November 4, as reported in Hansard at page 756. My question was in the following terms:
Since Remembrance Day is only a week away, will the minister consider, in honour of that day, the introduction of legislation to provide prorata pensions for widows of veterans where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent?
The answer was as follows:


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is under consideration by the government, as is other legislation.
I had a supplementary question which pressed the point that something might be announced before Remembrance Day. I regret to say that that did not happen, but I hope that the delay with regard to this matter will not last much longer.
As most hon. members know, certainly all of us who are interested in veterans affairs, there is a provision in the Pension Act for a widow's pension for widows of veterans who were in receipt of or were entitled to receive disability pensions. However, the very strict provision in that act is that if the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, there is no pension as a matter of right for the widow. Let me repeat it. If the veteran's pension is 48 per cent or more, the widow gets the full widow's pension provided under the Pension Act, but if the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent, she gets nothing under that legislation.
For many years it has been felt that this is unfair, and it has been recommended a good many times that this unfairness be corrected. One of the most thorough examinations of this question was made by Mr. Justice Mervyn Woods, and in the Woods report there was the clear recommendation that the 48 per cent rule be changed. In a more recent report, namely that by Dr. J. Douglas Hermann on prisoners of war in Europe, there was an ancillary recommendation that this 48 per cent rule be altered and that prorata pensions be provided for

widows where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent. To my knowledge, at least three or four times the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has recommended in favour of the very thing that was proposed by Mr. Justice Woods and by Dr. Hermann. Each time that the committee have voted on this issue, we have in fact taken our stand for prorata pensions for widows of veterans in the case where the veteran's pension was less than 48 per cent.
The rule that is there now comes from a day when, generally speaking, pensions for widows were a lot less generous than they are today. They are still not generous enough, but this rule comes out of a bygone day. In these days we realize that if equality between men and women is to mean anything, we have to do better for our widows. I suggest that the best place to start to achieve full equality and a proper deal for widows is by action of the government itself under the Department of Veterans Affairs. I firmly believe that we will win this some day. I believe that the minister in his heart wants it just as much as I do, but he has trouble with those cabinet colleagues of his who are forever holding him back and telling him he has to practise restraint. There is no fairness in this provision which denies widows any pension at all if the veteran's pension was 48 per cent or less, and it must be changed.
Let the minister not tell me about the War Veterans Allowance Act. I know all about that and I know the other provisions that are available, but it means something to a veteran's widow, as it does to a veteran, to have a pension as a matter of right under the Pension Act, and I want to see it extended to cover all widows, including those where the veteran's pension was below the 48 per cent level. That would seem to make sense, at least as a start, and I hope the minister will be able tonight to indicate that he does agree with what Mr. Justice Woods, Dr. Hermann and our committee have recommended, and that just as soon as he can get his fellow cabinet ministers to see the light he will bring in the necessary amendment to the Pension Act to provide adequate pensions for the widows of Canadian war veterans.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to reply to the question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) regarding the suggested provision of prorata pensions for widows of veterans where the veterans' pensions were less than 48 per cent.
The government is aware of all the recommendations which have been made to provide prorata pensions for widows of disability pensioners. At the present time a widow would be pensioned if her husband's death was attributable to service or was incurred during wartime. In addition, if her husband's pensionable disabilities were assessed at 48 per cent or more during his lifetime, she would be eligible for a widow's pension.
This percentage was selected because at that rate the veterans were obviously seriously disabled, and it was considered that the pensionable condition might play a part, however small, in the pensioner's death. On the other hand, if someone is pensioned at 5 per cent for flat feet and dies from a different cause, his death bears no relationship to his pensioned condi-
November 15, 1976

tion, and the question arises as to whether a pension should be paid for an unrelated death.
Canada does not take a back seat to any country in so far as our pension legislation is concerned. The benefits we provide for the disabled servicemen or women or their surviving dependants are far greater than those provided by most other countries. I am not aware of any of our major western wartime allies who pay automatic survivor benefits to widows approaching the 48 per cent basis which we in Canada use.
Having said that I must also say that the entire matter of veterans' benefits-and that includes prorata widows' pensions-is always under constant review by the Department of Veterans Affairs, by the Canadian Pension Commission and by the other agencies of my ministry to see what changes can be made to improve the lot of veterans and their dependants.


ENERGY-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSTRUCTION OF INTERPROVJNCIAL TRANSMISSION LINES
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise in connection with a question I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on November 9 concerning whether he was taking any action to follow up on the statement he made in Labrador last July that he favoured the approach of the federal government exercising its powers under the BNA Act to declare hydro energy transmission lines to be in the national interest, or whatever the wording is, so that they can be built across provinces, without the consent of the provinces, if necessary, in the same manner as oil and gas pipelines are and have been built.
The reason for asking the question is the very unsatisfactory position in which the province of Newfoundland now finds itself with respect to its hydro energy potential in Labrador, particularly at Gull Island, which has a potential of 1,800 megawatts of power and Muskrat Falls just downstream which has a potential of 600 or 700 megawatts, which project has been brought to a halt because of the attitude of the Government of Canada and the attitude of the government of the province of Quebec. It is somewhat a coincidence that 1 am speaking tonight at the moment when the government of Quebec is changing, but there is no reason to expect or hope that the new government of Quebec will be any different from the old one in this respect.
The Gull Island project would have provided 1,800 megawatts of power, of which it was planned to bring a great deal to the island of Newfoundland through a transmission line by way of a tunnel under the Strait of Belle Isle and then, of course, to distribute it within the island of Newfoundland. As the project was originally conceived, there would have been surplus energy which would have had to be sold to someone for a period of 10 to 15 years in order to make the rest of the project feasible. The only possible customer was the province of Quebec, our neighbour, adjacent to the land mass of Labrador.
Adjournment Debate
When the project was first mooted in 1974 the estimated cost, not the detailed cost, was $1.1 billion. The Government of Canada was requested to assist in the project because the province could not finance it with its own credit. There was plenty of precedent for this, including the Nelson River development in Manitoba where the federal government advanced the total financing for the transmission line by way of loan. The government of Newfoundland requested treatment less generous than that.
In the event, after the estimates had gone to $1.47 billion for both the hydro generation and transmission part of this project and the tunnel, the federal government agreed on February 10, 1975, to lend 50 per cent of the cost of the transmission line up to $343 million, at Crown corporation interest rates. That was a loan, not a grant. It agreed to defer principal and interest repayments for five years after completion if a case were proven to show that was necessary, and to capitalize the interest during construction. All of this would have given us a benefit of $425 million out of the then estimated cost of $1.47 billion.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, inflation is rampant. When the final estimates on that project were completed by June, 1975, they showed the cost rising to $2.1 billion, including interest during construction, escalation of costs and the rest of it.
Any financial review showed that the province could not undertake the project without greater financial assistance from the federal government. At the end of August, 1975, the then minister of finance was contacted by letter, and I will not go into the details, with a request for greater financial assistance. In the meantime we had not received any commitment from Quebec Hydro to buy the surplus energy. They would not give us a commitment because they said they did not need the surplus energy and could not use it with James Bay coming into production, although their network to take it from Labrador to the other provinces and the United States could take all the surplus.
The authorities in the province of Quebec have always taken the position that no other province can transmit electricity across its boundaries unless it buys the power and resells it. They are in a position to dictate price to Newfoundland and to keep all the benefits for themselves if they so wish.
Since it was not possible to sell the surplus energy to Quebec and it was not possible to get an immediate answer from the federal government as to whether it would give more financial assistance, the government of Newfoundland had to discontinue the plan to generate hydro at Gull Island. It had to change the plan and ask Quebec whether it would sell sufficient power to us to construct one transmission line from the upper Churchill project so that we could bring that down and go ahead with the transmission line and the tunnel, with our energy to come from that source which they have under contract from Hydro Quebec.
The federal government told the province that it could not consider any greater financial assistance until they had settled
1022

November 15, 1976
Adjournment Debate
all these matters with the province of Quebec. The federal government put us in the hands of the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker. That province took advantage of its neighbour and adopted a "beggar thy neighbour" policy. They finally said that for them to consent to us getting in excess of 300 megawatts from the upper Churchill project, which they had to agree to under the present contractual arrangement, they would want a boundary change in Labrador. In the alternative they wanted us to sell them 20,000 square miles of Labrador, the watershed of five rivers running into the St. Lawrence, for one dollar, and they wanted us to pay the same price for the power to be recalled from the upper Churchill as it would cost us in 1982 in Newfoundland for power. This would be 30 to 40 mills, Mr. Speaker, because in 1982 we would have to get it from oil fired generators. That is the position we were put in by the province of Quebec. They had us by the throat and did not hesitate to choke us.
The project is now halted on both counts. We cannot go forward with the transmission line and we have had to stop the hydro generation. If we are to develop the hydro generated energy at Gull Island, Muskrat Falls and other sites in Labrador and sell what we do not need to other provinces, we must have some way of getting over the territorial boundaries of the province of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, whose allotted time has expired.


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) I am pleased to reply to the question raised by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). I hope that he, representing a constituency in Newfoundland, recognizes that the encouragement of co-operation between neighbouring provinces has long been an objective of the government's energy policy and is reflected in the existing regional electrical interconnection policy which offers grants for studies and loans up to 50 per cent of the cost for approved projects. Such conditions together with a grant justified by special considerations have enabled the construction of an interconnection between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The same program provided the basis on which an offer of loans totalling $343 million was made to Newfoundland and Labrador for a transmission system between Gull Island and the island of Newfoundland.
The essential element has been the assumption that, given appropriate incentives, neighbouring provinces would co-operate in their best mutual interests, and in this connection I am encouraged by progress made at a recent meeting in Halifax. At that recent meeting federal representatives and officials of the Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island electric power utilities agreed to work out terms of reference for a study aimed at the co-ordination of electrical energy development in the Maritime provinces through extended cooperation of the three provinces and the federal government. The study will evaluate procedures and possible new corporate structures to deal with such matters as regional generation and transmission development, regional energy dispatch, and regional system planning. The study will lead to recommendations on organization, financing and decision-making on joint regional projects, and will consider co-operation with neighbouring regions.
The hon. member is envisaging a situation when the conditions for such co-operation are not present. While constitutional jurisdiction might provide some leverage in such situations there are many other factors beyond the physical construction of transmission facilities if mutual benefits are to be obtained, including co-operative planning, joint participation in selected generation facilities, and possibly shared financing. The government has a strong preference to explore the co-operative approach, and to consider exercising constitutional leverage only as a last resort.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 16, 1976