1976-10-21

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the importance of a full and complete briefing for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) concerning the situation at Statistics Canada, particularly since the report in the Gazette this morning goes beyond his statement in the House yesterday, and since it is of the importance of the integrity of Statistics Canada, and to remove the shadow over public servants employed there, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce institute a full ministerial inquiry into all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the alleged breaches of confidentiality at Statistics Canada and that he make a statement on motions at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can only be presented to the House with its unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to take whatever action is necessary to end the apparent collusion by the management of the Ottawa Citizen and the Journal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the tragic loss of 13 seamen from the freighter Gabriella who died from exposure within 60 miles of the southeast coast of Newfoundland and the apparent failure of the air-sea rescue centre at Halifax to provide an immediate response to the Gabriel la's distress call, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That the Minister of Transport order a judicial inquiry into the abandoning of the MV Gabriella with the loss of 13 lives.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since a very serious situation concerning radioactive leaks has been disclosed in Elliot Lake, the Atomic Energy Control Board being determined to maintain tightlipped secrecy with respect to possible health hazards to residents of Elliot Lake, and since the citizens of the community have a right to know the measures which have been and will be taken to assess the situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources instruct the Atomic Energy Control Board to make its findings on the present situation public and also to call a full public inquiry as to the scope of the radiation hazard not only in the town of Elliot Lake, but also the surrounding district.

October 21, 1976
Housing


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Because of the serious, internal confusion in CIDA concerning which minister is in charge of this $ 1 billion agency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That the government immediately clarify this situation and reassure the public of Canada that CIDA's operation is being scrutinized daily, by stating which minister is in charge and responsible to parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


HOUSING
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the shift in housing activities, in the form of money expenditure and ingenuity, from Canada to the United States, and in view of near zero vacancy rates in rental accommodation in most large urban centres that reflects most drastically on native and low income families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to introduce legislation immediately that would entice Canadians to channel Canadian equity capital and know-how back into Canada, to provide shelter for Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, the urgency being the effect on the outcome of the election campaign in the province of Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal):
That the government cause to be brought immediately before the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, the responsible officers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purpose of explaining the circumstances leading to the recent affront to the premier of the province of Quebec, the response of the officers to that action and the intentions of Radio Canada to prevent similar future interference with free communication in publicly financed television programming.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Further to the information conveyed to this House yesterday by the minister, I should like to ask him in the interim, particularly in view of reports which appeared in the press, if he has become more aware of the details of the commercial or extra-curricular activities of the Statistics Canada employees as they relate to Statistics Canada data, and can he now say when his predecessor in office at the relevant time became aware of what was going on in this respect?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I did not really talk to the newsmen in the same precise terms I used in the House, I merely stated, in substance, what I had said. I did not want to name any names because I want to protect the reputation of the people who have been penalized and who, according to the RCMP itself, had not committed any criminal offence. At the time, Statistics Canada management had informed the then minister about the inquiry made by the RCMP. As far as I can see, I believe everything has been conducted according to standards prevailing in the administration. If some people have supplementary information, I would ask them to communicate it to
October 21, 1976

the RCMP who, in such circumstances, always carry out their duty properly.


MEASURES TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION AND INTEGRITY OF EMPLOYEES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: 1 again thank the minister for his answer. Has the minister had the opportunity, since assuming his latest portfolio, to have a general briefing on the operations of Statistics Canada? Is he satisfied at this point that the House has all the information to which it is entitled, and that all proper and necessary action has been taken to protect the confidentiality and integrity of this important department as well as the integrity of the overwhelming majority of the employees there?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, since my appointment to this department I have had many opportunities to meet with the Director of Statistics Canada, Mr. Kirkham. I am satisfied that Statistics Canada takes all necessary action to protect the confidentiality of information. Mr. Kirkham told me that he, also, was satisfied but that he would do everything possible to ensure that the integrity of this agency of international standing be protected.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Will the minister agree that the sale of data for private gain of statistics derived from confidential sources on an organized basis is a matter of grave concern, and will he undertake to have answered with as much dispatch as possible, the several questions which I will be having placed on the order paper today?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me state that I am satisfied, following the RCM police report, that the information which the penalized employees have used was not confidential. It had already been made public. I shall endeavour to answer all the hon. member's questions, as I did this week. I shall answer all the questions in today's order paper.


DATE ON WHICH CHIEF STATISTICIAN BECAME AWARE OF BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY
Walter David Baker: A supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-I realize the minister has not had much time in which to look into this. Could he inform the House when the then Chief Statistician of Statistics Canada was first informed of the activities which have been the subject of questions for the last couple of days?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly all the dates and all the details. I am satisfied that, at that time, the official
Oral Questions
mentioned by the hon. member acted diligently and warned the police as quickly as possible, and the RCMP reported there was no criminal act under the circumstances. The director imposed the penalty which was required for a little indiscretion on the part of the officials involved.


STATUS OF INVESTIGATION INTO BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Walter David Baker: That is not really the answer to the question, though I can understand the problem the minister may have with respect to it. Can I assume from his answers today that the investigation is proceeding, that he is expecting to be more fully briefed as time proceeds and that we may expect a full statement at the end of this briefing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement to the House yesterday and I am satisfied. I have been briefed. The first day these questions were raised I asked the director to come to talk to me. I waited until the hon. member for Central Nova came into the House before making my reply. I am satisfied. I do not want to continue on the basis of innuendos. If there are any allegations of criminal conduct, the RCMP will investigate them but I do not like this business of throwing innuendos around. If you have any accusations, have the guts to stand up and make them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The question is a very simple one. Has the investigation been completed or is it still being carried on within the department, and is the minister satisfied, if it has been completed, that he has all the information?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: These incidents arose two years ago and I think the matter was handled properly at that time. On the facts I have, I do not intend to carry on. As far as I am concerned, I am satisfied. It was two years ago. Some penalty was imposed. If hon. members have any new information, let them give it to me. I am here. I will defend the integrity of Statistics Canada, as is my duty, and I am very surprised that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton should try to cast some doubt upon it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD
Mr. R. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In his absence, might I direct it to the acting minister? In view
294

October 21, 1976
Oral Questions
of the disclosure that many homes in Elliot Lake are subject to radiation leakage and that unacceptable levels of radon gas have been found, will the minister offer the House details of the proposed testing plans by the Atomic Energy Control Board so that we might have a clearer idea of those plans than was supplied by the hon. member for Algoma to the Globe and Mail?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Atomic Energy Control Board will be making an announcement on this matter very likely today.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I welcome that statement. I hope the announcement will meet the questions the people of Elliot Lake are asking. Can the hon. gentleman assure the people of Elliot Lake that during the investigation by AECB an opportunity will be provided to the general public to come forward with constructive criticisms and suggestions and that the findings of the Board will be made public?


Maurice Dupras: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


SUGGESTED REVISION OF STANDARDS FOR RADIOACTIVE CONCENTRATIONS FOR CERTAIN COMMUNITIES
Reginald Cyril Symes: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that current standards for acceptable radiation levels are based upon the effects of radioactive concentrations on the general public, would the government consider amending those standards for communities such as Elliot Lake where workers already are subject to higher radiation levels in the mines, where some waters are contaminated, and where many homes may contain excessive radioactive concentrations in their foundations?


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I will take this last question as notice.

[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the increases in interest rates we have witnessed in the last five years, and as it seems that interest rates will go up by another }A of 1 per cent within a month, and in view of the fact that this is one of the major causes of the runaway inflation we have had in recent years, can the minister tell us

whether he will do something to see to it that interest rates are lower in Canada in the near future?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have no suggestions to make at this time with regard to interest rates. As the hon. member knows, interest rates depend on the market and the monetary policy of the government. The monetary policy is set by the governor of the Bank of Canada, after consultation, and its aim is to reduce the level of inflation in Canada. That is why I cannot propose to the House, for instance, an increase in the monetary supply to reduce interest rates.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Before discussing with the Bank of Canada the new formula the minister will be introducing, can the minister tell us whether he will be meeting the governor of the Bank of Canada with a view to lowering interest rates, so that the situation can be more normal in terms of our American neighbours?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I met the governor this week to discuss this matter and others as well, but the fact is that we have a higher level of inflation than the United States. With such a level of inflation, it is inevitable that there should be a difference between interest rates in Canada and in the United States.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
ROLE OF COMMISSION IN LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfiRE PROJECT-ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Public Works has apparently left the House, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. As minister in charge of the agency, the National Capital Commission, that negotiated Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project for the Department of Public Works, has he satisfied himself that there are no conflicts of interest involved in the deliberations and negotiations leading to this "confirmed and binding contract"?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the role of the National Capital Commission was merely that of acquiring the land, from Quebec Hydro I believe. The negotiations were conducted by the Department of Public Works, and I can assure him that my colleague, who has been very open with all the information, will be very pleased to answer any question respecting the negotiations themselves.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Minister of State for Urban Affairs would take the time to examine the minutes of the various committees whose deliberations led up to this contract. I would ask him whether he is aware or has taken the time to become aware
October 21, 1976

that at least two members of the various NCC committees studying and ruling on this project were at one time or the other acting for and on behalf of the Campeau Corporation during committee deliberations?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to read all those minutes. I am not aware of that but 1 will check into it.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which arises out of a challenge thrown out by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding knowledge of information being given out by government officials. Perhaps the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce would listen. Is the Minister of National Health and Welfare aware of any information that at any time came from members of his department? I ask that particularly because of the fact that after I received my first pension cheque I got a letter from a firm of funeral directors offering me their services.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Don't feel boxed in.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, my seat mate suggests and hopes that my colleague does not feel boxed in in this situation.
[ Translation]
Various allegations on this matter were made in the past, and all our investigations indicate that the information gathered by non-governmental agencies do not seem to flow from any governmental source. Last year, an allegation was made about a certain American company; we investigated and it was found that the information gathered by those private agencies did not come from the department or the government. In fact, in the last case we analyzed on this matter, the company concerned agreed to add a specific note indicating that governments were not the source of information concerning the lists of individuals to which it sent information.


FISHERIES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: 
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, both the market and the amount of crop available in the last year or two have declined quite substantially. In light of investigations that have been made by his department, and particularly the concerns expressed by the minister about the whole marketing situation, can he indicate whether action is being taken within his department to accelerate both its research in terms of the yield of the basic raw material of Irish moss, as well as the substantial measures that could improve marketing information on behalf of his and related departments?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, because of the newness of the industry a lot of basic information has not yet been compiled, for example, possible licencing conditions, best conditions for harvesting, etc. We have a lot of work to do. This is a new area and we still do not have the answers to some of the questions asked by the hon. member.


COMBINES
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of a statement made yesterday by the executive editor of the Ottawa Citizen who said that the publishers of his paper and the Journal were forced to coordinate their strategies, and added:
It's like having the Ottawa Rough Riders play the Montreal Alouettes. The players compete viciously on the field, but the men who own both teams are directors of the Canadian Football League. They sit in the same offices to make sure the league is profitable and well-run.
In light of that, may I ask the minister whether he has obtained some advice from the director of the Combines
80001-2 ovi

October 21, 1976
Oral Questions
Investigation Branch and, if he has, can he tell us what action is to be taken?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is recommending that we go after the football league or after the newspapers, but the fact is that he can ask the question he asked yesterday in four or five different ways every day but I have to give him the same answer. I said I had a statutory obligation to bring his question to the attention of the director and the director, if asked, will conduct an investigation. Beyond that I am following the long-standing practice of not commenting further on the matter in the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the apparent collusion, as admitted by the editor of the paper yesterday, which admission I quoted, I should like to ask the minister whether he is asking the Combines Investigation Branch to perhaps expand its investigation to include all FP and Southam newspapers?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I will simply direct the member's question to the attention of the director. No doubt he will be interested in the hon. member's further comments today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with legislation now before the United States Congress prohibiting United States subsidiary companies from trading with countries engaged in discriminatory boycotts. The legislation in question would wipe out U.S. oil imports from Arab countries. Of course, that is the business of the United States and not ours but it could also stop up to 35 per cent of Canadian oil imports. When the minister was in Washington recently and met with the Secretary of State, was this matter taken up and was there a protest on the part of the Canadian government against the all too frequent attitude taken by the United States of endeavouring to pass legislation that is extra-territorial in its effect and which results in economic difficulties, particularly for those companies that are Canadian subsidiaries of United States companies.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the legislation to which the right hon. member is referring is the bill which did not, in fact, get final passage before Congress rose and the session ended. Therefore, this legislation referred to in the article is not law in the United States. The hon. gentleman is quite right. There was considerable concern for obvious reasons about its possible extra-territoriality and when I met with Mr. Kissinger originally in New York at the United Nations, I made clear to him

that had the bill passed we would certainly have taken, I suppose the appropriate word is, a dim view of it and would have had to take some action. For the reasons I mentioned, the adjournment of the Congress, that has not been necessary, but we are keeping a very close watch on this legislation which has extra-territorial implications for Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I realize the situation, but the legislation is still before Congress, although held in abeyance because of the adjournment. However, there is every indication it will be passed. Arising out of that, I wish to ask him about the strong opinion he expressed during the recent visit of Foreign Minister Arat of Israel in connection with the boycott being repugnant to Canada and that a new Canadian policy on this matter will come out of cabinet shortly. Has the cabinet made its decision, and what is the nature of the legislation the government has in mind in this regard in order to meet a situation which indeed is repugnant to Canadians in general.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, for the very reasons the right hon. member mentioned a few moments ago in relation to the United States situation, legislation is an alternative which might be extremely difficult to implement. Insofar as the policy with regard to boycott is concerned, I am glad to tell the hon. member that I will be making a statement on motions on this subject within the hour.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the deputy Prime Minister. As it has been announced that the former Secretary of State for External Affairs is retaining his chairmanship of the North-South Conference on International Economic Co-operation, I wish to ask whether the minister can now confirm that consideration is being given to his also retaining parliamentary responsibility for CIDA, a $1 billion agency, and that the rationale for such a move would be to ensure consistency in government policy so that the work of CIDA and the North-South Conference is harmonized.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it is true, at least for the time being, that I am carrying on my responsibilities as co-chairman of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is responsible to parliament for the operation of the Canadian International Development Agency.
October 21, 1976


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister assure the House that he is giving daily scrutiny to CIDA which spends $2.7 million a day and is also giving consideration to the reconstitution during this session of Parliament of the sub-committee on international development so that the government's office of strategy can continue to receive parliamentary attention.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question I have in fact been spending a good deal of time during these last weeks looking into and examining CIDA's operations. It is conceivable that I will be anticipating putting into force some changes, but it would be premature for me to say so at this time.
On the question of the establishment of the committee, I have had some representations on this question. On the face of it I do not see any reason why not, but if the hon. member will have a little patience I would be glad to discuss it with him and others to see how it could be done.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with governmental secrecy and the right of Canadian consumers to be properly informed. Has the minister's department communicated with the Minister of Agriculture to ascertain why he would not make public reports relating to unsanitary conditions in Canadian meat-packing plants when the same reports relating to these plants have been made available in the United States under its Freedom of Information Act.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I am unfamiliar with that matter but I will take it up with the Minister of Agriculture.
Perhaps while I am on my feet I might refer to an analagous question raised by the hon. member in respect of motor vehicle safety in relation to the motor vehicles branch of the Department of Transport. I understand that the statistical facts being collected by that department perhaps will be more widely circulated. I suggest that the hon. member ask the Minister of Transport about this. I am afraid I have no information on the point he raised about the Minister of Agriculture.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, whether or not the minister has information, the fact is that the information relating to unsanitary conditions in Canadian meat packing plants made public
Oral Questions
in the United States in the interest of consumers was not made public in Canada. Will the minister assure the House that he will communicate with the Minister of Agriculture, and assure the House and Canadian consumers that in the future such reports will be made public in Canada in the interest of Canadian consumers who should have access to such information as is the case in the United States.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. member that I will consult with the Minister of Agriculture and if the hon. member's point appears as valid as his convincing manner seems to make it we will follow the example of the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to that of my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona. It is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder if the minister can advise us whether it is the policy of the government that CIDA will continue to report to and through the Secretary of State for External Affairs and not any other minister.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is the policy at the present time. I cannot say for the long-term future what the likelihood will be. As you know, a number of suggestions have come-some, I believe, from hon. members opposite-about having a minister with special responsibilities in that area, but nothing of that nature is in place at the moment.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is the question of shifting responsibility for CIDA under active consideration now by the government and can we expect an announcement on that matter in the foreseeable future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the question of the organization of the government, as the hon. member knows is the prime responsibility of the Prime Minister. Certainly, I can assure the hon. member that no consideration is being given to this question by the govern-

October 21, 1976
Oral Questions
ment as a whole. What is in the mind of the Prime Minister will have to be disclosed on his return from Japan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No one knows. Even you don't know what goes on.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Is the minister aware of the often expressed criticisms of bias in the programming of the publicly financed Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? Has he investigated the veracity of one of the reasons given by Lloyd Robertson for his recent resignation, and how does he reconcile this with this week's well publicised action of Radio-Canada in Quebec?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am not sure which of those facts the hon. member is asking me to investigate.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister had an opportunity to study the OECD report on income distribution which indicates that the bottom fifth of Canada's population has one of the lowest shares of total income of the country of any of the OECD countries and if he has, can he say whether the government is contemplating any measures to correct that deplorable situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's concern about that particular report. I have asked my officials to give it close study and analysis to indicate the extent to which they would agree with the conclusions.


David Orlikow: In view of the claims of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance that one of the major purposes of the Anti-Inflation Program was to protect the poorest people in this country, would the minister care to indicate what he intends to do as a result of the Figures published by Statistics Canada which show that for 1975 the income of the lowest fifth of the population in Canada has dropped to less than 4 per cent of the gross national product?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Since that was for 1975, during three quarters of which one had the rapidly rising increase in

settlements in favour of other people in the work force but not on behalf of those who are not in the organized sector, I would say that the prices and incomes program has proved effectively capable of preventing the situation of that group from being exacerbated further. Going back to the fundamental question, it does remain a basic policy of this government, as it has been of Liberal governments in the past, to protect this particular group in the community, and we will continue to be active in that respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Can he tell the House whether the Quebec Inuit Association sent him a request for financial support to finalize the agreement with the government of Quebec concerning the James Bay power development. If so, can the minister indicate whether this request was agreed to?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know 1 have not received demands for additional moneys, although I did receive a request from the Association of Northern Quebec Inuit to help them with their negotiations with Quebec. I met them a couple of weeks ago and I will be meeting them again this coming Monday.


FINANCE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Does the minister agree with the policy on the sale of gold by the International Monetary Fund which has contributed to depressing the price of gold and which in turn, has caused considerable unemployment in our gold centres as well as running down the value of our own reserves?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In general terms, we have approved the policy of the International Monetary Fund to conduct gold auctions for the purpose of generating additional funds to assist the less developed countries, particularly those in the group with a per capita income of less than $200 a year. At the Manila meeting, however, on behalf of the government, I did express some criticism of the manner in which the auction was being conducted which, in
October 21, 1976

our opinion, may well be yielding less from these sales than if they were conducted in a more flexible way. I urged upon the executive directors of the International Monetary Fund a more flexible policy which would maintain the price of gold both in the interest of the developing countries and the interest of Canadian gold producing communities.


SUGGESTED DISBANDING OF INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND-GOVERNMENT POSITION
William Gordon Ritchie: Can the minister tell the House what role he envisages for the IMF in the future, or should the IMF be disbanded, as many people seem to think?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, it
should not, Mr. Speaker. In the course of the current session I will have the opportunity of introducing amendments to the Bretton Woods Agreement Act which indicate the role that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will continue to play. Of course, gold has been replaced by special drawing rights as an international asset in addition to currency reserves in some countries, and we think the fund will continue to play a significant role in assisting countries with balance of payments difficulties.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General. As a considerable number of inmates from the British Columbia penitentiary have already been transferred to the Matsqui institution at Abbotsford following one of the more recent hostage-taking incidents, can the Solicitor General tell the House whether the report is correct that prisoners from the same penitentiary are being or will be transferred to the medium security prison in Mission, British Columbia?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: The answer to the hon. member's question is, yes. There are a number of people in the British Columbia penitentiary who have already been classified as medium security risks but because of insufficient installations they had to be incarcerated in the B.C. penitentiary. However, as space becomes available at Mission, some of the inmates who have already been classified as medium security risks will be transferred to the Mission facilities.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, since the prisons at Abbotsford and Mission were not built to house the type of inmates who were involved in the riot at the B.C. penitentiary, can the minister inform this House, and the residents of Fraser Valley, what steps are being taken to ensure that the same thing will not happen in these institutions as has happened in New Westminster and to ensure protection for the residents of those communities?
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: As I pointed out in my initial answer, only inmates who previous to the disturbances in B.C. penitentiary were classified as medium security risks are being transferred to Mission.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, and 1 want to get it in before the minister resigns to run in the Quebec election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fairweather:: It has been going on every day, and I wanted to catch up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about the former member for Malpeque?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There is a difference between Mr. MacLean and Mr. Marchand-one is leaving a rising ship, the other is leaving a sinking ship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Now, let us get back to regional economic expansion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: There is a legal strike against SMI Industries in New Brunswick which operates with federal DREE funds and the company has threatened to move to the United States, then sell its production back to Canada. I wonder if the minister will consult his colleague, the Minister of Labour, and point out to management that this is a grossly unfair labour practice and is unacceptable to the federal government which has participated in the operation of this company.


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say to my friend, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, that I have no intention whatsoever of leaving my position to run in the provincial election. I feel I still have a lot to do here in Ottawa in this department which is entrusted with responsibility to assist the economy of each province, particularly in my province of Quebec.
In the particular case that to which the hon. member referred, I can say that our department is following all those situations very closely. When a corporation that we assisted under a DREE plan gives an indication of its intention to move

October 21, 1976
Oral Questions
away from the region under the conditions that the hon. member pointed out, then I think in the past we have been active in making sure, if it was still under control to some extent as a result of our grant offer, that this corporation is made well aware of our intention to step in.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. At the present time Canadian ships are not permitted to carry out fishing operations on codfish or redfish on Flemish Cap, an area some 800 miles from Halifax, while Portuguese and Spanish trawlers are still fishing there for codfish and throwing hundreds of thousands of pounds of redfish back into the sea. Can the minister explain this anomaly and inform the House whether any steps are being taken by the Portuguese, Spanish or Canadians to halt this dangerous destruction of fish or to harvest this incidental catch which is not being utilized at present by the Spanish or Portuguese?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries) and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the reason some Canadian or foreign vessels are fishing or not in one or other place is that we may have fished out the quota we had under the ICNAF agreement. In the case of the Portuguese and Spanish vessels, some of their quotas under the international agreement have not been reached and this has to be kept in mind. The question of discards is serious, however-maybe not as serious as the hon. member indicates-and we have told both the Spanish and Portuguese governments that under the new jurisdiction, as of January 1, this will not be tolerated.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The wastage is something like 75,000 pounds of redfish per five-hour troll by actual count from a Lunenburg captain. Since Flemish Cap is something like 800 miles from Halifax, and in an area which will be beyond our jurisdiction when the government declares the 200 mile territorial limit, would the minister undertake to bring this matter to the attention of the Spanish and Portuguese governments in the interests of conserving our valuable fisheries resources for the future use of all mankind?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the action the hon. member suggests has already been taken. My colleague, the Minister of Fisher-
[Mr. Lessard.l
ies and the Environment has indicated that subsequent to the declaration of the 200 miles where we have control, it will also be in a sense an illegal act.


An hon. Member:: How are you going to enforce it?


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Considering the assumption that the order of prohibition is withdrawn and that Mrs. Valdes submits to the deportation order by going to London, and considering that Mr. Valdes is sure to have regular employment, can the minister assure the House that Canada will welcome without delay the Valdes family to avoid undue school delay for the children.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain that I got the full thrust of the translation of the hon. member's question. In looking through the various avenues that have been open to this particular family and the abandonment of the family by the father on occasion, we have endeavoured to be as compassionate as possible in this particular case. I understood that an application for an order of prohibition was before the courts and I have not been advised whether that has been withdrawn or dismissed but I shall look into it.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Defence. Yesterday on television Admiral Boyle said, and I paraphrase him: "I am a taxpayer of Canada and I think there is a limit on how much you can spend on search and rescue." The same sentiment was expressed by the minister's predecessor when he said that deployment of existing search and rescue capability would not be cost effective. I ask the minister, whom I know has a big heart, if this is government policy; if not, will the minister, as an interim measure until the government can get its new search and rescue policy announced, order the deployment of at least one of the armed forces helicopters to eastern Newfoundland?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to correct an answer I gave yesterday in the House with reference to the Labrador helicopter arriving on the scene of the tragedy some
October 21, 1976

two hours after notice was received by the Rescue Co-ordination Centre; it was actually four hours, forty-one minutes later, at 1345 hours. There was a total of three fixed wing aircraft and two helicopters deployed on the mission. I wanted to correct that information which was not complete when given to me yesterday .
With reference to the other question the hon. member raises, I have not seen Admiral Boyle's statement. Certainly this government, as my colleague the Minister of Transport said, has been examining the situation very thoroughly. One must realize that you cannot have an aircraft or ship in every place at every time. 1 would think in that context we have to find the most cost efficient way and the most humane way to handle these situations. We are examining all options and they are under active consideration by the government as my colleague has indicated.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Acting Minister. If these armed forces specially equipped helicopters can be used to ferry the Prime Minister around the maritimes on political tours, surely it is not too much to ask the minister if he will order the deployment now of one of those helicopters to provide some umbrella of protection to fishermen in eastern Newfoundland. That is all I ask.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, these options are already under examination and the government will be making a statement very shortly.
# * *


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD EFFECT ON ECONOMY OF YUKON OF STRIKE AGAINST BOARD RULING BY MINERS AT FARO-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I address the Minister of Finance because he is responsible for the AntiInflation Board, the Minister of National Revenue through whom the administrator of the AIB reports to parliament and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from whom I shall solicit an answer, he being responsible for the economic well-being of the people of the Yukon. These ministers are aware I am sure of the strike which has been in existence by the steel workers at Cyprus-Anvil Mining Corporation at Faro since June 30. The strike is against the AIB which rolled back a negotiated agreement to 12 per cent, then increased it to 14 per cent but it was rolled back again to 8 per cent by the administrator. Can the minister tell the people of the Yukon what steps the government is going to take to break this stalemate which is negating all three objectives of the AIB and is causing gross unemployment and total lack of production as well as an increase in the inflationary rate in the Yukon as a whole?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out that parliament has passed a law which is as applicable to this work force as to other work forces across the country; that the work force can of course
Business of the House
choose to strike against that particular law of parliament. In carrying out the prices and incomes program, I do not think the government should be compelled to abandon that law because of the viewpoint of a particular local. Under those circumstances I do not think there is anything the government can do. It seems the far more sensible thing for that work force to do would be to go back on the job.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION ACT
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Will he assure the people of the Yukon that he will bring before parliament the Northern Canada Power Commission Act for an amendment to section 10 so that the consumers of the Yukon will not have to bear the increased cost of power which is going to be made essential as a result of the lack of revenue to that corporation because of the strike which has been under way for almost three months now, due to AIB action?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, my predecessor set up a task force to examine ways in which power rates could be relieved in the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I understand that task force will report to me in a week or two.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask you, in accordance with Standing Order 60, to designate an order of the day for tomorrow in order to consider the notice of ways and means tabled by the Minister of Finance last week.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
WEEKLY statement
Allan Joseph MacEachen: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the business of the House. I must absent myself from the House soon and may not be present to respond to the question put by my hon. friend. Tomorrow it is my intention to interrupt the debate on the address in reply, to

October 21, 1976
Business of the House
deal with a bill which is to be introduced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) concerning the port of Halifax. Assuming we get consent, we would proceed with that bill tomorrow. On Monday we would conclude the debate on the address in reply. On Tuesday, I hope to call the bill dealing with the James Bay Agreement and, following that, the customs tariff. May I add that if we conclude the proposed labour bill tomorrow before the end of the normal business day, I would consider, with all hon. members opposite, calling bills falling into the category described yesterday by the leader of the New Democratic Party as housekeeping bills. We might do some useful housekeeping late tomorrow afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to co-operate with the government with respect to the bill which he indicated the government intends to call tomorrow. I imagine there has been, or will be, some discussion with respect to it. May I assume from what the minister said that he has now departed from that wasteland of legislation which he mentioned yesterday, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, the bill respecting diplomatic and consular privileges, etc., and that he is really serious with respect to government business in the first part of the session.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker. I draw to the hon. member's attention a variety of additional bills on the order paper dealing with fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, the Pension Act-


Charles Joseph Clark: The National Anthem.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and the making of advance payments for crops. The hon. member should cast his eye beyond the National Anthem.


Walter David Baker: He is casting his eye to the government side. He wants to be over there.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with substantial legislation which the government will place before the House, may I ask the minister the question which was addressed yesterday to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) but not worded in such a way as to elicit the answer we seek. Can the minister say if the bill to amend the Old Age Security Act, as forecast by his colleague last April, will be before the House some time soon, say this year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is the intention: some time this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that in this calendar year, 1976?


Walter David Baker: Or in this fiscal year?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was thinking of the 12-month period from this moment.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, can the government House leader say if he intends, on behalf of widows and war veterans,

to introduce legislation with respect to the Pension Act and war disability pensions? Will amendments be introduced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is a bill on the notice paper dealing with the Pension Act. I hope it can be dealt with quickly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my statement may I, at the outset, apologize to the various spokesmen opposite for the comparatively short time they have had my statement. I was under the impression earlier this morning that it had been distributed. It appears there was some mix-up. I take full responsibility and hope hon. members will understand. I apologize.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Make sure this is the last time this happens.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member opposite says, make sure this is the last time this happens. I think he should note, in all fairness, that this is the first time this has happened.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: That is why I think it will not happen again. That was exactly the tribute I was paying.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you; Mr. Speaker, the government has clarified its position in relation to international boycotts and has strongly affirmed its opposition to discrimination and boycotts based on race, national or ethnic origin or religion. Accordingly, the government will take measures to deny its support or facilities for various kinds of trade transactions in order to combat any discriminatory effects which such boycotts may have on Canadian firms and individuals. These measures will not, of course, apply to any boycott accepted by Canada but will clearly apply to such discriminatory aspects as there may be to any other international boycott.
The type of transactions against which the government will take action are those which would, in connection with the provisions of any boycott, require a Canadian firm to: engage in discrimination based on the race, national or ethnic origin or religion of any Canadian or other individual; refuse to purchase from or sell to any other Canadian firm; refuse to sell Canadian goods to any country; or refrain from purchases from any country.
While Canada seeks friendly relations with Arab states and with Israel, Canada also reserves the right to respond to commercial policies of other nations according to its own practices and values. Consequently, the Canadian government will deny its support or facilities, including the support of its trade missions abroad, in the case of any transaction involving boycott undertakings of the type described above.
October 21, 1976

Given that in many parts of the world, including the Middle East, denial of Canadian government support for a particular transaction imposes very serious handicaps, such as those relating to contact with foreign officials, market information and Canadian government financing, it is considered that denial of such support will be an effective deterrent to co-operation with discriminatory provisions of an international boycott.
Canadian firms may decide nonetheless to agree to certain boycott clauses and forgo Canadian government support for the projects concerned. All Canadian firms, however, whether they accept boycott clauses or not, will be required to report all instances of their complying with boycott provisions. Information obtained from such reports will be made available to the public.
The government recognizes that Arab countries consider their boycott of Israel to be a legitimate economic weapon in view of the continuing state of war between Arab countries and Israel. Canada, however, seeks to improve its relations and to develop its trade in peaceful goods with all nations. Any discrimination against Canadian firms or individuals is contrary to Canadian concepts of fairness and the government is determined to ensure that any such discriminatory aspects are not in any way supported by government programs.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the statement by the government with respect to the Arab boycott is overdue. Opposition to any boycott which is pursued on grounds of racism or prejudice should be a principle of foreign policy. It should not be a last minute position drafted in a context of ambivalence. And, ambivalence there is in this statement. The first paragraph of the statement contains the following statement:
These measures will not, of course, apply to any boycott accepted by Canada . . .
I am sure the minister will want to clarify that sentence, by saying if Canada is about to indulge in a boycott against certain nations and, if it is, which nations they are. There is clear ambivalence at the end of the statement, which reads:
... the government is determined to ensure that any such discriminatory aspects are not in any way supported by government programs.
I just wonder whether this does not add a new perception to the programs and activities of CIDA. I am sure the minister will want to clarify this point a little later and explain if CIDA and our trade missions are going to be involved in such a boycott or if this is a veiled threat.
The new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) should not be held responsible for the procrastination of this government in coming forth with a statement about the Arab boycott. In fact, no other minister has been as open, forthright and co-operative with the opposition. This augurs well for the future. I recognize that and I commend him for his attitude.
However, I say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, foreign policy is more than the drafting of pragmatic statements by
International Boycotts
pragmatic people. It must be the elaboration of principle on behalf of the nation. The people of Canada care more about bread and butter issues, inflation and unemployment, than they do about foreign policy. Nevertheless, foreign policy affects the way in which a nation weighs itself and what a nation stands for.

I understand the necessity for the federal government to protect the commercial interests of Canada and to maintain friendly and business relations with Arab countries now that they are playing a new and decisive role within the world economic community. I do understand also the need for the government to seek information and to evaluate the political and economic consequences of a decision whose importance shall not be minimized. But mercantilism should not be the only rule of a country which is concerned with morality. Now the Arab boycott is one of those cases where Canada cannot but stand firm as far as principles are concerned. It is in the international community's interest that our action discourage measures which might unduly and unjustly affect the interests of Canada, of Israel and of Arab countries themselves.

The statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of May 8, 1975, to the effect that this type of practice is alien to everything the government stands for and, indeed, to what in general Canadian ethics stand for did not prevent, for example, the Canadian Export Development Corporation, a Crown agency, from allegedly conniving in the boycott when being called upon to account for its actions and without being ordered to stop circumventing the government's stated policy.
Instances have been cited where this Crown corporation is alleged to have insured loans to Canadian companies dealing with Arab countries and complying, willingly or not, with the boycott against Israel. I ask the question, and I am sure the minister will answer it later, have those incidents been investigated? In any event, to date no denial has been given.
Unrestrained opposition to an Arab boycott is the only position a government of this country could take. Anything else I consider to be a major sellout in principle and in fact. The people have the right to nothing less. The issue of principle in foreign policy requires commitment, international consistency and skill. As Canada moves closer to membership in the Security Council, the minister and the government must assure themselves that their international consistency, both as a cabinet and within the External Affairs Department, is sufficient to protect principle. The delay that accompanied today's statement must leave many Canadians cause for concern.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I join with the spokesman for the official opposition in saying to the minister that it is regrettable it has taken so long for the government to make any kind of statement on a very basic principle, the question of boycotting of Canadian companies by Arab countries or any other country on the basis of race,

October 21, 1976
International Boycotts
religion or colour. There is a strong feeling among many people in this country that part of the reason for the delay has been the fact that senior officials in the department are hostile toward the state of Israel. I refer the minister to press reports which have detailed the situation.
The minister said "the government will take measures to deny its support or facilities for various kinds of trade transactions in order to combat any discriminatory effects which such boycotts may have on Canadian firms and individuals." All the minister is saying is that the government will apply to Canadian companies doing business outside Canada what is now the law in Canada. We have federal and provincial fair employment practices legislation which prohibits discrimination against Canadian citizens on the basis of race, colour or religion. The government is now prepared to apply the same principles to Canadian companies doing business outside Canada.
The minister went on to say he would do this by refusing the assistance of the government to companies with regard to "contact with foreign officials, market information and Canadian government financing". He states that "denial of such support will be an effective deterrent to cooperation with discriminatory provisions of an international boycott".
The bulk, if not all the business done by the Canadian corporations with Arab countries is done through multinational corporations whose head offices are in the United States, Great Britain, Holland or South Africa. They do not need Canadian government assistance to make contacts, obtain market information or financing, although on occasion they have added icing to the cake by using Canadian financing. Therefore, we do not believe that this kind of action by the Canadian government will have a serious effect on cutting back, let alone preventing Canadian companies from dealing with Arab countries.
The minister said, in the last paragraph of his statement, that "any discrimination against Canadian firms or individuals is contrary to Canadian concepts of fairness". However, he avoided saying that the Canadian government will take legislative action to prohibit that kind of transaction. There will be no legal sanctions against doing business with Arab countries and Arab governments. As far as we can tell, the corporations will simply ignore the feelings expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).
We do not understand why the government of Canada does not enact legislation similar to that now before the United States Congress, and I believe it would be supported by all opposition parties, prohibiting Canadian companies from doing business which requires a boycott by Canadian companies of countries recognized by the United Nations and Canada or of discrimination against Canadian citizens on the basis of race, colour or religion. I urge the minister to give very favourable consideration to bringing in such legislation.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, first I commend the minister for apologizing because his statement was
[Mr. Orlikow.J
late. I would, however, address one critic to him. We hope this will not happen again and that if the minister has some difficulty asserting himself within his department, which I do not believe, he will also try in the future to send us his statements in French. If we are to have bilingualism in Canada, I think we should try at least to begin in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, what strikes me first is the lead paragraph of that statement which reads as follows:
The government has clarified its position in relation to international boycotts and has strongly confirmed its opposition to discrimination and boycotts based on race, national or ethnic origin or religion.
[ Translation]
Unfortunately I realize that the government has followed inconsistent policies in external affairs. Today it has stated that it is against a boycott of countries on racial grounds, but in various circumstances in the House and through its former Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) at the United Nations, it has supported resolutions for an international boycott on racial issues.
I am referring to South Africa and Rhodesia. Canada has supported the boycott.
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada do not believe in economic blackmail such as a boycott to which countries can resort one against the other because no country in this world up to now has succeeded in having an efficient boycott. We remember quite well that some countries advocated an economic boycott against Germany, but to no avail. An economic boycott was declared against Cuba but to no avail. The same was once done against South Africa, again to no avail. In Rhodesia, which was supposed to be boycotted by the United States and Canada and where American companies could not do business, I personally saw some heavy equipment worth millions of dollars from well known American agricultural companies which were doing business while the United States were officially boycotting that country.
Mr. Speaker, economic boycott is nothing but a sort of blackmail, and when a country includes this in its foreign policy, we eventually discover that this same country carries out its trading through the back door of its warehouse, through the back door of the country or through another country.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, to say that we fully support the statement the minister made this morning to the effect that Canada will not participate in this type of international economic blackmail and will not support any boycott against Israel or any Arab country. We therefore support this statement and ask the minister to be consistent from now on when he talks about economic boycott on racial matters.


Claude Wagner: Before directing my question to the minister, Mr. Speaker, I want to state in all fairness, following the statement made by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), that we have indeed received the
October 21, 1976

French text, in excellent French as a matter of fact. We have received this text, I have it before me and it ought to be on the desk of the hon. member for Shefford by now. I should not like to cause prejudice to the minister by saying that he does not favour bilingualism, because if there is someone in the Flouse who favours bilingualism, it is indeed the minister responsible for external affairs.

The questions I should like to put to the minister arise from the opening remarks I made. First, I am disturbed by the sentence to which I drew attention, indicating that the minister is contemplating boycotts. He said these measures would not apply to any boycott accepted by Canada. I should like to know what criteria would guide the government when the moment comes to decide whether a boycott should be exercised against one nation or another.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps I can assuage the hon. member's concern by putting that, in a sense, in the past tense. The object of that line was to make it clear that we were not now rejecting the boycott of Rhodesia which was approved by the United Nations and to which Canada subscribed. I suppose there could be similar circumstances in the future-I am not anticipating any at the present time-and this is specifically designed to cover a situation where the United Nations, through the Security Council, did impose a boycott to which the members, including Canada, subscribed. The words to which the hon. member referred are meant to deal expressly with such a situation.


Claude Wagner: Is it the intention of the government to deprive a country of aid which it has been receiving from CIDA, should that country become part of the boycott?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I cannot conceive of a situation where aid through CIDA would be involved. There might be one where a Canadian company was supplying goods or services in some form or other. But the mere fact that CIDA funds are involved would clearly prohibit such a company from subscribing to the boycott. It is certainly not the intention that foreign aid would be affected in any way. This is expressly designed to cover commercial transactions of the kind carried out in normal international trade.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the minister. He has just told us that CIDA is not involved. With regard to that final sentence of his this morning when he referred to the withdrawal of Canadian government programs from countries supporting the Arab boycott, may I ask what government programs he is contemplating? I suggest that in offering a veiled threat he is doing nothing to calm the already troubled waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I do not see, looking at the document, that there is any reference to withdrawing support from countries. It uses the words "any discrimination against firms and individuals". Possibly the hon. member could read that into it but, once again, I say there is no intention and no thought of involving any CIDA operation. The type of program to which
International Boycotts
the statement makes reference covers government financing of various kinds which, contrary to the view expressed earlier by one member opposite, form a substantial part of doing business in many areas of the world, including the Middle East. It means the kind of assistance which our people in the field provide abroad; in short, anything of a commercial supportive nature would not be available in the circumstances I have outlined.


Douglas Roche: I should like to ask the minister whether he would address himself to the underlying reasons which caused the boycott in the first place. I refer to the spread of racism which is severely affecting the United Nations today and which has put the United Nations in crisis. May I ask what the Canadian government is doing, not only by way of imposing a boycott but constructively and positively, to use its good offices to help the United Nations stop the spread of racism which is so seriously impairing international relations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can only reply in a general way to that question today, but I would be glad to let the hon. member have specific instances of occasions in which we have spoken out against racism in all its forms. Certainly, at the United Nations this year, if the hon. member would do me the honour of reading my speech, he will see I made some strong comments in that direction. We have participated in a number of discussions in the UN and elsewhere making known our views against racism. We have made our position abundantly clear. We have, of course, simultaneously rejected out of hand any effort to link racism with Zionism.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that once a boycott has been set in place by a group of nations it is not likely that they will withdraw from that position, and that only sufficient warning as to what the position of the Canadian government will be could have any real deterrent effect-and with all courtesy to the minister I doubt that this somewhat milk and water statement by the government today will be a very effective deterrent-I want to ask the minister two questions. I will ask both questions now to save the time of the House.
First, is the government prepared to make it clear to companies operating in Canada and to Canadian companies that, in the event of a boycott, the Canadian government will introduce legislation making it illegal to join in a boycott that is based on race, colour or religion?
Second, is the Canadian government prepared to make it clear to any nation, particularly to the Arab nations at this time, that Canada will not allow this repeated type of international blackmail to go on and will take retaliatory measures, measures that will be fairly draconian? It seems to me that unless the government is prepared to take action along those two lines we are liable to find ourselves in a very unfortunate situation and it will be too late then to issue any warnings. I think the Arab nations ought to know in advance, and that companies in Canada ought to know in advance, that if they

October 21, 1976
International Boycotts
co-operate in such a boycott the government proposes to move and to move very firmly. I would ask those two questions of the minister.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think I have no problem replying in the affirmative on the principles about which the hon. member has queried me. I think there is within the statement-I regret that he does not feel it is as strong as he would have liked to see-a clear message which I think will be carried to companies in Canada that we do intend to take the kinds of actions to which the hon. member has referred. In other words, we will act.
On the other issue of retaliation-I believe that was his word-regarding foreign countries, this is a somewhat more complex question. Without going into it in detail, may I say I would assume that our leverage or our capacity to retaliate may vary substantially from one country to another. It also seems to me that there is something in the questions put by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) in particular, and also by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). For example, on the question of foreign aid, this is presumably one form of retaliation that might be possible. But would it be appropriate to cause the ordinary people in certain countries that are participating in boycotts undue suffering as a result of the action of their government? I am not at all certain that I can be as firm on the second point about our reaction to the actions of foreign governments as I can in terms of Canadian companies.
In the case of Canadian companies, the situation is clear. If a company expects to get any form of assistance from the Canadian government-and I repeat that the record shows that assistance is most valuable and in many cases essential- then they must be prepared to forgo, denounce or not take part in any kind of boycott conditions contained in a contract.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Two members on both sides of the House have been seeking the floor for some time, the hon. members for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) on my left, and the hon. members for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and Windsor West (Mr. Gray) on my right. I think that will fairly cover all parties and conclude the questioning.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask two questions. First of all, by what legislative authority does the minister propose to require all Canadian firms to report transactions that violate the intent of the statement the minister made? If the minister has not such legislative authority, is he proposing to bring in legislation requiring the reporting of such transactions?
Second, I ask the minister whether the government has considered legislation of the kind the United States Congress is now considering prohibiting such transactions and if they did consider it and decided against it, what were the reasons?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, I am advised by officials that the necessary authority does exist to require the reporting procedure. I would ask the

hon. member to give me a day or two to get that information in terms of specific action. I am not quite sure to which legislative authority the referrence is.
On the question whether we considered legislation, this is an alternative at which we have been looking. Both I and the government concluded that at this time legislation was not necessary, and also that it would present enormous complexities and problems. Therefore the use of this technique that I have announced this morning is the most effective means through which to proceed. I should say, as the hon. member undoubtedly knows, that the bill in the United States came in for a considerable amount of criticism and opposition. I do not want to anticipate the U.S. legislative process, but I understand from what are usually referred to as reliable sources that it will also undergo considerably more debate when it is reintroduced, presumably in the new session in 1977.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who wanted to correct something which I think was perhaps a mistake. I left my office at 11:45 and still did not have a French copy. However, I think the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is right. I would like to say to the minister that we, on this side, are assured of his full cooperation on the matter of bilingualism, and we hope that in the future, the French copy will get to us in time.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) is welcome so far as it goes. I have a question for him which I have divided into three parts to save time. First of all, if a company can do without the services of the government, that the minister has mentioned, I take it that the government is proposing to parliament no other sanctions if that firm continues to comply with the Arab boycott? Second, if Canadian banks are demanding proof of compliance with the boycott from Canadian firms selling goods to Arab firms before making payment to them under letters of credit, I gather the government is not intending to take steps to prevent the banks from engaging in this procedure, even though they are federal institutions? Third, when will the banks have to begin reporting to the government compliance with the boycott, and in fact how soon will the withdrawal of trade services outlined by the minister begin in order to put into effect the measures contained in the statement, which as I have said is welcome so far as it goes?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, let me answer the third question first. I think this is purely a mechanical problem which I could answer immediately by saying that it may take some short period of time in order to convey the gist and effect of the statement to the various agencies and parties concerned. On the question of banking, the banks are, of course, included in so far as direct transactions go. I would have to look into the implications. I believe the hon. member asked about the situation where the banks themselves ask a client whether he
October 21, 1976

has conformed to the boycott. Is that what he asked, just for clarification?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Whether they are asking for proof of compliance before making payment on letters of credit to firms doing business in Arab countries.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would have to look at that in detail to find out exactly what was what. The hon. member said he wanted to save the time of the House by asking three questions. Would he just tell me again what was the first question?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: With the permission of Mr. Speaker, 1 asked whether the minister could confirm the impression I gained from his statement that there are no sanctions the government is proposing to parliament if firms continue to engage in condoning and conforming to the boycott beyond the withdrawal of trade support services and financing, which in many cases these firms do not need in the first place?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the assumption is essentially correct. If a Canadian company chooses to make arrangements entirely on its own and it is a private transaction, then no sanctions, as he called them, would be imposed. I should point out, however, that such firms, whether they seek government assistance or not, will still be required to report the fact that they have, indeed, complied with the boycott, and that information will be published.
[ Translation]


Mr.   CIaude-Andr@: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's statement on the position the Canadian government intends to take with respect to the embargo called against Israel by the international Arab community and, in a similar context, of Canada's negative vote in committee alone with Israel against the United Nation's resolution on the decade for action against racism, to be consistent does the minister intend to reconsider the implications of that resolution which, incidentally and unlike previous ones, does not make reference to Zionism, and eventually change Canada's vote in the General Assembly when that issue will be discussed, particularly if one considers the desire expressed in the Speech from the Throne to engage Canada further into cooperation and international representation, among other things, in the quest for a new international economic order?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I presume that the hon. member is referring to the vote in a UN committee a couple of weeks ago. The reason Canada voted against that resolution was that there was an implicit continuing relationship in that resolution of a linkage between racism and Zionism. 1 have said that we will not support such resolutions or participate in any activities that even remotely tend to support that proposition. As for a change in our position, I cannot tell the hon, member at the moment because I have not addressed myself specifically to it, or to what we will do in the general assembly. However, if the circumstances are not different, and if there is
Currency and Exchange Act
not a good logical reason for us to give support, then I do not see us changing our position. I should emphasize at the same time, however, that this whole position Canada is taking, and to which I am very firmly committed, is designed to help us get human rights activities and anti-racist activities moving at a very high level in the United Nations. We feel that cannot be achieved successfully, if it can be achieved at all, as long as there is that which we reject, namely, a linkage of racism with Zionism.


ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR CROPS ACT
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the Minister of Agriculture: for leave to introduce Bill C-2, to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops.


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

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the Minister of Finance: for leave to introduce Bill C-3, to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-4, to amend the Canada Lands Surveys Act.


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

John (Moody) Roberts: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, to amend the Currency and Exchange Act and to amend other Acts in consequences thereof.

October 21, 1976
Native Claims Settlement


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

John (Moody) Roberts: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, respecting Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities in Canada.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-7, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the Government of Quebec, la Societe d'energie de la Baie James, la Societe de developpement de la Baie James, la Commission hydro-electri-que de Quebec and the Government of Canada and certain other related agreements to which the Government of Canada is a party.


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

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, to amend the Financial Administration Act and to repeal the Satisfied Securities Act.


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

John (Moody) Roberts: for leave to introduce Bill C-10, respecting the national anthem of Canada.


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

John (Moody) Roberts: for leave to introduce Bill C-11, to amend the Pension Act.


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

Hon.   J.-J. Blais@for the Minister of Finance: for leave to introduce Bill C-12, to implement an agreement between Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany and conventions between Canada and Morocco, Canada and Pakistan, Canada and Singapore, Canada and the Philippines, Canada and the Dominican Repulic and Canada and Switzerland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
October 21, 1976

Francis Fox: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am sure you are tired and embarrassed, as we are embarrassed, with the necessity of having to read the results of the wasteland across the way in terms of legislation. I think it would be in order, before you call orders of the day, so that you may have a rest and in order to give the government an opportunity to perhaps re-think the situation, to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. An hon. member is present who seeks to present a petition during routine proceedings. Perhaps before considering the suggestion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton we might include that.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM PETITION FROM SUDBURY TEACHERS REQUESTING WITHDRAWAL OF PROGRAM
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the 164 members of the Sudbury division of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Confederation which request the Parliament of Canada to withdraw the Anti-Inflation legislation which has resulted in inequities affecting a large number of the people of Canada.


JUSTICE AND LEGAL AFFAIRS
Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts):
That the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs inquire into the system of maximum security institutions maintained by the Canadian Penitentiary Service and such other institutions as the Committee deems advisable, including:
(a)	the adequacy of security procedures and arrangements, custodial facilities and correctional programs pertaining to such institutions,
(b)	the special problems faced by staff and management in the administration of such institutions,
(c)	the need for, the role and composition of Citizens Advisory Committees attached to such institutions,
(d)	the need for, the role and composition of Inmates Committees in such institutions,
and any other matter that the Committee may consider relevant to the proper administration of such institutions, having regard to the recent disturbances that
Justice and Legal Affairs
have taken place in the British Columbia, Laval and Millhaven Penitentiaries; and to invite the views of interested parties and the public on these matters;
That the Committee have power to travel from place to place within Canada;
That the Committee have power to retain the services of advisers to assist in its work, and that it also have power to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help it may require;
That the Committee submit their Report not later than February 28, 1977.
I should like to add that I have consulted the opposition parties in this regard and there is an understanding that the standing committee would consider, we hope favourably, the possibility of establishing a sub-committee to hold this inquiry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the minister is presenting such a motion without notice and therefore it will require the consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent that the motion be presented in this way at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have something to say on that point.


Mr. Speaker:: Either there is unanimous consent or there is not.


Mr.   Neilsen@: I was on my feet, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I must determine whether there is unanimous consent. This is a debatable motion, of course. If there is unanimous consent I will put the motion, but if there is not unanimous consent then we cannot discuss it.


Erik Nielsen: There is unanimous consent that the motion be presented.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the minister present the motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion presented by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to adopt the motion without debate on certain understandings we have reached with the Solicitor General, namely that the whole committee will not be dealing with these terms of reference but that a sub-committee will be set up by the standing committee which will consist of 11 members, including five Liberal members, four members from this party, one member from the New Democratic Party and one member from the Social Credit Party. We also have an understanding that the standing committee will meet forthwith early next week, hopefully in order to strike that sub-committee and that we would not be confined in our inquiries solely to the maximum security institutions. There is also an understanding that certain research assistants will be allowed to travel with the sub-committee in order to accomplish its work, and that if we find we cannot finish in a thorough and in-depth manner as is contemplated by this motion, the work of the sub-committee by February 28 there would be no difficulty in extending that deadline in order to allow a full, complete and thorough inquiry.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Roberts


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the understanding I have with the opposition is that this matter would be referred, hopefully, to a sub-committee by the committee. I cannot give directions of that nature to the committee. My understanding also is that the composition of the sub-committee would reflect the normal composition of committees of the House.


Erik Nielsen: As a matter of clarification, Mr. Speaker, in my discussions with the Solicitor General we talked about numbers. We discussed the composition of the sub-committee, which we hoped would be set up by the standing committee, and it was suggested it would consist of 11 members, five from the Liberal Party, four from this party and one each from the NDP and Social Credit Parties. That was my understanding of our discussion.


Francis Fox: Then, there has been a misunderstanding because my understanding was that the sub-committee would reflect the normal composition of the membership of the House.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Harquail for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Speaker:: It being one o'clock this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) spoke on the subamendment on which we voted last night, so the debate is concluded on that subamendment. The hon. member will be allowed 30 minutes on the main motion, and I will recognize him after the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) has spoken.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had cause to address the House as Secretary of State, and I would not like this moment to pass without indicating my great appreciation for the letters of congratulation which I have received from many hon. members. I should like to refer in particular to the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) who in his speech last Wednesday was very generous in his compliments to me and indicated the

range and challenge of the position which I hold, which is indeed a difficult one. I would like to single out, also, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) for his welcome, and in particular the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) for his generous remarks. I have received a flood of letters of congratulations and best wishes from members from all parts of the House, and I would like to thank them for supporting me in my first few challenging days in office.
Since becoming Secretary of State I have travelled a great deal in Canada and many times I have come across that phrase of frustration, of anger, sometimes of bitterness which I am sure many members who visited their constituencies over the summer encountered. I refer to that terrible phrase, "We don't want you to ram French down our throats". I want to say that as Secretary of State I have no difficulty in associating myself with that sentiment. I have no trouble at all, so long as the people who say that are equally prepared to say " ... and we do not want to ram English down the throats of French-speaking Canadians".
If one can make that kind of leap of the imagination and take oneself out of one's linguistic boots for a moment and put oneself in the place of those Canadians who speak the other official language, and say, "It is not my intention to impose on others limitations and restrictions on the use of their language, as I do not want them placed on me," then I think one can begin to grasp the essential thrust of the official languages policy of this government which has been supported on all sides of this House. The official languages policy does not impose obligations upon citizens; what it does is conserve, protect and guarantee language rights.
The official languages policy takes nothing away from English-speaking citizens and nothing from French-speaking citizens. What it confers upon French-speaking people are the same rights that English-speaking people accept for themselves as naturally as the air they breathe-it ensures the use of French for French speakers. In fact, the Official Languages Act is a bill of language rights, not of imposition; it is something that seeks to guarantee opportunities, not to restrict them.
The official languages policy has three basic principles. The first is that a Canadian citizen should have the right to receive services from the federal government in whichever of the official languages he uses. The act confers that right. The second is, it asserts that whether one is an English-speaking Canadian or a French-speaking Canadian, one should have the opportunity to travel this country from coast to coast and have access to one's own cultural community. That is why the government is establishing French-speaking radio and television stations from one end of the country to the other, and also English-speaking radio and television stations within the French-speaking parts of the country. The third principle is the hope that the provinces will provide opportunities and
October 21, 1976

facilities wherever practicable for education in the minority official language of those citizens who wish it.
Those are the three essential strands of the official languages policy, and not one of them limits any opportunity, ability or capacity presently held by Canadians. What they do is expand opportunities for Canadians to live a full life in whichever of the official languages is theirs. In other words, the official languages policy is about equality. That is a basic drive in our country.
Most people who came to Canada were seeking to escape the closed structures of Europe. They came because of opportunity and because they wanted to live in a society in which there was equality, not a society of rank and privilege. With the official languages policy we are trying to ensure linguistic equality. We are trying to ensure that French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians will have equality of use of language in the civil service, and that whether they be Frenchspeaking or English-speaking, Canadians can look forward to a career in the civil service. We are trying to ensure equality of service to citizens who deal with the civil service and the public bodies of Canada, so that whichever is their official language they will be served effectively and quickly in that language.
We are trying to encourage the provinces to provide equality of opportunity for all groups in the educational system so that no one will be deprived or disadvantaged if they wish to maintain their official language and at the same time advance in the educational system. We are trying to ensure equality of access to cultural expression so that the cultures based on those official languages are generally available. The theme is that of language rights based on equality, not of imposition or control. It is an attempt to ensure that no Canadian, no matter which language he uses, will be forced to learn and use the other official language if he does not wish to do so. This is the principle which underlies the attempts we are making.
It is because I believe so strongly in this principle that I regret the position taken by the former minister of defence, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson). He contends that the time has not necessarily come when we should consider these principles of linguistic equality as part and parcel of the essential fabric of our country. He is concerned that if these principles in some way become entrenched in the constitution, Canadians may regret it and they may wish to have more flexibility in order to remove, alter or amend them. I would say to him, Mr. Speaker, that the time has not only come to make this commitment, but the time came in the 1960s. Through the will of parliament we made our fundamental commitment to equal language rights at that time.
It is not true, as the hon. member asserts, that the policy of bilingualism has created tensions over language in this country. That is, indeed, the reverse of the facts. The policy of bilingualism has been an attempt to deal with tensions in our society, tensions which have long been within the history of Canada and tensions which, if it had not been for the government's response, I believe would have led to the shattering of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Roberts


John (Moody) Roberts: One cannot say to French-speaking Canadians, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South would say, that 370 years after the arrival of the first French-speaking Canadians, that 200 years after the Quebec Act which protected language rights, that 100 years after confederation which protected language rights, and that seven years after the Official Languages Act, which protects language rights, as a society we have not determined whether these principles of language rights are essential to the fabric of our society. We cannot say that these essential principles are still something we may wish to consider or to reject-that they are in doubt. If we let pass the opportunity to assert our fundamental acceptance of these principles, it seems plain to me that our country will not be able to continue.
Think for a moment in terms of basic human rights. I cannot believe that the former minister of defence would say yes, there have been experiments with the principle of free expression, freedom of speech, freedom of association; yes, those things were started hundreds of years ago and they have been confirmed in various acts of parliament; yes, they have been considered important by Canadians for many, many years but, of course, we do not want to have them protected in any special way in our constitution; we do not want to make these the essential fabric of our country, because we may wish to change or amend them; we do not want to lock these principles into our constitution. He would not say that, nor would any member of parliament.
I would say the time has come, Mr. Speaker, to accept language rights in this country and to give them the same status and importance that we give to other fundamental human liberties. To try to put the argument to French-speaking Canadians that we should wait to see if these are principles that we are going to accept reminds me of Shaw's St. Joan: "How long, how long, oh Lord, before thy kingdom is ready to receive its saints?" I would say: "How long, how long, oh Lord, will it take Canadians to accept and protect the language rights of French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians as essential to this country?"
I put it in terms of language rights and linguistic equality; I do not like the word "bilingualism" because I think it is inherently ambiguous. When one talks of a bilingual society, one could mean a society in which some citizens speak one language and some citizens another. One could mean a society in which all citizens are expected to speak both languages. The phrase in itself confuses some people. I think many people feel it means that some Canadians are going to be forced to learn the other language whether they want to or not.
I have been told the story, I hope it is apocryphal that there are farmers in Saskatchewan who sincerely believe that some day the RCMP will knock on their door and say, "Your number has come up in the computer; it is time for you to go and learn French." That is the kind of attitude which the word "bilingualism" might be taken to imply. 1 stress "linguistic equality," and "language rights." We are not trying to impose

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Roberts
anything on anyone. We are trying to guarantee to those who speak one of the official language their ability to maintain their language, maintain their culture and maintain their life in that language.
I think most members of the House of Commons and most people in Canada accept, fundamentally, the language policy which I have described. That does not mean there are not questions about its implementation; I am sure there are. Indeed I, myself, have questions about the implementation of some of the programs which have been designed to give fulfilment to those principles which I have described. We have tried a variety of approaches, many of them experimental. Some of those experiments have worked more successfully than we expected. Some of our experiments have worked rather badly, or less successfully. But it is true beyond doubt that the number of bilingual positions in the civil service has expanded greatly in the last five years, that our exchange program in many ways has been successful, and that our youth programs-on which I shall touch later in my speech-have been extremely successful.
Members of the House of Commons are certainly aware of the experimental programs undertaken in Ottawa-Carleton. Those programs were so widely accepted that there was considerable opposition to any suggestion of their being withdrawn. But some of our programs have not been as successful as we would have liked them to be. We shall look at those. There are some methods which we can look at again. We can assess their effectiveness and, if they are not effective, either make them more effective or dismantle them.
Many members have spoken to me about such things, for instance as the regulations which apply to labelling. On my trip out west I heard criticisms about labelling. I heard that the sometimes rigid, overzealous application of regulations in relation to labelling has been an outstanding grievance. I said out there, and I repeat it in the House, that I think in this area there are nits we should not pick, that there are changes which could be made and which should be made. I know that my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott), will be looking at the labelling regulations to see if any improvements can be made, to see if he can ameliorate the application of the rules and ensure that they apply only when they will effect, in substance, improvements and not simply outrage and irritate people.
There is also the question of the designation of bilingual positions in the civil service. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), spoke about that in his speech in the House. I might simply repeat two things he said. First, may I repeat what he said as reported at page 159 of Hansard for October 18, 1976:
-I can already assure the House, for example, that language training programs will be improved, that the linguistic requirements of positions will be reidentified, and that language standards will be revised.
It is not effective, in the pursuit of increasing our capacities to use both official languages in the civil service, to create unrealistic objectives. I also wish to draw hon. members' attention to one more paragraph in the speech of the President

of the Treasury Board where he mentions unilingual public servants. We must be sensitive about the problems they face, sympathetic to their needs, their desires, goals and ambitions. The President of the Treasury Board cited his own experience. He said, as reported at page 161 of Hansard:
My personal experience makes me particularly sympathetic to the difficulties faced by unilingual public servants-and I am talking about unilingual public servants of both languages. In undertaking my new responsibilities, I certainly intend to see that these difficulties are very carefully examined and that programs and procedures are reviewed in order to minimize them and, wherever possible, to eliminate them.
I associate myself as strongly as I can with the statement of my colleague. It is important, when we seek to achieve justice for those who are both French-speaking and English-speaking, that is, for those who are bilingual-that we do not do this at the expense of justice and sympathy for those in the civil service who are unilingual.
I think we should again look at and make people more aware of the kinds of appeal provisions which enable the Commissioner of Official Languages to review problems which have arisen in the civil service to do with promotion in relation to bilingual positions. In addition to being willing to look again at the implementation of programs, we are prepared, as a government, to expand efforts on what is commonly called the "youth option". I am not too fond of the word "option" because it implies "either or"-it implies that increasing our emphasis on extending language training to the youth of our society might be a replacement for some of our other programs, the diminution of what we are already doing in other areas. I do not see the programs which we are about to undertake as replacing others.
We have, as a government, already been active in this area. I cited briefly the experience in Ottawa-Carleton with experimental French immersion programs which have been extremely successful. Some people think that is easier to do in the Ottawa area, perhaps, than in other areas of the country. If one goes to Calgary one will find there, as well, experimental immersion programs which have been extraordinarily successful. One finds classes of children in the primary years, happily, easily and cheerfully talking to each other in French as if it were the most natural thing in the world, and benefiting from that experience in the other language. These are experimental programs, but they are certainly not unique. We have embarked upon a variety of programs which are directed basically at younger people. We are trying to make it easier for the next generation to acquire second language skills; easier than it was, perhaps, for many of us.
The bursary and fellowship programs which were established in my department are oversubscribed in every province. There has been a significant increase in the number of elementary school children enrolled in second language instruction across Canada. More and more students are studying French, and for a longer time. The enrolment of children at the elementary level in French second-language programs across Canada has been increased by over 25 per cent during the past five years. The most dramatic increase has taken place in British Columbia, where the enrolment is up almost 200 per
October 21, 1976

cent. In other provinces, between 1970 and 1975 one finds French second-language programs increasing dramatically. For instance, in Newfoundland enrolment increased by 52 per cent; in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, by more than 120 per cent; by almost 25 per cent in Ontario; over 20 per cent in Saskatchewan; and, as I said earlier, by almost 200 per cent in British Columbia. Clearly, much has been done in the past, but much more remains to be done.
Hon. members, I am sure, are aware of the commitments which the government made in the Speech from the Throne. I draw to their attention again the belief of the government as expressed in these words:
-that a better balance should be established between the money spent to introduce bilingualism in the public service and the money spent to enable more Canadians, particularly young people, to learn to communicate in both official languages.
That does not mean we must diminish our efforts to improve the bilingual capacity of our civil service. It means we must do more to extend our efforts to younger Canadians.
-the government intends to discuss with the provinces arrangements to increase the effectiveness of training in both official languages in the school systems across Canada.
I am sure the provinces will welcome our desire to be helpful in this area and I am sure we shall receive their full co-operation. I would not want hon. members to have exaggerated expectations about what can be done immediately. The limitations are not necessarily financial; there are limitations of human resources. We cannot, with a wave of a magic wand, increase these services and extend them immediately to every point where it is desirable to have them. But that is the kind of effort we intend to make in the very near future.

I must say that, however important it may be to put the accent on expanding our youth programs, this entails no reduction in our support for institutional bilingualism. It is very important in our view, not only in substance, but also for symbolic reasons.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) who spoke Wednesday, underlined the fact there is still a lack of francophones at the executive level in a number of departments. We have not yet reached the point where there are equal numbers of francophones and anglophones in the public service. It is no easy thing either to tell francophones, after 110 years of confederation, that equal opportunities in the public service are always for tomorrow, never for today. It is important however to maintain our efforts for a bilingual public service in Canada.

There can be no wavering, although we may find more effective ways of doing it. We may be able to save money and stop the wastage of money. But on the commitment of ensuring that French-speaking Canadians have equal opportunity within the civil service, and that we should expand our ability to serve the public in both official languages, there can be no diminution and no pulling back.
The Address-Mr. Roberts
[ Translation]
I must also say a few words concerning the situation of francophones outside Quebec. Bilingualism is not a policy directed to Quebec francophones only it is also for Frenchspeaking Canadians outside Quebec.
Yesterday I noted, as I hope this House did also the remarks by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). It is important in my view for us in government to give our support to the French-speaking community outside Quebec, to be sure to protect them against assimilation. It is not only a question of giving education safeguards, nor giving TV access to culture. It is important to try and maintain a French language context in those communities, in order one may live in one's official language, albeit a minority one. It is also important to guarantee that not only for the benefit of francophones outside Quebec, but also for anglophones within Quebec.
If I could put this policy which I have just described in a larger context, I would describe it as one of our many policies directed toward overcoming divisions in Canada and bringing us together. Language rights are not the only problem in Canada. It is an important problem, but not the only one. Many people in the Atlantic provinces are perhaps more concerned about the problem of lagging economic development. Many people in western Canada are concerned about their sense of alienation or isolation from the decision-making centres of eastern Canada.
There are a variety of problems which face this country. We have developed programs, sometimes successfully but not always, which try to overcome regional disparities in this country. We think it is important that the Atlantic provinces be given equality of economic opportunity to that which exists in other parts of the country. We have tried to develop policies, perhaps not always successfully, which take into account the concerns of citizens of the western provinces. We have tried to develop a transportation policy which provides equality of access to communication and transportation in this country. We have tried to design these policies to overcome barriers between Canadians. They have been designed to bring Canadians together. Therefore, our language policy must enable Canadians to come together. All Canadians should be allowed fully to live with their language without being in the position of second-class citizens.
Our official languages policy helps to protect fundamental human rights. It attempts to overcome divisions which would otherwise lead to explosive grievances based on real injustice. It is on that point I would like to repeat my earlier comments on the remarks of the former minister of national defence, a man whom I respect greatly, a man who is extremely sincere in the statements he makes, a man who perhaps reflects the feelings of other Canadians. However, I say to him that the official languages policy is not something that creates divisions in this country. It is something which helps us to overcome these divisions. That is its real importance of the policy. Our

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Roberts
official languages policy enables us to try to overcome what would otherwise be real grievances and bitter frustrations over the situation of languages in this country. It is in that context we should perceive our policy of official languages.
I have discussed our official languages policy thus far in terms of the protection of rights. I would like briefly to discuss one or two other aspects. I suggest that a policy of protection of our official languages creates the kind of structure in which a multicultural society can thrive. It is trite to say that in the United States they have a different idea of their country, one which is an assimilation or melting-pot. That is what a melting-pot is, an assimilation. The protection of our two official languages establishes a basic structure which accepts and encourages the importance of diversity of cultural point of view. I suggest that a bilingual country, in the sense of having language rights, is one which would be more open and tolerant with regard to a variety of cultural expression, something which makes Canada a distinctive and valuable place in which to live. It helps strengthen our unique multicultural society.
We do not look upon the acceptance of these two major international languages in Canada as a problem or limitation, but as a splendid opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: On language rights it often seems that Canadians are like the man running along, who stumbled on an opportunity and picked himself up, dusted himself off and ran unheeding on his way as quickly as he could. The existence in Canada of these two major languages-the only developed country to have them-provides us with an economic resource. We should look at the advantages they bring to Canada as a trading nation in the decade to come, and realize the potential of the English-speaking market to the south and the Common Market in which the two major languages are English and French. The language facility that we have is a great advantage; it is an opportunity to be exploited, not a fact to be condemned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: The existence of these two languages gives to Canadians who wish to take advantage of them a cultural opening. In addition to the sense of uniqueness and identity which they provide to this country, they help us to withstand the pressures of cultural absorption by the United States. There are economic advantages which this facility can provide us with in the future. There are so many good reasons for supporting the official languages policy that it is clear opposition to it must be based to a very considerable degree on a misunderstanding of what we are seeking to accomplish.
It will be my primary task over the next few months, as Secretary of State, to try to dispel the misunderstandings. I will be making an active effort across this country to try to explain our language policy perhaps better than we have explained it in the past. I hope members of all parties will join me in this effort and will attempt to explain what we are trying to do, why it is essential as a basic protection of language

rights, why this policy holds no threat of imposition on Canadians, and why it provides our country with a splendid opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to inquire whether the minister would entertain a question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The minister's time has expired. This can only be done with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member may put his question.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to interrupt the flow of the minister's speech. Part way through his speech the minister mentioned the three priorities or aims of the government. One is an increased role in education under his department. As the minister knows, education is a prerogative and responsibility that has been assigned to the provinces. Can the minister tell the House in what way the government will protect the integrity of provincial responsibility in this area and still assume a more active role in education?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, not only for not interrupting the flow of my speech but for putting the question. It is true, of course, that education is in the field of provincial jurisdiction. I met with the provincial ministers of education in Halifax last September and I did have some informal discussions on this question. We are not seeking to impose our views on the provinces, but I do find them disposed to go along with us in the provision of these services, these facilities. We, in turn, are anxious to encourage the development of this capacity and we shall be glad to offer our encouragement and assistance. There is no conflict.


Mr. Stanbury:: Would the minister permit another question? The hon. gentleman, who I am sure will make an outstanding Secretary of State, made reference in his speech to a program we have not heard about for a year or so-the youth exchange program. Taken together with a reference in the Speech from the Throne, the expression of a desire "to enable young people from various parts of the country to learn more about one another," may we be encouraged to believe that the youth travel and exchange program which was so inexplicably and, I might say, inexcusably abandoned a year or so ago, will be reinstated?


John (Moody) Roberts: I share the hon. member's concern on that subject. This is a matter I began to consider as soon as I became Secretary of State. While I am not prepared to make any specific commitment at the moment, I can assure him this
October 21, 1976

kind of program will be the object of sympathetic regard on my part.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the intervention of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) because I wish to speak for a few minutes on the bilingual issue. It is one which is shaking the foundations of our country. Nothing I shall say today has not already been written in the Toronto Star in the last few days.
When a western minister, one of the few from western Canada, resigns because bilingualism is too encompassing, and when on the other hand, another cabinet minister leaves to join the provincial political field in Quebec because bilingualism is applied too easily, it seems time to inquire whether or not the policy was fundamentally in error from the start. Yet the bases of bilingualism are not being examined or debated at the national political level, despite the enormous groundswell of popular opposition and the indifference of French Canadians in Quebec. A policy which arouses only mild enthusiasm among the minority it proposes to help, while giving rise to intense hostility among the majority, deserves careful scrutiny. Yet political parties have been unable to carry out any examination of the principle of bilingualism.
The government blames the backlash which has developed in English-speaking Canada on bigotry or red-necked racism. I do not believe this is justified. In my view, Anglophone Canada can be considered one of the more tolerant societies in the world. After all, every society has its own expressions of intolerance. There are plenty of irritants around. But if one examines the causes carefully, one finds that the principle of bilingualism is offending many people.
Inherent in that principle is the assumption that there are two founding races in Canada and that these two founding races occupy, somehow, an elitist position compared with other races. No account is taken of the fact that the Indians were here long before either of the two founding races arrived. Then, again, in my riding many people who came from eastern Europe would consider themselves a founding race because they were the ones who cleared the forests in that area and made a productive part of Canada out of the wilderness.
All these so-called ethnic groups lived through a period in which they were not accepted as first-class citizens in Englishspeaking Canada. Today, we seem to have adopted a founding race concept which belittles those whose original language was neither English nor French, marking them as somehow different. The idea that there is one founding race, let alone two, makes it difficult to apply the concept of equality in a democratic and fairly egalitarian country. It seems important to me that the idea of equal opportunity should seem to be real, even if its application is not always possible.
During the original debate on bilingualism in 1969, I made the point that the civil service should represent the regionalism which is a fact of life in this country. It is of little help to have a civil servant who speaks both languages but who is totally ignorant of the part of the country he administers. As a western Canadian, it has been my experience that many of the
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
civil servants with whom I have been in contact have no concept of the nature of our problems in the west.
The idea behind bilingualism was to help those Canadians whose mother tongue was French but who did not hold nearly their share of the total civil service jobs available. Today, English-speaking Canadians fear compulsory bilingualism will bar them from the top positions in national politics and the public service. Nor can their fears be dismissed as groundless.
I might mention the joke about the lifeguard from Victoria who eventually managed to get a job at 24 Sussex Drive because, although he could not swim, he was bilingual.
I am indebted to a columnist, Mr. Robert Nielsen, for some interesting figures which appeared in yesterday's Star. He drew attention to some pertinent statistics derived from the 1971 census. The census found that 14,470,000 Canadians speak English only, that 3,879,000 speak French only, and that
2,900,000	speak both languages. It also found that the language most often used at home was English for 14,446,000 people, French for 5,546,000, and some other tongue approximately 1,600,000.
From these figures it can be inferred that Francophones comprise about 1.7 million of the nearly 3 million Canadians who speak both French and English, or 60 per cent. Thus, they have a 60 per cent start when it comes to filling the bilingual jobs in the federal civil service and in Crown corporations such as Air Canada or the CBC, although they comprise only 26 per cent of the population. In other words, a French-Canadian has four times the chance of getting a job in the senior civil service, compared with a Canadian who grows up in an English-speaking home.
When one considers that all federal supervisory jobs are scheduled to be bilingual by 1978, it is evident that French-Canadians have an inside start, especially since it is not easy to train adults to become proficient in a second language, as we have all observed, judging by the problems which have beset the federal government's language training program. Perhaps the disadvantage suffered by English-speaking Canadians is even greater than the figures I have quoted suggest, since many of the uniligual English speakers live in British Columbia or the maritimes, and the farther away one lives from the seat of government, the less chance exists of getting into the civil service. This is a fact of geography and I am not suggesting that any one person is to blame for it.
Western Canadians, in particular, point out that though they are able to join the civil service, the RCMP and the armed forces, application of the bilingual principle makes it impossible for a great many of them to occupy positions of seniority. Mr. Speaker, when the majority of the country feels dissatisfied and disadvantaged in the competition for jobs in the civil service, the armed forces or the RCMP, it surely spells great trouble for us all.
What about the minority which bilingualism was supposed to help? The program may have made it much easier for French Canadians to take jobs in the civil service-indeed, I believe it has done so-but has it accomplished its goal of swinging their loyalty from the province of Quebec to Canada

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
as a whole? I do not blame anyone; if I were a Quebec Francophone I would feel much the same way. But it would appear that French Canadians are building their defences in Quebec through Bill 22 which establishes French as the official language in the province. I can understand the purpose of Bill 22, but it is extremely difficult to suggest that it is in keeping with the principles of the Official Languages Act, which itself imposes an unwanted degree of bilingualism on the rest of the country.
[DOT] (M50)
Political writers and thinking Canadians, particularly western Canadians, are wondering where all this is going to lead. Will it lead to the break-up of the country? Writing in the Toronto Star of October 12, 1976, Richard Gwyn suggested that the "two nations" idea is once again respectable. Bilingualism, which was to be the government's response to the problem, has proved to be a cure as powerful as the original disease. Perhaps it is bigotry, perhaps it is unwarranted fear, but the concept of support for bilingualism has collapsed in English Canada today. Even the premiers of the provinces seemed to be heading toward a form of two nations when they agreed in Toronto that they should have an expansion of jurisdiction over culture, communications and immigration. If a province can have control over immigration, control over who shall enter or leave the province, then in effect it is largely an independent state.
It seems to me that the English-speaking premiers realized that only the province of Quebec would tug away jurisdiction in the fields of culture, communications and immigration. Surely this is "two nations by the back door", whether you want to call it that or not. Many English Canadians have already, unfortunately, separated themselves from the province of Quebec, and certainly this is very true of western Canadians. On the other hand, in Quebec Mr. Bourassa seems to have gained popular support for Bill 22.
Will confederation return to the two nations concept? I do not know. I believe that bilingualism, without some modification of the present policy, has ceased to be practical. The idea in the throne speech of more education in both languages might be helpful, but that is far into the future. Many of us who went to school did have some opportunity to learn a second language. Perhaps the teaching standards in those days were poor compared to the standards of today, but in many instances a kind of resentment was built up.
I should also like to mention a program referred to by the Secretary of State, the aim of which is to transport our youth from one part of the country to another for educational purposes. I know one instance where this worked in reverse In my riding, a certain school band conceived the idea of going to Scotland to compete in a music festival. They made great efforts to apply many times to the Secretary of State for a grant, but found no grants were available. Therefore, the children and parents had to pay their own way, raising $640 apiece. While in Scotland they met a group from Quebec, students of approximately the same age and attending the

same kind of school. These students had had their way paid. So in this instance the program worked in reverse.
I know of another instance where a school band made a visit to Holland to play at one of the towns that the Canadians had liberated during the war. They were royally received by the burgomaster and given a town banquet. Then the external affairs people swarmed around them and said what a great thing it was for Canada that they had made the trip. In their opinion, this was only adding insult to injury.
The resignation of the former minister of national defence and the response to his going has certainly indicated that there are large numbers of western Canadians, at least, who view the present bilingualism program as unworkable. There is no evidence in the throne speech that the government intends to modify or to change in any way the workings of this program. This, as much as anything, is aggrieving the Canadian public, and the government, unfortunately, has indicated no real initiatives to deal with this vexing problem.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, as I stood up to make a few remarks I heard the hon. member across the way say, "Oh, no.". Of course, I expect him to say that because this afternoon I shall try to unmask this throne speech for what it is.


Mr. Hopkins:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) was looking at me, then he need not have bothered. It was not I who said, "Oh, no". In fact, I said nothing. I may put in my earplugs, however.


John R. Rodriguez: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hopkins) has just confirmed what we have always suspected, Mr. Speaker-that he is mute.
It is a sad commentary on this government's latest throne speech that it is only one more piece of evidence of the government's complete inability to deal with the real problems facing the people of Canada. In fact, the throne speech shows how incapable this Liberal government is in even understanding what the problems are. Let me refer to the throne speech and to a section that really intrigues me, that dealing with so-called manpower policies. I would like to put on the record an extract from that section:
In pursuit of the goal of a higher rate of employment, it will be necessary to improve the efficiency of the labour market and actively hasten the return of unemployed workers to productive effort. Adequate income is a prerequisite to human dignity; and the government believes most unemployed Canadians would much prefer to secure that income through worth-while work than through public assistance. In some cases, and locations, this goal can be achieved only through direct job creation by governments.
How can this government be so callous, Mr. Speaker? How can they simply assume that the Canadian people are so gullible as to accept that garbage? Have we in this House forgotten that only six months ago the government told the Canadian people that they were cutting back on one direct job creation program, the LIP program? This was one program that at least created jobs at the local level and met a specific community need. Yet the hon. member for Cape Breton-East
October 21, 1976

Richmond (Mr. Hogan) had to go to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and beg him to do something to change the way the LIP grants were calculated in his riding which, due to the government's policies, has a very high unemployment rate. The same unemployment rate exists this year as last winter. It is an area that will be hit with another 2,500 unemployed because the Sydney Steel Corporation will be laying off another 2,500 workers before the end of the year. Yet this callous government has the gall to put before this House a throne speech that says it is going to introduce a direct job creation program!
In my own riding of Nickel Belt there was last year, according to the government's own figures, an unemployment rate of 8 per cent and we received $350,000 from LIP. This year we are told we have a 7.61 per cent unemployment rate in Nickel Belt and we are going to get only $121,000 from LIP. It is said the government is creating 15 jobs. That certainly is a lot! The hon. member opposite is from the northern part of Ontario. How can he be so phony as to tell the Canadian people that this government is creating jobs?


An hon. Member:: If you don't want the 15 jobs, I will take them.


John R. Rodriguez: We want five times 15 jobs. You talk about this in the throne speech, but you do not put up the jobs. Either put up or shut up. This throne speech is just a lot of rhetoric. Let us not forget that last summer the government cancelled the OFY program and sent 30,000 jobs down the drain. At least the OFY program kept youth unemployment down to about 14 per cent, but last summer it was up to 20 per cent. There was a loss of some 30,000 jobs. These were direct jobs in the community that went down the drain. How phony can you get?


An hon. Member:: They were just freeloaders.


John R. Rodriguez: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), from the Conservative party, calls them freeloaders. I hope Hansard will report what he said. He said there were 30,000 freeloaders with jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has the floor for the purpose of making a speech. I suggest we all listen to him.


John R. Rodriguez: This government has shown its strength. It is wonderful how it is so strong with unemployment and family allowances and so tough when it comes to the weak and the disabled. In a show of strength, this government turned around and cancelled the summer student employment program. Obviously, since the government was unable to deal with the problem of student unemployment, it should at least get the facts straight instead of hiding them from public scrutiny. Let me quote again from the throne speech:
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
You will therefore be asked to approve a comprehensive, year-round, direct job creation program, directed particularly toward areas of chronic high unemployment. Other programs will provide more job opportunities and improved employment counselling for young people.
This government has the awful gall to even print that, or else the Liberals think the Canadian people are extremely gullible, or write such trite nonsense after having just practised the complete opposite in the last six months to a year. Surely, any analysis of youth unemployment was paramount in planning job opportunities in areas of high unemployment, but thanks to this government we no longer have accurate figures on which to base future plans and programs. Here is another quotation from the throne speech regarding manpower policies:
You will be asked to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act in ways which will permit insurance funds to be used to maintain the income of Canadians being trained for new jobs, and to help employers retain workers who might otherwise be temporarily laid off.
This is an absolute abuse of the unemployment insurance fund. In a recent study entitled "New Directions for Manpower Policy", Barbara Goldman, of the C. D. Howe Research Institute, wrote:
Canada gets a real pay-off from training only if the trainees can find steady employment. Otherwise, training is simply another form of income support, and there are, in many cases, other, more effective ways of providing income support.
What is the point in paying employers out of the UIC fund to keep workers on the payroll, when there is no work for them to do?


An hon. Member:: Would you rather have them laid off?


John R. Rodriguez: What is the point of paying employers this money to keep people on the payroll, when there is no work for them? That is absolutely silly.


An hon. Member:: That is not what it says.


John R. Rodriguez: That is what it says; I just read it. The hon. member reads with his usual Liberal prejudices.


An hon. Member:: This is typical socialist wind and double-talk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, you can always tell when you have touched a sensitive note with those people.


An hon. Member:: Like the Tories and the Wheat Board.


John R. Rodriguez: In the same article, Ms. Goldman quotes Seymour Brandwein, who happens to be the director of the office of manpower program evaluation, employment and training administration of the U.S. Department of Labour, as saying in 1976:
To the extent that economic growth generates new jobs, training programs should be a tool for developing the skills and performance needed to sustain such growth and for equipping workers of limited skills or other background to fulfil the opportunities offered by such new jobs.
This proposal or blind statement in the throne speech seems to me to mean nothing more than the prostituting of the
318

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
unemployment insurance fund for the most callous of political purposes, and that is to keep the unemployed from being reflected in the unemployment rate in preparation for an election in a couple of years. This government is made up of the most cynical group of people I have ever come across. At least with the Tories we know where we stand, or at least we know where they stand. The Liberals are prepared to say anything to any group at any time to get the votes which will keep them in power.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: At last we agree.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, when the official opposition starts agreeing with me, I begin to wonder about the position I am taking.
The proposal to use unemployment insurance funds to subsidize companies which are considering lay-offs is nothing more than a scheme to use UIC funds to subsidize the companies. Such a scheme will not be used to the benefit of the working people: this was clearly shown in April by the economic review of the Department of Finance. That review said that during the session the number of persons employed "did not decline in line with cut-backs in output". The review said that instead of lay-offs, "average hours were reduced" and "experienced workers were put on general maintenance duties rather than being laid off'. This phenomenon which the government described is called labour hoarding, and business did it to keep their skilled work force together.
Now the government has cleverly come up with a method that will allow it to use UIC funds to pay these businesses for doing what they would have done anyway.


An hon. Member:: Another subsidy.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, another subsidy. The government said in the throne speech that the "international trading environment will profoundly affect our economic performance". Indeed it will, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that the economy of Canada is resource-based and the bulk of our exports, approximately 71 per cent, is raw materials. Our major trading partners are very happy with the situation. A perfect example of this is our relationship with Japan. We have a trade surplus with that country, yet they are quite happy. They are happy because only 3 per cent or 4 per cent of the goods we export to Japan are manufactured goods, whereas their total exports to Canada consist of manufactured products such as electronic equipment, cars and cameras. Inherent in that trade surplus is the number of jobs created by manufacturing from Canadian raw materials. No wonder they are happy with the situation and do not want it changed.
Coupled with that is the growing mechanization of the resource sector of the economy, resulting in greater productivity with fewer hands required. We have a prime example of that situation in northern Ontario where our economy is resource-based. In fact, we are losing our population, as this House well knows, and as a result of that loss of population we will lose one of our federal seats in this House.
(Mr. Rodriguez.]
It is absolutely important that we realize where the problem lies. The development of selling resources and buying back finished products is not accidental. In the past, these resources were handy and appeared to be inexhaustible. The pick-up artists in the business community and in government, federal and provincial, exploited them for all they were worth, all the time locking us into a long-term pattern of development which is so startlingly dramatized by our trade relations with Japan.
The pattern has a certain vicious life of its own. In trying to balance the dollar value of imports with the dollar value of exports, we must sell more and more of our resources. Because these resources are not handy any more, vast sums of capital must be found to explore and develop them. It is on this point that the mining corporations in Canada have replaced the banks as the worst bitchers in the country. It is part of the pattern that they now howl for government to give them more, and greater tax concessions to further the pattern in which we are hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The Liberal government is not prepared to tackle this problem because it means taking on the corporate elite of this country, the Steven Romans, the Zimmermans, the Grubs, and so on, where the power of the boardroom decides the fate of governments. I mentioned Roman. He is a Tory. He used to be a Liberal. Now he is trying to be on both sides of the fence. That is the reason the throne speech avoids facing this problem like the plague. Instead, the government talks about training Canadians for non-existent jobs. The government, instead of dealing with the problem, comes up with band-aid solutions such as this throne speech talks about. Equally laughable, in spite of the seriousness of our predicament, is this gem from the throne speech:
In pursuit of the goal of a higher rate of employment it will be necessary to improve the efficiency of the labour market and actively hasten the return of the unemployed to productive labour.
There has been a conspiracy in this country in the last year and a half among government and its cohorts in the boardrooms across the nation: they entered into a conspiracy to find a scapegoat for the mismanagement of the country. Together, they concocted a mythology about the Canadian labour force, and in co-operation with their media arm they propagandized the public. Here is the scenario from their combined points of view: Canadian workers are less productive than their United States brothers and sisters, yet want more pay for less productivity. Furthermore, Canadian trade unions are too powerful and are primarily responsible for the high inflation rate in Canada.
It is time this unholy alliance was unmasked. It is time for us to look at that mythology, to look at that lie which has been propagated for the benefit of protecting this government. We should look at some of the recently released and corrected figures regarding productivity between Canada and the United States which reveal that between 1969 and 1974 the annual productivity rate in the U.S. was 1.9 per cent, whereas in Canada it was 2.8 per cent. It led one bank economist to declare that Canadian wages have risen more rapidly in the
October 21, 1976

last 20 years but so has productivity. We have held our own against the United States, and gained against Europe. He further declared that industry complaints of the last few years have not been accurate.
Furthermore, I offer as testimony the remarks of no less a raving socialist than Mr. Larry Thibault, chief economist for the radical Canadian Manufacturers' Association. This is what he had to say:
The labour force is first-class. It's a case of using it more effectively.
Yet it is this first-class labour force that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government set about destroying in 1970. Have we forgotten the Prime Minister facing his opposition and declaring that he didn't care if unemployment went up to 6 per cent; he was going to hang tough and defeat inflation? Have we forgotten those good old days when unemployment was 3.8 per cent and inflation was 4 per cent? Who fought inflation on the backs of the workers? Who proved the Keynesian theory inoperable?
Mr. Speaker, I get a charge out of the old-line parties in this House when they talk about the power of the trade unions. I ask, do the trade unions have any control over the investment policies of the multinational corporations of this country? Do they have any control over the fiscal and monetary policies implemented by this government? Who decides the deployment of the Canadian work force and equipment in this country? Do the workers decide that?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Who sets the productivity levels in this country? Does the trade union movement participate in productivity levels? Whose decisions were responsible for the fact that Canadian plant capacity is operating at only 84 per cent? Whose decisions are these? Who is behind the removal of Canadian capital? Is the trade union movement responsible for Canadian capital going out of this country to be invested in the quick-buck areas of the world? Are the workers responsible for an Income Tax Act which institutionalizes maldistribution of income?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: No.


John R. Rodriguez: Who is responsible in this country for the redistribution of wealth? I ask, Mr. Speaker, is it the trade union movement? Of course not. These questions bring me to another hilarious aspect of the throne speech which deals with employer-employee relations; in other words, industrial democracy. Here is what the throne speech says:
It is also intended to encourage greater participation by plant workers in decisions affecting their working conditions.
Mr. Speaker, have we forgotten the one department of this government which has direct responsibility for large numbers of workers, the Post Office? Have we forgotten the fight that the Canadian postal workers had to get a technological change clause put into their contract, and the six-week period they were on strike, which caused great hardship to the Canadian people, in an effort to get this government to recognize the
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
right of the workers? We had that great friend of labour, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) who is now going off to save the Quebec Liberals. It took them six weeks of strike to get the technological change implemented. Then, after having the technological change implemented, the government abused it. The Post Office Department, directly run by the minister, turned around and abused section 29 of the collective agreement time and time again, and implemented technological change in Vancouver, St. John's and northern Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, these are not my words; it is clearly documented by E. B. Jolliffe, deputy chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board, in a written decision he handed down on July 28, 1976. He castigated this government for its abuse of article 29 of the collective agreement. He said the government has not lived up to its responsibility to implement that section of the agreement. This is the government that talks about industrial democracy. They have awful gall over there. Shame! When we in this party talk about industrial democracy, we are talking about participation by workers at the plant level in every decision affecting the welfare of employees. The workers must have a say; the workers must have equal control over investment decisions and over the deployment of resources and the international behaviour of the corporations.


An hon. Member:: Equal with whom?


John R. Rodriguez: Equal with the corporate boardroom, which you know about. We have always assumed that these Liberals supported the free enterprise system. We heard it today from the mouth of the big editor in chief of the Ottawa Citizen, who said it is like a football game: they fight on the field, but when they are in the club, boy, they can make decisions to make things work. We had suspected it, but now they are telling us.
The workers must participate meaningfully in every way. They must be an integral part of the corporation, and as such they should share responsibility for the destiny of the corporation. I do not mean the kind of industrial democracy which the hon. member for Verdun outlined to the postal couriers in Toronto in a speech, with his offer to workers to participate, and at lunch time he would have Muzak piped in and pool tables and a sauna provided so the workers would be happy. That is the way to treat cows; it is not the way to treat human beings who are intelligent and sensitive and who have potential.
This government does not know anything about that. The present corporate concept of a responsible worker is one who punches in at nine and punches out at five. He punches out "X" number of units, does what he is told without question is never sick, and minds his own business. Incidentally, he does not go to the bathroom, either. I suggest that we are faced with a work force that has a more inspired self-image and is increasingly demanding an active role in the workplace. Workers are better educated now and have quickly become well versed in industrial relations.
80001-21%

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
If there is to be industrial peace in Canada, then the trade union movement will have to be accommodated in a meaningful way by the corporate sector. This government has a leadership role to play in making sure that comes about. They must not let the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) dilly-dally and shilly-shally and sit on the fence on this issue. He cannot say that this is the responsibility of management, while management says it is the government's responsibility. That is the game they have been playing all along. The time has come for this government to be unmasked; they cannot hide behind that approach any longer.
Let me say a few words, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the recent demonstration by labour against the government's so-called wage and price controls program. Let us not forget that the Conservatives proposed such a program in 1974 and the Liberal Party of Canada ran their election opposing it. As a matter of fact, I happen to have one of the campaign leaflets of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner), who has just been demoted from Secretary of State to Minister of Science and Technology. I want to read from it. On the inside is a picture of the hon. member, minus his beard, and headlined beside it, "Wage and price controls ... What's wrong with them". The text reads:
Wage and price controls are an administrative monster-once born it grows like a cancer and is impossible to stop.
Wage and price controls cause shortages.
Wage and price controls misguide the public. They draw attention away from those factors which do affect inflation-productivity, supply and demand, rising importations, tax rates, energy costs, etc.
Finally, at the bottom, in large block letters:
Think about it? Avoid wage and price controls! Vote Liberal. Vote Faulkner.
Right across this country, from Sudbury all the way to Vancouver and all the way to the east, Liberals put out material such as this. In other words, this government deceived the working people of Canada, they lied to the electorate. In a free society such as ours the government must be held accountable for their deceit. To keep their freedom it was absolutely incumbent on Canadians to protest last Thursday by the most serious, non-violent means possible. I supported that protest, and suggest to those who talk about broken contracts and illegalities that they ought to consider seriously that it is in the face of a sheepish citizenry that despotism breeds and thrives, that when a government lies to its citizens it has broken faith with them and it ought not to expect anything less than the most vigorous response.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne outlining the federal government's legislative program for the second session of the thirtieth parliament of Canada, I should like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne for their very thoughtful and constructive contribution to this debate.
I also wish to congratulate you, sir, on your appointment and also to express my congratulations to the newly appointed ministers, parliamentary secretaries and other officers on their appointments. I offer them my co-operation and wish them success in carrying out their duties for the greater good of Canadians in all parts of Canada.
I truly believe that the present session of parliament is shaping up into the most important and, indeed, most crucial session of our parliamentary career. At least, I believe it is so in my case since I was first elected to the House in 1957. At this moment in our history, each and every one of us should avoid intemperate words and shallow remarks, and instead offer our sincere and best advice to the government which is challenged today by serious economic and social problems threatening the survival of our country. We should be positive at all times in our response to the government's comprehensive program which was designed to strengthen national unity and improve the quality of life for all Canadians, to build a harmonious society and a united country which will better fulfil the needs and aspirations of our people.
Along with many members of the House, I welcome in particular those initiatives announced in the Speech from the Throne which are evidence of the federal government's determination to give enlightened leadership, strong government and unwavering confidence to the Canadian people who are impatiently awaiting our best efforts in these difficult times. The Canadian people today want to be fully and clearly informed about the future. This is, therefore, not the time for half-measures, hesitation or petty politics. Already there has been too much rhetoric and hot air in this House and outside of it on many national issues. It is time we dealt with the big problems, especially those of inflation and the high rate of unemployment.
In dealing with inflation, the government found it necessary in October of 1975 to introduce a temporary program of direct control of incomes and prices. During the past year, most Canadians have co-operated with the government to restrain their demands on the economy, and as a result the inflation psychosis which gripped many Canadians has subsided.
I am also very happy that the provincial governments signed an agreement with the federal government and joined us in this national effort to control the dread disease of inflation. That is why today we are relieved to learn that the cost of living or the consumer price index, rose at a significantly lower rate during the past year than the year before. The true fact is that the consumer price index rose at the rate of 10.6 per cent in October, 1975, and last month it had dropped to 6.5 per
October 21, 1976

cent. This has benefited everyone in Canada, particularly those on low incomes. The fact is that the increase in the cost living is declining and that Canadian workers, under the anti-inflation guidelines, have been allowed increases in income greater than the increase in the cost of living.
This real gain in income of approximately 4 per cent over the last year has also increased our purchasing power. The anti-inflation program is working and that is why, as we enter the second year of the program, Canadians can expect a further reduction in the rate of inflation. I agree with those Canadians who advocate the removal of controls sometime in 1977, however, because the main advantages of the program are being achieved and it is rough justice which I do not believe can be tolerated too long. We, therefore, welcome the discussion and studies undertaken to lay the groundwork for the removal of controls without the renewal of inflation. Such objectives will be more easily achieved by the government's announcement to limit the rate of growth in government spending. The Bank of Canada's decision to reduce the rate of money supply will also help to contain inflation.
I believe that in these days public sector employer-employee relations should be regarded as an essential element in fighting inflation. Along with improved labour-management relations in the private sector, and measures to increase productivity, the post-controls strategy should study the effect of high interest rates on the consumer as well as on business expansion. I believe that the present high interest rates on loans for business expansion, especially the high interest rates on first and second mortgages, are a deterrent to an increase in the economy, and add to inflation.
I receive many representations from the people in Parkdale, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that other members of the House receive similar representations, to the effect that the money supply policies in Canada must be reviewed. The current high interest rates of 3 per cent to 4 percentage points more than in the United States are costly; they prohibit business expansion and in many cases reduce the ability of Canadians to buy their own homes. High interest rates for first and second mortgages definitely contribute to the difficulty of acquiring a house, especially for a workingman who wishes his family to live quietly and peacefully rather than be closed in a high-rise apartment building.
At the same time, agencies like the government's foreign investment review agency should extend their activities to not only preserve but also produce more jobs for Canadians. In the final analysis, the responsibility for decisions about the right kind of strategy for the post-controls period will rest on the shoulders of the government and parliament, which will be asked to approve the new programs. In this process, however, all sectors of the Canadian economy should be consulted.
In this process of consultation we are happy to learn that labour will not be forgotten. The Speech from the Throne announced measures to improve labour-management relations in Canada. I believe there is complete agreement that improvements in the collective bargaining system are urgently needed to avoid so many costly strikes, loss of productivity and
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
increased social unrest. We, therefore, welcome the initiatives of our government to establish a collective bargaining centre and encourage greater participation by plant workers in decisions affecting their working conditions, upgrading of skills and job safety, with security and adequate pensions.
In particular, I enthusiastically approve the federal government's decision to establish an industrial safety and health centre to assist both companies and workers to identify and remove hazards. I hope that all provincial governments will follow the leadership of the federal government and to do their share in their respective fields of responsibility.
Industrialization and swiftly increasing technology, with its resultant new products, are radically altering the environment and exposing man to growing amounts of harmful pollutants and dangerous products. Today we are faced with the great problem of environmental diseases which were unknown 30 years ago. Among these environmental diseases we include cancer caused by various chemicals and substances such as asbestos, vinyl chloride and even chlorinated water when combined with certain pollutants. Other environmental diseases include birth defects, mercury poisoning, respiratory disorders, and deafness. The proposed industrial safety and health centre should be able to identify health hazards quickly and recommend changes and strict enforcement of regulations, or help establish new regulations and prevent new toxic substances from entering the environment by adequate testing and screening out dangerous chemical compounds before they are used in products or manufacturing processes.
I believe that the federal government should give serious consideration to special toxic substances' regulations, making it the responsibility of manufacturers to prove that all their products are safe before they are put on the market. This national industrial safety and health centre should also deal without delay with industrial noise which is causing occupational hearing loss, now the third most common industrial disease in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, deafness is a silent, invisible, painless epidemic which today afflicts more Canadians than are sick from cancer, venereal disease, blindness and multiple sclerosis put together.
As a physician, I greet with satisfaction the initiative of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to tackle the problem of alcohol abuse which is costing our economy about $1 million every day but is, above all, causing untold harm to personal and family life and contributing to
3,000	deaths in road accidents. It is costing the country $360 million every year in health and hospital expenses. Alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver, a complication of alcoholism and a leading cause of death among heavy drinkers, has become the fastest rising killer in the over-25 age group in Canada, thus putting this disease ahead of lung cancer and suicide.
I am disappointed, however, that no substantial effort has been made to fight the ravages of heart disease and arteriosclerotic complications, the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in Canada, which has reached epidemic proportions. I urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to organize a concerted campaign to fight this crippling disease.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
The bulk of representations made in my constituency office consists of representations for adequate housing at affordable prices. Adequate accommodation at affordable prices is necessary to a stable society. The ownership of a home for his wife and children is the goal of the workingman, or of most workingmen. He would sooner own a home than be squeezed into a tight and crowded apartment building. It is, therefore, particularly important to provide this much needed shelter at a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the relatively cheap mortgage money under the federal government's Assisted Home Ownership Plan is only available to those whose monthly payments are not more than 25 per cent of their total income. This means that because of the great increase in the price of houses, less than 30 per cent of Ontario families in 1974 were eligible for this program. Therefore, other programs should be devised to meet the needs of the majority of our population.
I believe present mortgage interest rates of 12 per cent are too high, and the required down payment is beyond the capacity of many people. Surely, more could be done, indeed must be done, in a country as rich as Canada to reach the desirable social goal of home ownership. Surely, government at various levels could help eliminate some of the barriers to home ownership, such as the high price of land. We need less red tape in the approval of developments and provision of serviced land, a simplified and unified building code, lower charges for registration, reduced costs for developers, builders and buyers and, especially, mortgage rates at reasonable levels. In a just society we should strive to provide a decent house at a reasonable cost for the workingman.
We also welcome the federal government's new campaign to assist small business by appointing a special minister of state to develop better programs for this important sector of our economy. The proposed assistance in reducing paper work, providing easier and larger loans and more consulting services, will strengthen the position of small business and provide more jobs and greater economic growth. Moreover, as Canadian subsidiaries of large foreign corporations have great advantages over their Canadian competitors, some tax advantages or incentives should be forthcoming to Canadian-controlled companies.
Many Canadians are impatiently awaiting either a new or a thoroughly revised Immigration Act. Modern Canada is a country of immigrants or descendants of immigrants, shared with Canadian Indians and the Inuit people. Therefore a just, sound and farsighted immigration policy, administered under a new Immigration Act, would contribute immensely to greater national development, family unity and the cultural enrichment of our country.
No Speech from the Throne includes all the proposed legislation the government intends to bring before parliament. I therefore urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) to reintroduce the legislation knows as Bill C-83 in the previous session, an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent crime. Many members con-

sidered this legislation a necessary precondition to the legislation amending the Criminal Code with respect to murder.
In view of the make-up and nature of the population of my constituency, Parkdale, I am greatly interested in the proposed legislation on human rights. The purpose of this legislation is to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, age, sex, marital status or physical handicap.


Benno Friesen: Or party affiliation.


Stanley Haidasz: In particular, the human rights bill will establish the principle of equal compensation for work of equal value performed by persons of either sex. It will also establish a citizen's statutory right to gain greater access to personal records in federal information files and to correct that information when it is in error.
I urge the Minister of Justice to review the bill he brought forward in the last parliament. I urge him especially to make a study of the unfair sections and bad effects of Quebec's official language act, often referred to as Bill 22. Along with many Canadians, I am not in accord with some of the principles embodied in the act, in particular the one restricting the freedom of parents to choose the language of education for their children. It is contrary to the letter of the Canadian charter of human rights which our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when he was Minister of Justice, presented to a federal-provincial constitutional conference in January, 1968.1 wish to draw the attention of hon. members to that charter, especially page 27. As for education it speaks of
-guaranteeing the right of the individual to education in institutions using as a medium of instruction the official language of his choice.
Bill 22 also appears to go against the spirit of international declarations and covenants on human rights which Canada has ratified.
I welcome the Prime Minister's commitment, as set out in the Speech from the Throne, that grievances from public servants through the Commissioner of Official Languages will continue to be reviewed and that the government will ensure maximum fairness and effectiveness in the implementation of the official languages policy, especially in finding a better way of spending taxpayers' money, by introducing bilingualism in our schools. I am sure we all agree that the great majority of Canadians are dedicated to the strengthening of bonds between Canadians speaking our two official languages and those belonging to our many different cultures. I firmly believe that multi-culturalism can only thrive within the framework and harmonious atmosphere of official bilingualism.
We must not allow fear, prejudice, misinformation or discrimination to dominate our reason and passion. We must, rather, display tolerance and understanding; otherwise all Canadians would lose, and all Canada would be lost, this great country, the envy of the world, which our predecessors built up and left to us in trust-a country which it is our moral duty to pass on to future generations, strong and united.
October 21, 1976


Mr. Sinclair Stevent (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz), I could not help but observe what is happening in this House as we watch a government disintegrate. We now find that there are some 40 representatives who have been in or are in the cabinet. Ten hon. members opposite are ex-cabinet ministers. We have 29 ministers in what I call the outer cabinet, and one, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in the inner cabinet.


An hon. Member:: That is 25 per cent of the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Goodale:: That was a cheap shot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I continue? I join with others in extending my sincere compliments to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would also like to compliment my leader for his effective and worthwhile comments last week in this debate. Perhaps I should make no comment about the contribution of the Prime Minister. Why embarrass his followers any further?
I rise today to address this House on matters of great concern to me. I refer to the fragile state of our economy and the continuing deception and duplicity on the part of the government by their omission or commission on issues vitally important to this country. The Prime Minister, in his remarks to this House, devoted considerable time to defending his administration's wage and price controls program. It was difficult for him to claim any victory, however, without twisting the cost of living figures a wee bit. That, I suggest, is exactly what he did. What he did not do, at least to any real extent, was address himself to this nation's worsening position in foreign trade, our rising unemployment and our net real growth.
Let me begin by noting a few conspicuous distortions in the Prime Minister's remarks on the controls program, and briefly mention what the government has failed to tell us about Canada's place in the world markets. Sitting in Canada, unless you travel or wish to invest in a foreign country, it is often difficult to realize that we are literally sinking as a nation as far as our dollar's buying power is concerned in relation to many other nations of the world. Sure, we are very rightfully, disturbed about regional differences in Canada, and I suggest that more and more people agree that such regional differences should be eliminated as far as possible. However, are we really achieving something worth while if we allow the nation in general to sink lower and lower in terms of our real worth and value in relation to other nations?
When this government initially took office, we were proud number two among the world's nations as far as per capita income was concerned; close to being number one, number one being the United States. Where are we today? We are number seven. The Americans have held their position at number one,
The Address-Mr. Stevens
but under this administration we have sunk to seventh in the world. When we deal with this topic, I draw hon. members' attention to the fact that two years ago the government spoke of the relationship of inflation here at home to international conditions abroad. In that Speech from the Throne in September, 1974, we recall how they painted a picture that somehow we had become tangled up in world conditions, that inflation was an international phenomenon and that somehow we in Canada would have to wait until that phenomenon changed internationally before we could do much about it in this country.
It is very interesting to note, if you read that throne speech, that the government very clearly predicted that international food and commodity prices would fall and return to what they called a normal level. That was the message two years ago. However, rather than take the crest out of the inflation that they anticipated with a controls program that could have been instituted in July, 1974-and, incidentally, as was suggested at that time by my party-this government chose to wait. The government waited a full year before they instituted a controls program. I suggest they instituted it at the wrong time and have delivered an administrative monstrosity in their program.
Strangely enough, we sat in this very chamber and listened to the Prime Minister now attempt to take credit for the fall-off in prices that only two years ago they predicted in their throne speech was going to occur. He takes credit because he is trying desperately to justify the controls program that was instituted in his own caucus and in this House on the people of Canada.
Much has been made in this House and elsewhere of the fact that the annual rate of change in consumer prices fell from 10.6 per cent in October, 1975, to 6.5 per cent in September, 1976. However, almost all this improvement resulted from the decline in food prices. It is the farmer who has taken the brunt of the government's anti-inflation program, yet it is the government that is now attempting to take the credit for any fall-off in prices that we are now experiencing. Let me be specific.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Explain yourself.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have been asked to explain myself, and I will do exactly that. I ask the hon. member to quieten down and listen to a few figures. The annual rate of increase in food prices decelerated from 12 per cent at the start of the controls program to a negative 15 per cent in September, 1976. That is how the farmer is being hurt by this Trudeau administration. Remember, food prices are only affected in an indirect way by the anti-inflation program. The area of consumer expenditures more directly affected by the controls program, non-food items, has shown only a minor improvement, decelerating from 10.2 per cent in October to only 9.3 per cent in September, 1976. The claim that the consumer price index figures show inflation to be under control is more than just premature; it is sheer nonsense. Clearly, the government is trying to declare

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Stevens
victory in the fight against inflation on the basis of faulty statistics.
The government argues that lower agricultural prices have been passed on to the consumer because the profit margins of distributors, processors and retailers are controlled even though food prices at the farm gate are not. Hon. members will recall that in addressing this House, both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) made this point quite clear. I wish to read into the record what the Prime Minister stated on October 13 as reported at page 31 of Hansard:
-what is important to the worker's wife when she goes shopping is that, because of price controls, she has more purchasing power this year than she had in 1975 before controls. Apparently it does not suit the CLC or the NDP, or for that matter the Tories, to tell that to the Canadian worker and to his wife. I wonder why. Perhaps the opposition will tell us why during the course of this debate-
I welcome that invitation by the Prime Minister. The truthful answer is that his Figures are dead wrong. They are dead wrong according to the figures of October 12 by the Department of Finance. Before getting to those figures, I want to show what the Minister of Finance stated, as well as indicate that the Prime Minister went on to say that 60 per cent of the cost of food was made up of such items as distribution costs, profits and other related matters. In the same debate, on October 14, the Minister of Finance said the following:
-as a result of the work of the Food Prices Review Board, and what now seems to be forgotten, is that up to 60 per cent of the cost which the consumer pays for his food arises from the costs of transportation, processing and distribution of food products.
That is the figure. Let us remember it. The Prime Minister said it was about 60 per cent. The Minister of Finance was a little more honest. He said "up to 60 per cent". What are the actual facts disclosed by the Minister of Finance in his own paper which he tabled, entitled "Status report, the anti-inflation program and the economy". I refer to the first page, wherein it is stated:
Depending on the item, from 30 per cent to 55 per cent of the price the consumer pays for food is accounted for by transportation, processing and distribution activities which are controlled under the anti-inflation program.
I have never seen such a contradiction, in one week, between a statement made by the Minister of Finance, earlier by the Prime Minister, and then refuted by the very paper which the Minister of Finance had previously submitted to the House. Our consumer price index is made up of many items in different categories, but about 30 per cent relates to food and, as we know, food prices at the farm gate are not controlled. Yet this is the area in which the sharpest decline has taken place. Nowhere has this administration thanked the farmer for allowing prices to fall as a result of market action-by as much as 20 per cent in the case of beef. Nowhere has the administration singled out those who are the chief inflation fighters in Canada, namely, our farmers. Nowhere does the administration give any credit to the marketplace as being the chief ingredient in lowering prices in this country. There is no mention of that truth.

There is no mention of another observation made in the paper to which I have referred. At the present time, a vicious price war is going on among the grocery chains, and any suggestion that they are abiding by the anti-inflation program is not true. In some cases they are running their businesses at sharp losses, which means that food prices are lower than they might otherwise be. But the situation I have described will not last and prices, as far as the food element is concerned, will begin to increase. Let us not allow the administration to say prematurely that somehow controls are having an effect on prices. That has not been demonstrated.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I prefaced my remarks by commenting on the government's duplicity with regard to issues vital to the well-being of this country. Another example of such duplicity is the flip-flop during the election campaign. You will recall that the Liberal party energetically campaigned against wage-freezing and price controls. They went from riding to riding stating that such a program would be detrimental to the economy. Yet little more than a year later, without a mandate, they brought in the very controls against which they had campaigned.
The Prime Minister stated in his speech that inflation was down to 6.5 per cent. But look at the facts. Even if the administration succeeds in reaching the goal of 4 per cent, what will it have achieved? It will have brought the level of inflation back to where it was in 1971. Isn't it ludicrous to create a problem through irresponsible monetary and fiscal policies and then expect this House and the people of Canada to congratulate the government for returning the nation, as far as inflation in concerned, to the state it was in in 1971 when most of the problem arose? I have already referred to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Finance, but perhaps in all fairness I should not dwell exclusively on those two-


Stanley Howard Knowles: "Characters."


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: However, I should point out, in all fairness to the Prime Minister, that the record seems to deteriorate from the time John Turner took over as minister of finance in January, 1972. When he took over from Edgar Benson, inflation was running at 4.9 per cent. When he left, it was 10.6 per cent. During his 44 months in office, the cost of living jumped by 38.5 per cent and the dollar, if one assumes it to be worth 100 cents in January, 1972, was worth only 72 cents when he walked out.
At the time John Turner was given the mantle in January, 1972, there were 544,000 people out of work. When he left,
732,000	were unemployed. In spite of all his huffing and puffing, in spite of all the measures he took to facilitate employment in business, only 69,000 jobs were created in the manufacturing sector from December, 1971 to December,
1975.	In 1972 there was a surplus of $700 million in our current account balance. In 1975 there was a deficit of almost $5 billion. In the aggregate, since John Turner took over, the nation has had a current account deficit every year. Including the projections for 1976-a deficit estimated at $4.5 billion-
October 21, 1976

our current account balances will have aggregated approximately $11 billion in the red.
To put it another way, last year and this year Canada will have the largest current account deficit of any country in the world. So let us not laugh at Great Britain, or at Italy or at other countries which have deficits until we have taken a good look at ourselves. Consider Britain, for example, a country almost totally lacking in natural resources such as Canada has exploited for so long. Is it not remarkable that we should be running a greater current account deficit than that nation, despite all its troubles?
This is a situation which the administration must take to heart. It is one which must be challenged and reversed. But let me get back to our wonder boy, John Turner. Frankly, the biggest wonder about John Turner is that he was allowed to stay on for as long as he did. When he got the job as minister of finance, real growth in this country amounted to 6.6 per cent. When he left, it was .3 per cent and on a per capita basis it was negative. In terms of real growth, the ground we lost under John Turner as minister of finance now costs this country $5 billion a year, or almost $200 per person. In addition, there are some 200,000 more people out of work as a further consequence.
Consider the record with regard to federal government restraint. During the period in which Turner was minister of finance, spending by the federal government jumped 99.8 per cent. To put it in another way, it took us 105 years to reach a federal spending level of $17,004,400,000. John Turner doubled that figure in 44 months. In the aggregate, Mr. Speaker, under the budgets that he brought into the House, $113 billion of taxpayers' money was spent, or at least borrowed. Is it not sheer hypocrisy that the same John Turner now righteously speaks at various club meetings about excessive government spending?
What did he do about excessive government spending when he was in office and could do something about it? The fact is that he ran. Since the time that he ran, he has not even had the courtesy to tell the House or the people of Canada why he ran. At least the most recent ex-minister, the former minister of national defence, has attempted to explain to the Canadian public the reason for his defection from the cabinet. Not so the former minister of finance. We thought that Edgar Benson was bad, Mr. Speaker. In fact, many things about Benson appeared to be undesirable so far as his handling of the finance portfolio was concerned. But let me assure the House that compared with John Turner's spending habits, Benson was a Scrooge.
However, there is some hope, Mr. Speaker. We now have a new Minister of Finance, a man who we all know hopes to be prime minister. In fact, I understand that is the main reason he took the job of Minister of Finance. He is prime minister-in-waiting, if you like. Meanwhile, we in the nation have to wait for some economic policy. Perhaps it is too early to judge the record of the Minister of Finance, though to date that
The Address*-Mr. Stevens
record seems to be one of lurching from indecision to indecision. As we know, the Minister of Finance has tabled a working paper entitled "The Way Ahead", obviously looking for a program for the post-controls period.
As an old Osgoode Hall classmate of the minister, may I suggest that it is not necessarily innovation that is needed to solve our problems, but primarily a policy that gets back to some sound fundamentals, to some basics in terms of fiscal and monetary matters. If the minister does not want to take Conservative precedents, let him look at the government of Louis St. Laurent and the then finance minister, Walter Harris. I say that because it is of interest to note that in the year 1955, the year the minister of finance and I graduated from Osgoode Hall, inflation in this country was one-tenth of 1 per cent, real growth was 10 per cent and unemployment was 4.4 per cent.
In the interval, the figures for real growth and inflation have just about been reversed. We have ended up with 10 per cent inflation, rather than 10 per cent real growth; we are in a position where we had virtually no real growth in the economy last year. I can only suggest to the Minister of Finance that he may find that the government of Louis St. Laurent was doing something right, and what I suggest they were doing right was that they were following responsible fiscal and monetary policies.
I notice in the throne speech that the government seems to have discovered the marketplace. The government has found that there is such a thing is private initiative. The government has even become alarmed recently at its own level of spending. I welcome this "Johnny-come-lately" approach, though I notice that Canada's greatest problem, that of foreign trade, is virtually ignored in the throne speech, as it was in the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, we have been living beyond our means for some time, yet the government has done little to correct the problem. Canada's credit rating around the world has been jeopardized as international bankers have become alarmed at our increasing deficits, our rising foreign debt, our high inflation and lack of productivity in industry. We need, and in fact have needed, this credit, in international terms, to keep afloat. The present administration has been balancing its international accounts by adjusting our monetary system so that the provinces, municipalities and corporate concerns in this country have become big borrowers in international markets.
For example, last year it is estimated that Canadian borrowers took down one-quarter of the total amount borrowed internationally by all the countries in the world combined. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a country with the resources we have in Canada having to beg and borrow all over the world to cover our huge trade deficit! In this connection, I think the House would be interested in a speech made only last week by Dr. Peter Campbell, vice-president and director of Wood Gundy Limited. He made a speech in Montreal pointing out the magnitude of our foreign borrowing in international markets. He also pointed out that this foreign borrowing was
326

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Gray
encouraged by some of the moves made by the former minister of finance, John Turner, whom we all recall withdrew the withholding tax with respect to provincial borrowings and corporate borrowings offshore.
The fact is that if you review the figures put forth by Dr. Campbell, you discover that in the first nine months of this year the total amount of foreign borrowing by Canada was almost $7 billion. That is the amount that the corporate, municipal and provincial sectors have borrowed offshore or in the United States, which means that almost 50 per cent of the total debt incurred by those various sectors was actually borrowed from outside Canada. The reason I mention that is that in 1972 the total financing at the federal, provincial, municipal and corporate levels was only $6.6 billion. In short, in the first nine months of 1976 we have borrowed more outside this country than the total borrowing at all levels of government in Canada in 1972. Incidentally, in 1972 only 21 per cent of that amount-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. gentleman that his time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. There is no unanimous consent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first let me congratulate the mover and the seconder of the address in reply on their very fine efforts. I am pleased to see the tone of optimism and confidence that marks the Speech from the Throne that has opened this second session of the thirtieth parliament. It reflects, in my view, more of the underlying reality of Canada and its future prospects-in spite of the problems it obviously continues to have-than the tone of pessimism about our future that marked the Prime Minister's interviews at the end of last December and his more recent speech to the Liberal party caucus conference in Toronto.
At the end of 1975 the Prime Minister spoke about the failings of the market system. Now the Speech from the Throne and the government's working paper places Canada's future primarly in the hands of the same market system. They commit the government, not to replace it but to make it work better, with pledges of due attention all the same to social costs and concerns. The Prime Minister's speech in Toronto a few weeks ago had in it a note of pessimism and doubt about the future of the Liberal party, as well as the more important issue of the very future of Canada.
However, none of this kind of concern and pessimism is at all evident in the Speech from the Throne, which is as much a statement for which the Prime Minister and his government take responsibility as any speech they may make directly in their own names. For example, the Speech from the Throne says that "Canada has better reasons for confidence and optimism than has virtually any other nation; that the fundamental reality that will guide our deliberations is that Canada is entering upon a decade of opportunity".
As Dickens wrote in "The Tale of Two Cities" about another turbulent period of history over 200 years ago, "It was

the best of times, it was the worst of times". Many would say the same thing about our own times. However, they are likely neither the best nor the worst. The reality is likely somewhere in between. Perhaps that is why the government in the throne speech opts for the middle road in its policy direction. If such a term is reassuring to many, at the same time it can raise questions as to exactly what it means in terms of government leadership and action.
If the tone of the throne speech is one of relative optimism, confidence and serenity, I think there could be more in the speech in the way of words of clear and passionate commitment by the government to the ideals and objectives it wants to achieve or wants to see Canadians strive toward. If there was a major threat to Canadian unity, one as great as any since the conscription crisis, as had been earlier suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), one could have expected the speech to have more of a tone of absolute commitment to preserving Canada as a united country from sea to sea.
Speaking of commitment, I wish the throne speech had expressed as strong a commitment to greatly reducing unemployment as the one it expressed to continuing the fight against inflation. We have had some significant progress in the past 12 months in the fight against inflation, but we have seen little progress in the fight against unemployment which has remained stuck at the 7 per cent level for all too many months.
The throne speech speaks of the government's desire to create new, year-round direct employment programs. This is welcomed, but I seem to recall a similar announcement earlier this year when it had to answer those who said there would be harmful effects for hundreds of thousands of Canadians when the cutbacks of eligibility for unemployment insurance and other limitations it proposed in the last budget went into force, especially in the less developed regions of the country.
I hope the direct unemployment programs proposed in the throne speech will be soon set up and will be successful. However, unless the government departs from the objectives stated in the speech, of much less government intervention and a restriction on future growth of government, one cannot expect such direct employment programs to create enough jobs to make a real dent in current unemployment figures. These programs will be useful but they cannot be a substitute for satisfying jobs in the private sector, producing goods and services which add to our exports and generally add to our economic wealth and gross national product.
There must be more attention shown by the government to getting the economy moving than the government appears as yet ready to do from the words of the throne speech. The time has come for action to deal with our high interest rates, the high value of our Canadian dollar which makes our exports more expensive in world markets than those of our competitors, as well as action on certain specific kinds of tax cuts and measures to improve productivity.
The Speech from the Throne and the government's working paper point to the contribution the market system has made to our country's development until now and which it can make to its future development. Both documents explain why the gov-
October 21, 1976

ernment has decided to take what it describes as a middle road between greater government intervention and relying primarily on the private sector. However, these documents convey the message that it will in fact be relying more than ever on the market system and private enterprise as a means of allocating resources and of enabling Canadians to achieve their personal objectives of growth and well-being.
The throne speech talks about examining government programs to see which ones might be handled by the private sector. I believe all government activities and programs should be reviewed on a continuing basis to ensure they meet current needs and that their costs are in line with their benefits. However, we should not forget that the government has become involved in providing many kinds of services because of the unwillingness or inability of the private sector to provide them at all or to provide them at a cost and with a degree of access satisfactory to Canadians generally.
The government must make sure that it takes no decision to turn any of its current activities or programs over to private enterprise without making certain that the quality of the service and its availability to Canadians will not suffer. It is argued by some that the handling of activities by the private sector that are now carried on by government will enable better indentification and distribution of the economic costs. However, Mr. Speaker, there are social costs as well as economic costs involved here.
For example, market forces do not, and cannot, do a satisfactory job of ensuring product safety or preventing products from being sold that cause injury or death. Consumer protection legislation in the area of food and product safety has a cost, but there is also the often greater cost to the individual and his family and to the entire community arising from harm caused by unsafe products. There is also the matter of defining product quality.
Economic costs cannot be the only factor to be taken into account in assessing the impact and desirability of government regulations and programs. There are considerations of health, safety and social justice to be borne in mind. The benefits of the regulations and programs may well be found to outweigh their costs when all of these aspects are taken into account.
Over a year ago the government made promises similar to those made in the throne speech to the effect that there would be less government intervention and a review of government activities to see which ones could be reduced or turned over to the private sector, if not eliminated completely. These promises were a major component of what the government said was to be a comprehensive "attack on inflation", according to the white paper with which it launched the controls program. But since then on several occasions I have asked how that review promised in the white paper was to be carried out, by what department and also what minister would be in charge of this effort. There have been no answers or any indication that the work has even been started.
Before one can become too enthusiastic about the possible useful results of most recent proposals which are similar to those in the anti-inflation white paper of a year ago we should,
The Address-Mr. Gray
I think, have some answers as to how they are to be carried out, by whom and over what period.
There are a number of topics which quite properly are specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne; bilingualism, the fight against inflation, human rights legislation, and so on. However, one has to say that the speech is also notable for what is not specifically mentioned in it. There appears to be little directly stated in it for the Canadian consumer. In fact, I do not think the word "consumer" is to be found anywhere in the speech. It can be argued that the Canadian consumer will benefit from a successful fight against inflation, and that the second stage of the competition policy mentioned in the speech will have important though indirect benefits for the consumer, at least over a period of time.
As I have said, while there is direct specific reference to programs, for example for business and labour, there is no equivalent specific mention of programs for the consumer. The current throne speech does not mention a "comprehensive overhaul of consumer credit legislation" as did the October,
1974, speech, even though the press reported that late last year the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs was ready to introduce a bill to achieve this. That bill has not yet had first reading, even though the proposal for it was mentioned publicly before the 1974 election and was part of the election platform itself. The present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) has made reference to it in a recent speech outside the House.
It is, therefore, puzzling that the government as a whole, the cabinet, has not seen fit to make specific reference to this legislation in this throne speech. It is also puzzling that the speech makes no mention of a "total revision of bankruptcy law" and "improved safety of consumer electrical products", which were found in the speech of October, 1974. Both of these items were also part of the 1974 election platform.
The bankruptcy bill, with its important provisions giving new and higher priority for wages owed to workers in case of bankruptcy of their employers, at least received first reading in the last session and some study during that period by the Senate. This throne speech, however, gives no hint as to the government's intention about this bill for the current session. Also, improved safety of consumer electrical products did not surface publicly, at least anywhere during the last session.
The new throne speech does promise stage two of the new competition policy which would thereby complete the process of reform of our competition law which I began as minister before the 1974 election with the stage one bill, a bill that became law in January of this year. I think it should be of concern to consumers that nothing is said about the stage two bill finally making class action rights available for consumers and for small businessmen as well.
These rights are important to consumers who are harmed by uncompetitive or unscrupulous business activity contrary to our combines legislation. The right to sue through class or representative action should have been adopted as part of the
328

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Gray
first stage legislation. This had been my own announced intention. The government should commit itself now to putting it into the second stage bill, along with a general trade practices jurisdiction. The latter step is needed to help stop the building up of conflicting and overlapping provincial trade practice legislation, which is coming to mean differing standards of protection against the same kinds of unscrupulous business practices for consumers, depending on where they live. Overlapping and conflicting provincial legislation also means harmful and unnecessary uncertainty for business as to the rules it must follow. In any event, the government should make a commitment to introduce the stage two legislation as soon as possible.
A major concern of both Canadian consumers and producers, food policy, is almost ignored in the throne speech. It is skipped over in a couple of brief and opaque sentences to this effect:
As a further element of the government's food policy, measures will be introduced to make more farm-stored crops eligible for advance payments. The government will also work with the provinces and farm organizations to strengthen the structure and productivity of Canadian agriculture.
There is nothing in the speech about developing a comprehensive food policy covering all elements of the food chain from producer to consumer. Yet there have been growing expressions of concern by Canadians generally about the seeming confusion and conflict in the government's present approach to food policy. There is the awareness of the world's need for food and the fact that Canada is one of the few countries with the potential and capability to be an exporter of food. There were hints before the throne speech from government spokesmen and, in fact, more than hints, that food policy was to be a major thrust by the government in the new session. It is, therefore, surprising and disappointing that so little is said about this in the throne speech we are debating now.
The speech conveys the impression that there already exists a government food policy which is comprehensible, comprehensive, and working well. That there is not yet this kind of policy is demonstrated if one looks only at the evidence provided earlier by the egg marketing situation and more recently by the industrial milk situation. Surely the time has come for the government to commit itself to a parliamentary review of its existing food policy. More important, surely the time has come for the government to work out and present proposals for a comprehensive national food policy covering all elements of the food system from producer to consumer. This is something that deserved specific reference as a government commitment as much as any of the other subjects mentioned in the throne speech.
The all too brief reference to food and agriculture raises as many questions as it answers. Increased productivity is a commendable objective, but in the light of the surpluses we have had, first in egg production and at least until recently in dairy production, the problem in our agriculture is certainly not one of surplus. Instead, it is one of how to find ways that meet the needs of the world and Canadians for an adequate supply of reasonably priced nutritious food.

Efforts to improve productivity in secondary manufacturing deserved mention in the speech no less than that given to productivity in agriculture. A specific statement of a thrust in this direction should have been in the throne speech in light of the justifiable concern both of the government and Canadians generally during the past year about declining productivity and, therefore, our competitiveness in world markets.
But to return to agricultural policy, surely the time has come to examine some of the basic assumptions of one of the key elements of the food policies we have, that is to say, the extention of supply management to more and more basic commodities. Many began, as I did, by being favourably impressed by the concept and supportive, as I continue to be, of what its proponents held out to be its basic objectives-fair income for producers and a steady supply for consumers at fair prices. But the government's efforts in supply management to date, especially in dairy products, have satisfied neither producers nor consumers. One must ask, after observing the developments over the past year or two in that industry, whether the supply of some of these kinds of products is capable of being managed at all, at least in the manner that has been pursued by the government.
At the very least, if there is to be a workable system of supply management, it requires a capacity for forecasting, foresight, planning and managerial competence that has not yet been demonstrated to a degree sufficient to justify having the government continue to base its efforts mainly on the present kind of programs. Also, a workable system of supply management must provide the consumer with the right to participate in it, not just in an isolated, minority way but as someone involved in the real decision-making of a process that affects the price the consumer has to pay for the commodity covered. This kind of consumer involvement has not yet been adequately established.
Developments in the industrial milk situation show that in recent months the government's program for it has brought increasing prices for consumers and reduced income for producers. Also, instead of even providing stable production it has created, first, an almost unmanageable surplus, and within less than a year the prospects of a shortage, of a lack of sufficient product, to meet consumer demand. The government's supply-management efforts have created instability of supply rather than the stability its proponents have promised. If the process of supply-management is to continue and to be extended, the government must demonstrate to Canadians generally the ability of the supply management concept to work fairly and efficiently in the interest of both consumers and producers.
Canadians as consumers and as workers also want to be reassured that the anti-inflation program is operating equally fairly and effectively on the price side as the wage side. No amount of talking about the decline in the consumer price index will help persuade the Canadian consumer and the Canadian worker that the anti-inflation program is both effective and fair unless the Anti-Inflation Board also begins giving publicity to its decisions on prices equal to the publicity it gives to its decisions on wages.
October 21, 1976

The board, by stating its decisions on the prices in the form of informal advice and guidance rather than formal rulings, has been able to say that the confidentiality provisions of the act prevent it from telling consumers what it has accomplished by way of specific price rollbacks. But in my view nothing in the act stops it from stating as a formal ruling, which is something the act does allow to be published, its agreement to the compliance plans it accepts from a company found to have excess revenue-rulings which set out the price rollbacks and the names of the products in question. The board apparently is now taking the position that the act does allow it to release the names of companies found to have excess revenue, but has not yet started doing this.
The same authority, in my view, also allows the release of the names of the products in question. Consumers have a right to know the names of the products involved so they can take advantage of the price rollbacks. This is particularly so if they paid too much for these or other products of that company in the first place, thereby enabling it to build up the excess revenue in question. Arguments that to disclose this information would harm the competitive position of companies are largely nonsense. If the information on price rollbacks is made public by the board at the same point in time that the company advises its customers of the price changes and thereby puts them in effect, that company will not be harmed competitively. And even if a competitor finds out beforehand about the price cut and reduces its own price to match it, well, so what? Surely the objective of the anti-inflation program is to encourage wider and wider general reductions in price levels.
In any event, the public interest and the need to confirm to the public the fairness and credibility of the anti-inflation program must be an overriding consideration. Also, since the compliance plans which the board works out with manufacturers and wholesalers do not cover the ultimate retailer of the product for which price cuts are agreed to, the retailer is not compelled to pass them on. Also, the program does not apply in a mandatory way to firms with less than 500 employees. So at present the only way to help make sure that the price reductions in question are passed on to the consumer is for the consumer to know about them and, therefore, be able to demand the reduction from their retailers; in other words, to set competitive pressures in motion to make up for the gaps I have mentioned in the application of the AIB's compliance plan.
The government says in the throne speech that it wants to encourage the market system to operate actively and to operate better. For this system to operate properly, information about products and their prices must be widely available to consumers. One way for the government to show its sincerity about what it says about its new reliance on the market system is for it to compel the Anti-Inflation Board, by amendments to the law if necessary, to disclose to consumers the names of products for which the Board orders rollbacks.
The Address-Mr. Gray


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Concern has, I think, justifiably been expressed about the approach of the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Act to his jurisdiction. An argument can be made that a worth-while amendment to the law is one which says the administrator cannot reduce rulings on wages appealed to him below the level set by the Anti-Inflation Board. However, whatever flaws there might be in the administrator's present jurisdiction, at least it provides a mechanism through which someone can review some of the rulings on wages made by the Anti-Inflation Board and can cut them back if he thinks they are too high. Where is a similar mechanism for prices? There is nothing available along the same lines for reviewing the board's decisions or private advice on prices.
I think there could be practical ways worked out for having a form of appeal from the board's decisions on prices, especially if all its advice to companies has to be cast in the form of rulings which can be published. There are ways of doing this, such as giving groups like the Consumers' Associations or the Canadian Labour Congress the capability to make appeals, or setting up an office of consumer ombudsman.
The recent Gallup polls indicate a paradox, such that along with a significant reduction in the cost of living there has been a growing lack of support for the anti-inflation program. It is true that the proportion of the total labour force that took part in the so-called day of protest was small-but a million Canadians were involved and that is still a lot of people. Most of the labour force may well have, quite correctly, decided to respect their contracts of employment and also that taking part in the protest was not the best way to get the government and parliament to change the anti-inflation law. However, this does not mean that they are all fully satisfied with the way they see the anti-inflation program being administered. Many of those who stayed at work may be ready to express their concern about it at the ballot-box at the first opportunity, unless in the meantime they are convinced that the program is operating fairly and evenhandedly on both wages and prices.
The government has not set out in the speech, or so far in the debate, exactly how it intends to carry out a process of consultation on new strategies for the post-controls society. However, it appears to me from the words of the speech that, unfortunately, while the government intends parliament to have a role in the process, it does not intend that role to be the central one. Surely parliament, and especially the House of Commons, must be the focal point of the consultation process on strategies and policies for the post-controls period, and I believe the best way for parliament to provide that focal point is through a special parliamentary committee on national goals. You will recall that I proposed such a committee in speeches, first in North Bay and later in this House last March. I suppose it is somewhat flattering that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has taken up this proposal.
However, I hope that his support for it has not weakened the government's ability to see its merits and to agree to put it into effect. Such a committee could provide a public forum for the presentation and discussion of points of view of both regional

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Gray
groups and interest groups. It could be a forum of a kind not available in any other way. I hope the government will confirm its confidence in the parliamentary process by agreeing to the creation of such a committee in the near future.
This government, as is the case for every federal government, has an overriding obligation to strengthen and preserve national unity. This means efforts in the economic and social sphere. It also means confirming the ability of Canadians to deal with it in either of our two official languages. I believe in the importance and value of this policy. My belief in it was formed long before I entered the House of Commons and long before it was recognized and adopted by parliament as the official policy of the country. In my view, there is a quiet and moderate majority of Canadians which already believes-or at least which can be persuaded to agree-that the kind of Canada worth preserving is one that recognizes having both French and English as official languages as one of its greatest resources. It is a resource that helps give our country its distinctiveness. It helps our country effectively to present itself and its products to the world. It is important, as well in terms of simple justice so that Canadians, whatever their origin, can use one or the other of these two languages to communicate with their national government and their fellow Canadians.
But at the same time I think this quiet and moderate majority of Canadians expect the government to develop and apply measures to implement this policy which are both fair and reasonable and effective in terms of their costs. Therefore, to call for the application of the official languages policy in ways that are fair, reasonable and cost-effective is not the same thing as questioning the policy itself. I am glad the government has finally recognized this, as is evident from what is said on the subject in the throne speech. Steps along these lines referred to in the throne speech will, in my view, justifiably strengthen support for the federal official languages policy across this country.
I believe that there is much that is encouraging in the throne speech. While I have made some critical comments about it, they are intended to be of a constructive nature. I believe the speech, in general, is worthy of support.
To conclude, let me say that this is a time of concern for those who, like myself, want to see the government continue in office. In this connection, it may be of interest to recall part of what I said when I spoke in the debate on the throne speech which opened this parliament two years ago this month. I will not repeat those words here, but for those who, like myself, want to see the government operate in such a way that it will have the majority support of the Canadian people in the next election, the words I referred to may seem even more relevant today than they were two years ago.
We are at the mid-point of the government's mandate. It is, unfortunately, a point of decline in public support, judging by current Gallup polls and by-election results. To win back that support, the government has chosen what it calls the "middle road". The middle road for a Liberal government must not be just another term for small "c" conservative policies or a "do-nothing" policy. If there is a balancing effort between

private initiative and the market system-and community support for individual needs through government effort-it must result in action of a kind that has in the past meant electoral success for Liberals.
To achieve its objectives, the government must use the remaining time at its disposal to show itself to be a government that is truly compassionate and concerned-one that is people-oriented as well as being a government that is effective and efficient. It must be a government that is, in fact and not just in appearance, truly concerned with the individual Canadians and their needs, their hopes and aspirations for a better life. There is yet time, although it is growing shorter, for the government to convince the Canadian people, through its actions, that it deserves the kind of support the Canadian people gave it in 1974.
I, for one, am continuing my efforts, as must all those on this side of the House, to have the government operate in a way that justifies its receiving that kind of support. I believe that the government, on balance, continues to be better than its alternatives. However, the throne speech by itself is only a collection of words indicating potential, indicating intention. Therefore, I say that all of us on this side of the House must confirm our commitment to translating and developing those positive policies indicated in the throne speech itself, and those not mentioned but no less needed, into meaningful action in the interests of all Canadians.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Bank Act- Possibility of amendment facilitating appointment of women as directors; the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)- Social security-Reciprocity of pensions between Canada and certain countries-Request for report on negotiations; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)- Search and rescue-Date of tabling report of task force- Request for improvement in operation of service.
October 21, 1976


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Harquail for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by expressing my congratulations to the mover (Mr. Harquail) and the seconder (Mr. Lachance) of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and also congratulate the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on his excellent speech. With facts and figures I believe he exploited the government's lack of credibility and its inconsistency in addressing itself to the real and serious problems facing this nation. I also appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) who as usual made a vigorous contribution to this very important debate.
I think the remarks of the three previous speakers reflect the concern of most members of this House. Many of us have trouble in believing in the sincerity of this Speech from the Throne and the working paper which set the stage for the post-controls period. If we could place any confidence in the government to do all the things it proposed in the Speech from the Throne, we might have some hope that the nation could be led out of its current social and economic dilemma. In my view, however, this sudden about-face is yet another characteristic example of this government's erratic leadership since it took office in 1968.
The 12 innocuous bills which the government placed before this chamber today for consideration proves that it is either unable or unwilling to transform the platitudes expressed in the Speech from the Throne into reality. This government has waffled and wavered; it has been inconsistent; it has been devious; it has improvised, and it has been less than frank with the Canadian people. One year it leads with its left, and the next year it leads with its right. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has strained the good will and good nature of a vast number of Canadians. He has caused apprehension, concern and uncertainty by his pronouncements of last December, and now we are told the only hope for this country is reliance upon the free enterprise system. Just last December we were told it was not working; it was dead.
That sort of inconsistency is like a fairy tale, and that is unfortunate because running this country is a serious business. Are we really to believe that this government is genuine when it speaks of reasserting the role of the market system in a free enterprise economy, or is that merely a political gesture devised to overcome its current unpopularity? I hope Canadians will not again be hoodwinked and taken in by this ploy. Perhaps the results of last Monday's by-elections are an indication that Canadians will not be sloughed off with pious platitudes.
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
In my view, Mr. Speaker, the government is not worthy of regaining the kind of support that the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) predicts. I believe it has lost the will, the capacity and the competence to govern. What was dished up to us in the Speech from the Throne and the post-controls document was an ingenuous and slick public relations pitch-perhaps more slick than we have ever witnessed in this country.
This effort to improve the image of the government has taken many forms. The Prime Minister and his cabinet have taken on a new profile of modesty and humility. We should pay attention to the jargon in the document and the way in which it has been distributed. The ministers have all stood in their places and given their respective sales pitches in an effort to merchandise this sudden turnabout.
Even the word "Liberal" is being downplayed during this debate. We have heard so much about the "middle of the road" that we are surprised they have not changed the name of the Liberal party to "the middle of the road party." This government has been swerving from shoulder to shoulder so long that it could be charged with being under the influence. The problem is, we do not know whose influence it is under, whether it is John Kenneth Galbraith, the DM-10, Keith Davey or the spirit of Mackenzie King.
The government has shelved its propensity for bigness and is committed to the philosophy that small is beautiful. It uses cliches such as "balanced growth", "quality of growth", "individual initiative" and is pledged to provide more government information. Mr. Speaker, this is the most secretive government in the history of this country, so it could hardly go any other way. Even the former minister of finance attested to that.
We have a hollow commitment to improve the lot of small business in this country, but most of us who have any experience in that field know that the actions of this government over the past eight years have done more to erode the confidence of small business than anything else. It has created a climate of uncertainty which has consistently affected the health and stability of small business, starting with the tax reform measures in 1971-72, overregulation, the way in which the Unemployment Insurance Commission has been functioning, the postal service, the impact of strikes and the competition from government programs. All these things have contributed to an unhealthy climate in the small business world, and we do not see anything in the Speech from the Throne to reverse the trend.
The public service has also been mobilized in this operation image, and this gives rise to the question of whether the government's motives are real and genuine, or illusory and deceptive. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an aricle by Stephen Duncan in the Financial Post of September 11. One section is entitled "Pulling out the stops", and it reads in part as follows:
Party stalwarts outside Ottawa are thrashing over fresh policy ideas. And, as two recent events in Ottawa suggest, the civil service is being recruited and mobilized to help the politicians.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski
The first incident is a directive sent from Treasury Board Secretary Gordon Osbaldeston to the deputy ministers of each department, asking them to contribute to an "image ... of a cost-conscious public service." That is part of a government strategy (Osbaldeston's letter says) aimed at maximizing "the visibility and the public's awareness of restraint in government." Included was a request for lists of government programs that had been cut, and others that had been thought up, but never even submitted to Treasury Board for approval.
The second was a meeting of about 50 civil servants called together recently by the Privy Council office and the Prime Minister's office. They were told to itemize programs that had been initiated to improve service to the public. They were also asked to prepare lists of programs that were planned and could be announced immediately. And they were told to get working on new, innovative programs that could be announced in the near future.
Some good ideas and policies may emerge from all the activity. One of the problems plaguing the Liberals for the past two years has been the lack of a steady flow of really fresh ideas.
But the implication that policy planning now seems to consist of grabbing for new ideas almost at the last moment is unsettling. One well-placed civil servant terms the exercise "government by gesture".
His view (and it is a common one in Ottawa in the days leading up to the new session of parliament) is that the government, strung by unpopularity, will react with gesture rather than substance in the months ahead. The focus, that is, is on the image.
That summarizes the spirit in which documents were produced to this House this week. If the contents of this article are true, we must question the propriety of senior civil servants engaging in such partisan activities. Obviously if we are to be governed by gesture, by an administration concerned only with the short-term political interest, by a group concerned with grooming rather than governing, concerned with its image rather than with the real concerns of Canadians, there will be no joy for anyone.
I turn, briefly, to another area of concern to Canadians. I submit that Canadians have lost confidence in the financial control and management exercised by the Government of Canada with respect to its departments and agencies. I note with dismay that neither the Speech from the Throne nor the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) provide much hope for significant improvement in this area. One would think that considering the government's desire to be all things to all people, it would place high priority on this important area of our parliamentary democracy.
Surely the restoration of confidence in our system, the restoration of people's belief that taxpayers' money is being wisely and prudently administered, is at the core of the very foundation on which responsible government can continue to exist. It is true that we have seen a commitment regarding the introduction of a new Auditor General's Act, but before we become over-zealous about it we must see precisely what the objectives of the bill are and if the recommendations of the Wilson report will be followed. For example, will the legislation define the right to report on expenditures when value for money has not been obtained? Will it include the provision for the appointment of an accounting officer with respect to each appropriation? Who will be given responsibility for accounting in a proper manner, and for properly administering funds voted under an appropriation? At present not only do senior levels of the public service administer policy; they play an increasing role in the formulation of policy. In short, we want

to know how many of the 47 recommendations will be included in the legislation? How many other recommendations previously advanced will be incorporated in it?
People's concern over the mismanagement of the country's finances has not grown up over night. It has grown at a dramatic rate since 1968, at a rate commensurate with the government's deliberate actions to reduce the effectiveness of members of parliament, its propensity for secrecy, its distortion of the rules, and its attempt to downgrade the role and effectiveness of the Auditor General. It is little wonder thoughtful Canadians have become deeply concerned. They are especially concerned about the dramatic increase in government spending, particularly at the federal and provincial levels, spending which takes up over 42 per cent of the Gross National Product. In the United Kingdom that figure now approaches 60 per cent.
In the July issue of the Parliamentarian, Right Hon. Edward du Cann, chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts in the U.K., wrote-I quote from page 153:
It is not necessary, I hope, to argue the need for control. Government expenditure is, I believe, the largest single inflationary influence in the United Kingdom ...
I am in no doubt that firm control should be established, and by members of parliament in general...
Canadians are concerned that parliament has lost control over the handling of the nation's finances, that it cannot scrutinize as well as it should government expenditures, and that we are being governed by order in council. Above all, people are concerned because the state of the financial management, and control systems of government, its departments and agencies, is significantly below acceptable standards, quality and effectiveness. We obviously all have legitimate reason for concern, Mr. Speaker.
In a minute I shall quote from the proceedings of Public Accounts Committee, issue No. 52, dated March 30, 1976. Before doing so I wish to pay tribute to the outgoing chairman of the public accounts committee, and committee members, who have effectively examined government control and management systems in this country. Unfortunately the public and press have not given them the recognition they deserve. I think the House ought to commend them for the work they have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I shall now quote the words of the Auditor General, Mr. J. J. Macdonell, as recorded at page 52:22 of the committee proceedings. He said in part:
I must apologize that some of this is fairly technical, but we feel very strongly about the fact that unless the systems are corrected the day may well come when I really cannot give a clear certificate on the accounts of Canada. I hope it does not come.
Mr. P. Lafferty, of the Auditor General's office, told the committee about lack of control. As recorded at page 52:18 he said in part:
... I would like to point out two concepts of control which are not being observed in the departments. The first is the segregation of duties and there is a

fundamental principle, that an auditing student learns within his first week, that you segregate duties down into the clerical level. The broad concept is that there should be careful segregation of duties so that, without unnecessary duplication of effort, one staff member, one element of a system, maintains an effective independent control upon the integrity and accuracy of another. It is this fundamental concept of one clerk, or one element of a system, balancing with another that does not exist in most of the cycles.
I list here the words: It does not exist in the expenditure cycle at two levels.
It does not exist at the clerical level, where there Js a lot of repetitive checking...
It also does not exist in the signing of documents. Cheque requisitions, in many departments, are signed by one official who has, virtually, an unlimited spending authority, to spend the money and approve his own requisitions and this directly contravenes Treasury Board policy.
At page 52:20 Mr. Lafferty is reported as having read the following words from the Auditor General's report:
These fundamental weaknesses result in incomplete or inaccurate financial information and in inadequate protection against fraud and error.
At page 52:11 Mr. Macdonell, the Auditor General, is reported to have said:
What worries me quite a bit is the fact that if there is fraud occurring there is really not much evidence of important ways by which it can be detected. To me, this is the major weakness.
As recorded at page 52:6, Mr. D. L. Meyers talked about financial controls and audit mechanisms. He said in part:
The chapters on financial control and internal audit deal with control problems within the accounting system. The problem here is not one of knowing what should be done, or agreeing to it. Indeed, the principles have been applied for many years in large organizations, both public and private, and are enunciated in the Treasury Board Guide on Financial Administration. It is more a question of failing to recognize the significance and the need for adequate internal control, and giving it the priority required at the department level.
An example of this is the photocopy of a cheque which I have attached to these notes. Please note that this cheque is blank as to the amount and the payee, but has already been signed-in this case, to improve operating efficiency. The rule here is simple, and to the best of my knowledge not disputed: blank cheques should not be signed. Yet I was personally able to obtain this example after my first day of reviewing controls in a cheque-issue branch responsible for the preparation of 2,000,000 cheques per month.
He goes on to say:
Departments clearly break the fundamentals of internal control: in segregation of duties, accounting control, effective supervision, and internal audit. In the context of a lack of effective budgetary control and management reporting, this not only leaves a strong possibility of error but also invites fraud, with little possibility that either would be uncovered.
What more glaring examples of waste, incompetence, and weak financial management could we have illustrated? There are many examples of non-compliance with the Financial Administration Act. Anyone who reads the report of the public accounts committee will find examples of waste, weak financial administration, and failure to comply with Section 26 of the Financial Administration Act. For example, and I quote:
For the Fiscal year 1974-75 nearly $1 million was spent by the Government of Canada for unused Crown-owned or leased accommodation. At the end of the same year approximately $3.8 million was expended on a new pay system which had to be suspended because it was deemed unworkable.
It later states:
Your committee, however, was most concerned with the action taken by the National Energy Board during the 1974-75 Fiscal year. The funds appropriated
The Address-Mr. Mazankowski for its operations by Vote 50 had been exhausted before the fiscal year end, and instead of attempting to obtain additional funds through supplementary estimates, the National Energy Board arranged to have $90,000 of its operating costs charged to the operations of the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. Furthermore, no subsequent attempt was made by the officials of either Board to correct this arrangement.
Having received evidence from all parties concerned, your committee has concluded that the action taken by the National Energy Board clearly contravened Section 19 and subsections (1) and (3)(a) of Section 26 of the Financial Administration Act and was illegal. Your committee strongly disapproves of the arrangement of funds made by this Board and recommends that disciplinary action be taken immediately by the minister.
As I said, this did not happen overnight. The government has whittled and chipped away at the parliamentary system. It has scuttled the effectiveness of the Auditor General. It has impaired the ability of parliamentarians to scrutinize effectively, analyse, and challenge government expenditures based on a philosophy of easy come, easy go simply pass the mistakes on to the taxpayer. However, I and many other taxpayers are getting fed up with the government's incompetence and maladministration.
I want to turn briefly to an area of the Speech from the Throne which I find rather fuzzy. It has to do with the review of our government's spending programs and the possible transfer from the public sector to the private sector. The review procedure is not clear. The criterion is not established. We in this party feel that this is yet another opportunity to engage the services of more consultants as a result of the review, and probably more consultants following the recommendations stemming from this review.
We would like to see an independent review agency which would appraise and evaluate government programs on a continuing basis as to their efficiency and effectiveness. The agency should be independent. It should have the power to initiate an evaluation on its own. The results, and indeed the recommendations, would be made public. Such an agency would have the authority and expertise to examine fully the effectiveness of ongoing government programs, their efficiency, and indeed have the power to recommend changes in the structure of any major government undertaking. Such a mechanism is certainly not unrealistic given the fact we are now spending well in excess of $40 billion annually. It could serve as an effective check.
This party would also like to see a review of our existing Crown corporations, some 60 in number. This party is committed to that. I am surprised that the government, with its new middle-of-the-road philosophy, did not propose that. Some studies on this have been done by important people. Doctor Alan Blair, an associate professor at Carleton University, engaged in a study and evaluation of 11 Crown corporations. During the course of his evaluation he found conclusive evidence that over half of them could be disbanded without any detriment or loss to the public interest.
We feel there is room for an evaluation of our 60 Crown corporations. Some were established with a specific purpose in mind many years ago. That specific purpose has now passed. In the interim, there must be more effective measures to scrutinize the operations and control of Crown corporations.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Stollery
Crown corporations are not accountable to parliament in the way they should be. For example, Air Canada has not been before a committee of this House since 1973. Surely with a major Crown corporation of that size it should be mandatory that it appear before an appropriate standing committee of parliament once a year to review its operations and annual report. This government does not believe in the function and real role of parliament.
In conclusion, parliamentary authority and control must be restored if the institution of parliament, and indeed politicians are to regain the confidence of the Canadian people. Now is the time when parliament should be strong. Canadians suffer from failing hopes. They are deeply concerned about the future and generally have a lack of confidence in those who are in charge of Canada's destiny.
We have many problems, social and economic. We have problems of national unity. There is cynicism, there is mistrust, there is apprehension, and there is irritation in this country. One basic and fundamental way of meeting these serious challenges is to restore and reinstate the supremacy of parliament.
I sincerely regret that the initiatives proposed in the Speech from the Throne are less than satisfactory. They are initiatives of gesture rather than substance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I First want to congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. Having performed that task, I know how difficult it can be. I also want to congratulate the new ministers and wish them well in their portfolios.
The Speech from the Throne provides an excellent opportunity for members to speak on subjects that are of concern to them and their constituents. This tradition is one of the best in the House of Commons. Any of us can get up during these few days and get things on the record that we would like to have put on the record.
I should like to take my few minutes to direct attention to the indication in the Speech from the Throne that there will be amendments to the Immigration Act during the present session of parliament. The new minister-and I wish him well in that difficult portfolio-indicated the other day that we could expect a new act during this session.
Generous immigration policies have been good for Canada. But for the last several years in reaction to what was possibly-and I use that word with a question mark-an overly-generous system between 1969 and 1972 we have over-reacted and made immigration too tough and too difficult. I believe we are doing this to our detriment and to our loss. I want to take this opportunity to make that opinion very clear.
I was a member, and a pretty regular member, of the special joint committee on immigration policy which produced the report with the orange cover. It was an exhaustive study. We

heard hundreds of witnesses, I guess, and the committee produced 178 paragraphs of recommendations about what the government might incorporate in its new immigration policy, which presumably will be presented to parliament in the coming session. It was a good report. Who can argue when members of the committee suggest we should reform the provisions governing the prohibited classes? Who can argue against many of the reforms suggested by the committee in a variety of ways? As I look through the headings I see "Mental Retardation", "Mental Illness", "Epilepsy", "Contagious Diseases" and "Moral Turpitude."
Of course we have to reform those parts of our immigration policy which are obviously outdated and out of touch with reality in 1976. But in our approach to this question there have been errors. We have fallen for the statistical approach. I recall that during all this debate we have been talking about population and population growth. I, personally, do not believe in scientific government. I never did. Scientific government did not build this country-bloodless, scientific government administered by bureaucrats.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter A. Stollery: We completely abdicate in this approach to human issues the tradition and history that built this country. It is not often a member has the opportunity to quote himself, but I was looking recently through the debate on Bill C-58. I spoke in that debate. I was describing the Canada that I know, and I said at that time:
Surely in the House of Commons of Canada I should not have to emphasize our unique Canadian experience-two founding peoples pioneering a country on the very edge of the habitable world, in spite of snow and ice and everything possible against us, and succeeding in establishing Canada. Canada is a remarkable country because it should not ever have existed.
We exist in spite of the trials our forefathers went through when they came to this country, and they did not do it by scientific government. Yet people tell us, "This group will go here, another group will go there, and this is what the population will be," and so on. I find this whole approach which we seem to be following in the area of immigration, baffling.
Goodness, will any member of that committee forget the charts with which we were presented illustrating the dire consequences ahead of us in the year 2,000, the predictions as to what the birth rate might be? I recall similar predictions 20 years ago concerning the province of Quebec. I remember it being said in Toronto that Quebec was a francophone province, that New Brunswick was a francophone province and that, bearing in mind the birth rate in Quebec, it would not be long before there would be a third. Today we all know that Quebec has the lowest birth rate in Canada, something which presents a big problem both for Quebec and for the rest of Canada.
All this was conveniently forgotten when officials of the department presented us with all those statistics in favour of having a new act and restricting immigration. They implied that if we did not have this new act we would have no control over policy. Meanwhile those of us who follow immigration
October 21, 1976

matters find that the departmental officials have managed to cut immigration under the existing act by some 25 per cent by using regulations which never come before the House of Commons-I do not know whether they even go before cabinet.
I was looking through some of the quarterly statistics a while ago. One set of figures which immediately struck me referred to immigration from Portugal-4,370 immigrants were admitted in the first quarter of 1974. Remember, this was the year when they said we would drown with immigrants if we did not do something. Well, we did not do very much in the House of Commons but they managed to do something in the immigration department because the number admitted in the same quarter of 1976 was 1,272. All in all, immigration from Europe was cut from 20,205 to 12,616, practically in half, through the use of regulations which none of us ever got to see or which, at best, we saw only after they had been approved.
This is an important subject because this country is finding itself today in a crisis. We all know there is a crisis over bilingualism. We all know, if we are honest, and I know members opposite know the same thing, that there are many people in this country who are asking themselves if it is worth while making this country work, and if those people are successful we need not bother having a House of Commons because we won't be coming here. And we were elected to make this country work.
I think that areas like immigration are part and parcel of a seige mentality that has overcome Canadians. Some Canadians are saying that the barriers should be raised, and in raising the barriers we must remember that in areas like immigration we are dealing, after all, with an interchange of people and ideas. The same barriers must also go up in the area of bilingualism. We must remember the two things are part and parcel of the same issue.
A bilingual Canada cannot exist in a vaccum; immigration policy must be an essential part. If we start to restrict immigration, to say that for various scientific reasons we are restricting entry, we will have to take the consequences. Let me tell this House that at no time in my life have I seen our chickens coming home to roost the way they have been coming home during the last few months. Never before do I remember responsible Canadians asking themselves whether Canada is going to survive. I think that is a pretty fundamental question for this House of Commons, and if we do not face the issue we are making a very serious mistake.
Just to emphasize to what point we have come in this country, the kind of person who came here in a spirit of adventure and initiative, who came to find opportunities in Canada, cannot come any more. No longer can a young man or woman of 21 years of age set off for Canada, not knowing exactly what they want to do or what the future may hold for them. They can no longer work in Canada or work their way across the country. That is a thing of the past.
The Address-Mr. Stollery
I was born in this country, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure many of us have spent a lot of our youth travelling around the country. This cannot be done any more because there is no work. Immigrants have no status, they cannot get a work permit. We have effectively put a stop to the enterprise of people; we have told them that they cannot come to Canada any more and I think this is a very serious mistake.
If the government is proposing to present a new immigration act, let me say at this point that I am not certain that we need a new act since we can cut immigration back 25 per cent under existing regulations. I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but as a member of this House who has great admiration for his colleagues on all sides, may I say that under the present policy I would not be able to come to Canada myself. I feel that there is something fundamentally wrong.


Benno Friesen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) would entertain a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with the hon. member's consent. Would the hon. member allow a question?


Peter A. Stollery: Certainly.


Benno Friesen: I served on the special committee with the hon. member for Spadina, and together we drew up a report that was tabled in the House. His remarks today sound strangely different from what he said in committee and I am wondering whether he has changed his view about immigration into Canada from what he said in committee about the volume of immigrants coming to this country.


Peter A. Stollery: I wish the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) would refresh his memory, because if he did he would remember, first of all, that the meetings in which this matter was discussed were supposedly in camera, and I did not think that they should be mentioned in the House of Commons; secondly, I was one of the members who signed the minority report of the committee, and I think that speaks for itself.


Mr. O'Connell:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to a minority report of the special parliamentary committee. I think correctly we ought to agree that there were dissenting views, but I do not think it is possible to present a minority report to this House and there was not one. I just clarify that for the purpose of the record.


Peter A. Stollery: On the same point of order, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock made the statement that I agreed with something. As the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) has pointed out, I did not completely agree and I signed what was in effect a statement, with some other members of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee on immigration.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. MncKay


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I want to commence my fairly short remarks with a compliment to those who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to this latest Speech from the Throne on the way they discharged their responsibility.
I have been reading various Speeches from the Throne since I came to this Chamber and I must say that this latest one struck a different note. I noticed, or seemed to notice as I reflected upon it, a strange lack of enthusiasm for this Speech from the Throne in its reception. This was noticeable in the galleries and it was noticeable among the public generally. I would say that the country at large has demonstrated about as much enthusiasm for this latest Speech from the Throne as the turkey does for Thanksgiving. I think there is a reason for this, Mr. Speaker.
As a comparatively junior member I have been struck by the fact that there is something that distinguishes this latest Speech from the Throne from most of the others, and it is that very little concrete mention is made of what the government plans to do. I was interested to see the list of bills which the House leader presented. I know that other speakers have made reference to this as well, but I cannot help but mention that the first bill in the list of bills to be dealt with was that tremendously vital and important item, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
I think the government must have in mind erecting a couple of monuments on a particularly memorable site, perhaps the site where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stood when he told us that he had wrestled inflation to the ground. That year the Prime Minister did about as well in the battle against inflation as General Custer did at the battle of Little Big Horn-in fact perhaps not as well. Or perhaps the government is going to erect a monument at the place where the Prime Minister stood when he came back from his meeting with President Nixon and said he had made a tremendous breakthrough with the United States. Judging from the state of current U.S.-Canadian relations I think he was rather optimistic in describing it as a tremendous breakthrough at that time.
I should like to confine my remarks fairly specifically to the subject of freedom of information and to urge the government to consider seriously some initiatives in this regard. Before getting to the main matters I want to talk about in this respect, let me say that as a member of parliament from Atlantic Canada I find that there is a strange lack of priority given to DREE, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, Which is very disturbing particularly in view of the critical situation that has developed in Atlantic Canada as a result of the government's failure to provide proper economic leadership and a national energy policy. This situation has exacerbated the economic difficulties which DREE was originally conceived to combat.
Of course I am bound to say in all honesty that under this government in recent years the whole country has become economically disadvantaged, and perhaps it is not fair for us to expect too much in the Atlantic area. Nevertheless the fact remains, as those of us who come from Atlantic Canada know,

that we are facing a terribly delicate situation. We need assistance from the federal government on a temporary basis, as well as some long-term guidance, so that we can begin to create a national power grid or some kind of power pool involving some of the provinces adjacent to us which have greater power resources. This could have been done a long time ago.
We would also have expected and would have liked to have seen some indication in this Speech from the Throne that the government recognizes the need to give special priority to the Department of Fisheries, give it as it used to have, status in its own right. Instead, where we once had a separate department for fishing and, one for forestry, we now have no forestry department at all, although this is one of Canada's most important resources, and we still have the Department of Fisheries effectively merged or submerged in the greater Department of the Environment.
We also note in Atlantic Canada, where unemployment is very high, that the government is considering re-uniting the Departments of Manpower and Unemployment Insurance-I gather in the same arrangement that existed in past years when we had the National Employment Service. I think on balance that is probably a constructive thing to do, but one has to reflect upon the many millions of dollars in administrative costs, and the wasted effort that has been the end product of this very poorly conceived experiment of starting a separate entity called Manpower divorced from the UIC. It did not work, and probably will not work unless there are further modifications made, because employers for the most part do not use the services of Manpower because, for various reasons, it has not been effectively co-ordinating the resources and needs of the private sector and the services it was designed to provide.
There is another matter which concerns me very much which I should like to mention before I move into the freedom of information part of my speech, and that is the sorry state of transportation. I have quoted the following before in the House and I think it bears quoting again. I will go back to 1972 at page 808 of Hansard for the date of March 14 when the then minister, now the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), said at that time that he agreed with those of us on this side of the House who said:
-that a reorganized structure is necessary in order that members and the country generally can obtain more information, and obtain it more easily, about all aspects of transportation. With this objective in mind, I propose to bring before the House in the next session three important pieces of legislation on which work is proceeding at the present time. The first of those is a bill designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, thus divorcing it, as it were, from the CNR. 1 will also introduce a Canadian National Railways revision act and a companion piece of legislation covering amendments to the Railway Act. Hon. members will know how involved and far reaching these changes are; they have been asking for them for the last two or three years.
That takes us back to at least 1970. The minister went on to
say:
These changes have entailed a great deal of work, which is still proceeding. I believe, however, that these bills are essential and I will bring them forward as soon as they are ready.
October 21, 1976

That is a good many years ago and we can only presume that, in the interim, despite the very excellent Estey report of last year which dealt with this very subject of divorcing Air Canada from the CNR or well as other things not much progress has been made by this self-proclaimed dynamic government since 1972 on what would appear to be a fairly straightforward, non-partisan piece of legislation.
That is not the worst of it. The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) appeared before the Committee on Transport and Communications, and he promised on April 6 of this year a new national transportation act, a new ports policy, and a re-examination of the St. Lawrence Seaway.
Then we have to remember that, a year previously, his predecessor announced that a regional third air policy would be coming soon. The only reference to transportation in this present throne speech mentions that there are to be changes introduced to the National Transportation Act to protect against unfair freight rates.


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with that?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: There is nothing wrong with it, I want to say to my friend opposite, but it is too bad the government would not give us a little bit of action and less verbiage. They are all swank and no knickers.
Let me now move to the topic of freedom of information. In our highly developed and technical society information, or rather its possession, has become a tremendous source of power, if not the prime one. At the turn of the century Max Weber asserted that the source of bureaucratic power was the "knowledge of files". That is even truer today than it was in his time. Modern governments are really hugh information processing machines. As the importance of information grows so does the need to make it available to the public.
If opposition members of parliament, indeed all members of this House, are to criticize constructively and realize what is going on in this most important of all institutions, and if journalists are to report accurately the facts, and if ordinary citizens are going to make effective use of their right to express themselves freely, then it is absolutely essential that they be given free access to all government information, with the exception of matters involving national security and individuals' personal records.
The parliament of this country should immediately consider and pass legislation that embodies the following principles: government information is gathered and compiled utilizing public funds, therefore it belongs to the public; the government must prove that it is not in the public interest to divulge certain types of information to the public rather than the public having to prove that they have the right to the information; up-to-date indexes of all the various government reports and studies should be readily available in public libraries and in federal buildings, to a much greater extent than is now the case; the government should be required to provide the requested information within a stipulated period of time; and a person or group who is denied information should have the right to apply to an impartial tribunal.
The Address-Mr. MacKay
I want to mention a couple of incidents, perhaps three, that I think should be brought forward in the context of these remarks. Kenzie MacKinnon, a Nova Scotian law student, spent the summer working with Ralph Nader's consumer affairs centre studying the working of the U.S. freedom of information act. Apparently a CBC television program requested access to government inspection reports on Canadian meat plants. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) felt that this report was too technical in nature, and he went on to say it was such and would be prone to misinterpretation by parties not familiar with individual plants or the nature of the procedure carried out. He said this could result in a firm being subjected to unjustified commercial pressures in the public arena.
Since all Canadian meat plants that export to the United States must be cleared by U.S. inspectors, Mr. MacKinnon applied to the United States Department of Agriculture for the information. Under the U.S. freedom of information act he got the information for no charge, after a ten days' maximum waiting period. Mr. MacKinnon quotes the report as making the following statements:
The trolleys and chain suspending apparatus for beef carcasses were not being cleaned, and exhibited rust and grease.
Then he says the tunnel through which beef and pig carcases were being moved "was not maintained in a sanitary manner". Later he states:
Fixed objects of wood that were improperly cleaned were contacting product surfaces. Overheads were deteriorating and some overhead structures exhibited evidence of rust, corrosion and excessive grease.
If we had a proper freedom of information law in Canada perhaps the Minister of Agriculture might have been encouraged to improve the sanitary conditions of our meat plants instead of acting as a public relations man for the meat packing industry.
I want to deal next with the Walter Rudnicki case. In September, 1973, as this House knows, the then Minister of Urban Affairs, and the president at that time of CMHC, Mr. Teron, and other CMHC officials, met native leaders to hear a brief on the needs for a Metis housing policy. Mr. Rudnicki set up an ad hoc group to prepare policy proposals. Mr. Rudnicki distributed policy papers at meetings with officials of the native council in order to get some feedback and because the minister and Mr. Teron had agreed to keep in close and continuous consultation with them. Apparently when the minister found out that policy proposals had been shown to the native people before he had seen them he hit the roof. He told Mr. Teron that either he had to go or Mr. Rudnicki had to go. Mr. Rudnicki was dismissed for violating his oath of secrecy regarding Cabinet documents. Mr. Rudnicki's secretary was also hounded out of the civil service.
Mr. Rudnicki sued in court for wrongful dismissal. He won his case and won $18,000 in compensation. The judge did not accept Mr. Teron's version of the events, which is a pretty polite way of saying he considered him less than honest. Judge O'Driscoll, who heard the case, referred to Mr. Teron's definition of what constituted a Cabinet document as "absolutely

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. MacKay
astounding". There were indications that the disclosure of documents was used as a pretext to get rid of Mr. Rudnicki who was too innovative an activist for the CMHC.
There is a third case that concerns me, and this is something I have referred to before in this House. It involves a couple of RCMP staff sergeants who, in my opinion, were dealt with in a very, very unfair manner.


An hon. Member:: Shoddy.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Yes, shoddy is a good word. There has been much opportunity for the government either to have justified their dismissal or to have made some sort of reparations to them. They were hardly run of the mill officers. They were both outstanding police officers, Mr. Don McCleary and Mr. Giles Brunet. I have had the opportunity to look at many documents involved in this case. One thing I found most outrageous was the memorandum from the officer in charge of the legal branch, Inspector D. K. Wilson. It deals with the subject of Sergeant Giles Brunet.
First may I set the stage by saying that when these men tried to protect themselves against what they considered a lack of natural justice, and when they attempted to get any kind of a hearing and were unsuccessful, they had a counsel, Mr. Arthur Campeau of the Ogilvy Cope firm in Montreal, I believe a very outstanding lawyer, contact the Solicitor General. Correspondence was exchanged, and so on.
Then we come to something I find very incredible. I refer to the memorandum from the man about whom I spoke previously, Inspector D. K. Wilson. I am very concerned about the tone and the Alice-in-Wonderland quality of it.
One line of this memorandum on page 7, which is dated December 3, 1973, states:
It is not surprising either that there is at least the allegation, if not the fact, of influence peddling between the lawyer and the Solicitor General.
That, to me, is an incredible thing to have been said by a responsible man high up in the RCMP. If any member wants to see the entire memorandum I will be glad to make it available to him. It is difficult to believe that a man that high up in the RCMP would accuse his minister of influence peddling because this minister was courteous and understanding enough to listen to representations from a very eminent legal counsel who intervened on behalf of these two fine RCMP officers. That, to me, is an indication of a very sick attitude. I want to bring it out again at this time in the House of Commons.
I suggest it is obvious to just about everyone in the country that a freedom of information law is needed. It goes almost without saying. It is as true today as when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) first brought it up. Incidentally, the hon. member for Peace River told me that he had discussed this very subject with the members of the current Russian delegation visiting Canada, and he was told that the situation is about the same there as it is here.

The government is taking only baby steps toward this objective. Members of the government are dragging it out as much as they can. The throne speech tells us that the government intends to present a policy paper to the standing committee. The issue has been discussed, re-discussed, and discussed again. Now is the time for good legislation. I am very surprised that the present government has not jumped on this idea. This is not a party that is known to nurture along an idea, to fight battles for it. They leave this to the opposition parties. But the Liberal Party has the great ability to grab upon an idea when the time has come, and claim it for its own. There is no doubt about that. In fact after listening to the well paid public relations men of the government, it seems that members of the government are able to convince themselves that they originated the idea, fought the battles, and led the troops to victory themselves.
With the exception of the former finance minister, John Turner, who unknown to us all, until he left, had fire in the belly over this issue for years, the Liberals have not responded in their usual manner. They have not jumped upon the issue. Does this mean they have lost their touch, one more example of the downhill slide? This may be partially true, but I suggest there may be other reasons.
It has been proven that secrecy is fundamental to this government, that it is an essential part of its nature, perhaps even its true nature. This does not mean that the government is not willing to generate information. It is more than willing. In fact since 1972 the number of information officers has increased from 570 to over 1,000. The government in engaged in producing public relations pap, making reports two of three times longer than they should be, or glossing over a lack of substance with sheer weight of words.
It is not unrelated that, as a government becomes more secretive and hides more real information, it will turn out more false information, misinformation, or non-news. One reason I suggest the government ought to reassess its policy is that everything can be explained to the people on the single condition that you truly want them to understand. Lately the government has not shown that it really does want them to understand. One reason why the government will not be more open is that there is a feeling that the public is not competent to judge its behaviour. We have seen that indicated very clearly in the government's handling of the wage and price controls program.
The government has managed to alienate both business and labour. When these groups justifiably criticized the incompetency of the administration and the unfairness of the application of the regulations, did the government consider the possibility that there may be serious faults in the program? Of course not. The Prime Minister has told us that the Canadian public did not understand the program, and so he decided to spend a million or so of their tax dollars to innundate Canadians with snappy little ads telling them the error of their ways. That is his philosophy. If the government had any respect for the Canadian public it would quit wasting its money and come up with substantive changes in the program.
October 21, 1976

The other reason why the government will not move forward in respect of a freedom of information law of course, as has been demonstrated, is that there are things the government does not want to disclose. I want to point out at this time that the business of obscuring language is a mask beyond which stands out the much greater business of plunder. As time goes by we must watch very carefully that the special interest groups close to the government do not profit excessively by this relationship. That is another reason why we must have more freedom of information.
I suggest that, if all the facts were before this parliament, some of these gigantic projects that are making news, with allegations of hundreds of millions of dollars being spent unwisely at a time of restraint, might never have gotten off the ground in the first place, and we would all have benefited.
In one of his essays Montaigne relates the answer that a worthy Roman gentleman gave to the builders who offered for
3,000	crowns to alter his mansion so that his neighbours could not overlook him, as they then did. "I will give you 6,000", he said, "if you will make it possible to see into it from every side". It is as characteristic of this government to build a mansion into which no one can see, as it was of the above gentleman to has his conduct open to the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock I now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in this my first address as the new Minister of Manpower and Immigration I want to pay a particular tribute to my predecessor, now President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Although I have had an all too brief acquaintance with this new department, I have come to realize the very heavy burden placed upon the minister in this department.
When one realizes that my predecessor held this portfolio for four years and that he did so in such a competent and capable fashion, one knows that this represents a significant contribution to the service of the people of Canada. I do not know how many of us can appreciate the countless hours of time and effort that had to go into the development of a new immigration policy and legislation, and I wonder if any of us can appreciate the tremendous amount of time required to consider the direction in which the department should go, the changes that should be made to the Unemployment Insurance Act, and the new employment strategies directed to helping unemployed Canadians. Couple this with the minister's responsibilities as a member of parliament for a very busy and
The Address-Mr. Cullen
active riding, his regular duties as a member of the cabinet, and the day to day problems that are bound to arise when one is dealing with unemployment insurance and immigration, and one can appreciate the heavy workload that the minister carries. Partisanship aside, I think all members in the House appreciate the contribution made by my predecessor. He has handed me a very difficult act to follow.
It is appropriate for me in this debate to comment on the very high calibre of the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply. As one who was given this honour a few years ago, I know the sense of responsibility that one feels when called upon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to move and second the Address in Reply. I may say that the calibre of the speeches is definitely on the rise.
The government's key priorities have been outlined in the throne speech. One priority is the new immigration legislation. This is the product of more than three years of intensive work by my department, a major consultative process, of an invaluable study by a special joint committee of parliament composed of members of the House of Commons and the Senate. The bill that I shall shortly present to parliament will spell out the fundamental objectives designed to shape a forward looking immigration policy for this country. It will eliminate the outdated provisions of nearly a quarter of a century, and establish a solid foundation for a policy geared to the needs of all parts of Canada and able to rise to contemporary challenges, both domestic and international.
Another key priority will be the amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation. These will merge the commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration into the new commission and department of employment and immigration.
Amendments will also allow us to take a more positive approach to unemployment problems through resource allocation. As the House knows, these amendments will change the five phase benefit structure to a simpler three phase structure, will set the minimum entrance requirements at 12 weeks, and will permit experimentation with the use of unemployment insurance funds for programs of training, worksharing, and job creation.
The changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act will result in a government saving of about $110 million next fiscal year. I am only referring to the government's saving on this aspect, not that of the employee and employer. The purpose of the amendments is not to save money; it is to let us and the unemployed utilize some of the funds now required for income maintenance to held provide jobs, incomes, and training. We are convinced that the income that goes with the dignity of work is preferable to the income that arrives in the form of an unemployment insurance cheque.

Mr. Speaker, there is no other priority more important than helping Canadians find a job. Today, our remarks will concern a new employment strategy aimed at creating what the

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Cullen
Canadian unemployed wish and require: the dignity and the personal satisfaction given by a real job as well as a higher income than unemployment insurance. Today, the main difficulty is to increase regularly the number of jobs in the private sector. But in the next four years, the number of jobs could not increase too rapidly in relation with the number of Canadians seeking employment. Furthermore, we know that at the beginning of the 1980's, when the flow of young people seeking employment will have decreased, we could be in a different situation, that is we could have a shortage of manpower rather than a lack of job opportunities.

We must therefore look toward a strategy that will help to fill the employment gap over the next several years. It must be a strategy compatible with the restraint of expenditures, moderation in the increase of the money supply, and the avoidance of massive inflation-stimulating deficits. It must not be a strategy of major monetary or fiscal stimulation, vast programs of public construction or public service expansion, or major tax cuts; these would be incompatible with our need to reduce inflationary forces and to remove wage and price controls. Our basic aim is to reduce unemployment progressively over the next five years, without generating yet other problems.
It is my purpose today, Mr. Speaker, to outline the essential elements of a strategy that meets those basic criteria. The strategy is based on two fundamental premises: first, that the vast majority of Canadians need and want work and that there is work to be done, and second, that although income maintenance is essential for Canadians who want to work and cannot find jobs, our present substantial expenditures on income maintenance can be made more productive.
Our currently high unemployment rate is due to several factors such as regional differences, the particular problems of young workers, lack of skills, weak markets; employment disadvantages, and seasonality. Some unemployment is due to behavioural factors, but the problem facing most people is a simple lack of jobs or the skills to fill the jobs that open up.
There is no single cause underlying our unemployment rate and there is no single solution. But selective solutions must be pulled together into a single strategy. Our employment strategy alone will not cure unemployment. What it will do is to help keep unemployment down, and allow us to reduce unemployment progressively over the next few years in a way consistent with the removal of wage and price controls.
There are three broad thrusts within the strategy itself. The first is a comprehensive job creation program squarely based on community priorities; the second consists of youth employment and employability measures, to ease the transition from school to work for the young people who make up half the unemployed; and the third is a group of selective presentive measures to reduce the loss of work and hasten a return to employment.
The strategic approach that we are taking relies on a variety of programs being effective. Individual programs in the strategy will necessarily be changeable and flexible from year to

year; the program mix appropriate for 1977 may not be the best mix for the circumstances of 1979 or 1980.
The essence of the strategy is to get public work done and public benefits produced by people whose energies and talents are temporarily surplus to private sector needs.
We all recognize that a permanent private sector job is what Canadians most want, and that we must help them find it. But we must also recognize that when private sector jobs do not exist in sufficient numbers we have an obligation, both to the unemployed themselves and to the Canadian community, to make sure that people can have work and the incomes that go with work. From the point of view of both society and the individual concerned, work is far better than just giving people a cheque. The cost of unemployment is not just a loss of so many dollars or so much output. Much of the cost comes in failed career hopes; lost opportunities and eroded skills; in family stress, and in growing dependency on the working members of the community.
In 1977-78, the first full year of our five-year employment strategy, we plan to invest in the neighbourhood of $350 million beyond our regular expenditures on manpower programs. Over that five-year period much of the incremental funding for the employment strategy will come from changes in the unemployment insurance legislation. In the first full year savings to the government from the legislative changes will be about $110 million, but future savings will be even greater. Because unemployment insurance savings will rise as unemployment declines, we are looking at costs and resources averaged over five years. It is generally expected that, if parliament approves the changes I shall propose to the Unemployment Insurance Act, reduced government contributions to the unemployment insurance account will offset the extra costs of this employment strategy.
I shall deal first with the comprehensive job creation program. Because unemployment is at an unacceptable level we are allocating, as I said, about $350 million in expenditures in 1977-78 on special employment measures. Of this amount the largest single element will be a $200 million "Canada Works" program that will generate jobs for some 61,000 participants.
The program will be year-round, lasting up to 12 months when warranted, with projects tailored to local unemployment conditions. Funds will be allocated primarily to high unemployment parts of the country. Projects will be reviewed and recommended by ministerial advisory boards in constituencies, groups whose membership will change from year to year. The projects themselves will be subject to federal and provincial determination of broad priority areas. In parts of the country where the local tax base is inadequate, provision will be made for financial assistance with the cost of materials.
Investment in the Canada Works program will be adjusted to changing circumstances from year to year but the program will always operate on the basis that its role is to provide employment only when the private sector cannot. Wages will be based on the provincial minimum wage so as not to disrupt the private labour market. They will not exceed locally prevailing rates for the skills involved. Project workers will be helped
October 21, 1976

and encouraged to return to permanent jobs in the private sector. Project and selection controls will ensure that people are not drawn into the labour market simply to participate in the program. We will generally require project sponsorship by an existing community organization or group to ensure that real needs are met and the project is competently managed. The private sector-both firms and organizations such as chambers of commerce-will be invited to participate actively by sponsoring non-profit projects of community benefit.
A small portion of the $200 million for the Canada Works program will be set aside for temporary local employment emergencies-a natural disaster or failure of the main economic support of a community. We have developed emergency techniques in the last two years and have learned to respond quickly to such local disasters as the fires in Springhill and Main a Dieu in Nova Scotia.
The year-round program will be accompanied by a new program designed to supply jobs for about 21,000 extra students next summer. This program, "Young Canada Works", will have many of the same basic features as the year-round program. Some $30 million will be allocated largely to high unemployment areas. Project applications will be reviewed by the ministerial advisory boards. Projects will be up to 14 weeks in duration and sponsored by community organizations, including the private sector. Wage levels generally will be kept down to the minimum provincial wage levels. The range of potential projects will be the same as for the year-round program, but will be oriented to the interests and aspirations of young Canadians. The emphasis will not be so much on "doing your own thing," as on doing something of solid community value-such as fire prevention programs or environmental improvement.
The third new job creation element will be a Summer Job Corps in which we will invest up to $10 million. The Summer Job Corps will provide employment opportunities for students in activities related to federal government priorities. Projects will be sponsored by federal departments and agencies. Students may work on such projects as cleaning up rivers. For the most part, the work will be out of doors. None of it will be within federal departments themselves. Students will work in a structured environment under trained leaders, in any one of a dozen priority areas.
We will also continue, as part of the job creation component of the employment strategy, the existing summer student employment and activities program at a cost of about $25 million. Those funds will provide for a variety of initiatives by federal departments to create employment for young people; for example, cadet corps, and student-run summer manpower centres.
The Young Canada Works program, the student summer programs, the Summer Job Corps, and the main Canada Works program will all provide additional worth-while employment opportunities for young people, allowing them to gain valuable experience, while at the same time helping them
The Address-Mr. Cullen
to meet financial demands. But these programs, in themselves, can only partly respond to the long-term problems of youth employment in Canada because many young Canadians lack work skills and experience rather than job opportunity.
I now come to youth employment and employability. The second main thrust of our employment strategy is directed as much to the employability of youth in the private sector as the first is directed toward creating employment. Young people today have employment problems of a kind unknown to us 20 years ago. The problem is only partly a lack of jobs; in large measure it is the vast gap which exists between the world of school and the world of work.
Increasingly we see the tragedy of the young person who emerges from school, diploma in hand, but who cannot get a job because he or she lacks something called "relevant work experience." Young people today acquire knowledge of immense value in our schools and post-secondary institutions. But too often, employers tell us, students are not accustomed to the day-to-day realities of work, and are not able to translate text book knowledge into practical accomplishments. They cannot be hired until they can do so, yet they cannot get relevant work experience without being hired.
One remedy is to expand and strengthen what we can do to provide counselling and job connections for secondary and post-secondary students. We are proceeding vigorously with the publication of a full range of career counselling materials called "Careers Canada" and "Careers Provinces" for use in our Manpower centres and in co-operating school systems. We are developing, for possible introduction next year, a computer-assisted counselling program called "Choices". And we will strengthen and expand the Manpower counselling and job finding centres we now have on post-secondary campuses across the country. Over the next three years, we intend adding up to 18 new centres to the existing 70.
Better counselling information and techniques and a greater availability of counselling services will help, but they will not provide experience, and therefore can only be part of the answer for our young people. Counselling provides direction; "co-operative education" provides experience.
With the co-operation of the provinces I plan to give greater impetus to this concept of co-operative education which could successfully bridge the gap between school and work but which has been developing far too slowly in Canada. "In term" means simply that the teaching institution arranges with local employers that work and study will alternate in some sensible way. We know of over 80 such arrangements current in Canada. The young Canadians who have participated in them have had far fewer problems in the labour market, are far more certain of where their career interests lie, and are often hired by the very firms for which they worked as part of their training.
I have communicated with provincial ministers and offered to join with them to encourage and promote the development of more co-operative education. It is not an expensive proposition. No wage subsidies are involved. Most of what cost there is goes into setting up such programs rather than maintaining

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. Cullen
them. We will offer to share with provinces the costs of starting co-operative education programs, not perennial subsidies for the programs' duration. I am convinced that, as these programs get established, the advantages to employers, students, and post-secondary institutions will be so great that no further financing will be required.
We are also interested in taking this concept a step further for youth with serious job placement problems. As soon as possible I plan to initiate a program which will help young Canadians gain a foothold in the job market. That program, called the Job Experience and Training program, will have a substantial winter component and a smaller summer portion. It will be based essentially on the very successful experience that we have had in the last two years with chambers of commerce and boards of trade on a pilot project basis.
Next summer chambers of commerce and boards of trade across the country will be asked to arrange for the placement of students identified by co-operating school authorities as drop-outs or potential drop-outs for whom serious employment problems are anticipated. They will be given exposure to a work environment and employment counselling that will facilitate their return to school or their entry to the labour market. The chambers will be given a modest grant, and participating employers will receive a small wage subsidy. In the winter young people who encounter severe and continuing difficulty in getting and keeping jobs and need work experience will be provided with nine weeks of partially subsidized employment in the private sector, preceded if necessary by a brief training period. The result, at a very modest cost per hard-to-place young person, will be the acquisition of experience without burdening any firm because the government will, if necessary, help to compensate for the young worker's low initial productivity.
Next year we expect to invest a total of $11 million on these particular measures to help young people find rewarding and productive employment in the private sector. I am convinced that measures to improve career counselling and career choice, and to help young people blend schooling and experience, are among the most productive we can mount. If the programs are as successful as I hope, I would like to see them take an increasingly large place in our over-all employment strategy.
Next may I speak about preventive measures. The third major element of our employment strategy is the development of new and the strengthening of established preventive measures. The federal government now is investing well over half a billion dollars in the training and retraining of Canadians to increase their employability and income. Most of this very productive training is carried out in provincial institutions. Our first step will be to increase our manpower training budget for next year, with an emphasis on the expansion of industrial training. For some years we have been increasing the proportion of our industrial training, because of its high productivity and relatively low cost. In the past five years our funding of industrial training has increased 500 per cent, from $10 million to over $51 million originally planned for next year. We

will increase that by $19 million to a total of $70 million in 1977-78.
These training opportunities will particularly benefit young workers, women returning to new careers in the labour force, native people, and the many Canadians who each year find that they must acquire a new occupation to earn their daily bread.
With the expansion of industrial training and the introduction of the job experience and training program, the government is responding to suggestions from a number of quarters. As suggested in the government's working paper, "The Way Ahead", this is an area in which industry can assume a role that might otherwise be left to a government institution. I hope that business will accept this responsibility willingly and that the results will warrant expansion of co-operative business-government partnerships in human resource programs.
No comprehensive employment strategy for Canada would be complete without the provision of a more adequate level of opportunities for the many Canadians who are, in one way or another, seriously disadvantaged in finding and keeping jobs. Although my department already has a number of programs that provide a good deal of assistance to people with severe employment disadvantages-the Outreach program, intensive counselling programs, the Local Employment Assistance Program, and our developing community employment strategy- we can and should do more for the Canadians who are hardest hit by unemployment regardless of the state of the economy.
Accordingly, we are carrying out a major review of existing programs for the handicapped, with a view to promoting various measures to facilitate their integration into the labour market. I do not expect this to result in the imposition of hiring quotas or other artificial devices in the private sector. I expect that, in co-operation with the Public Service Commission, measures for handicapped people may be developed to expand their opportunities in the public service, improve their access to services, and provide leadership in showing what can be accomplished. Later in this session of parliament I hope to announce some new measures we will undertake and to suggest ways in which the private sector can join in these developments.
Today I can announce that we will expand the Local Employment Assistance Program by more than 40 per cent through the addition of some $6 million to the budget for next year. Over the last three years this program has proven to be highly effective as a means both of providing employment to serious disadvantaged workers and enabling them to progress to future employment in the private sector.
There are some innovations such as work sharing and occupational training. Thus far I have been dealing with programs in the context of a strategy for the next five years. Now I would like to touch on several innovations we wish to introduce in the new unemployment insurance amendments. We hope these will greatly strengthen our unemployment insurance program and make it not only the essential protection for
October 21, 1976

unemployed workers, which it is now, but also a positive instrument in promoting a healthier and more productive labour market.
The first of these measures we call "work-sharing". We plan to introduce next fall, on an experimental basis, the concept of work-sharing during temporary economic downturns that has been so successful in a number of European countries. The idea is quite simple.
At present when markets slacken temporarily, firms cut back their production and their work force. The people who are made jobless claim unemployment insurance, search for other work, or take training to get into new occupations. Typically there are major losses involved in this process- people's work skills erode when they are idle, spirits are depressed, and they lose the habits and patterns of work that are so important to personal and family stability.
Work-sharing avoids that problem. For instance, instead of laying off 25 per cent of the workers, a company and its employees agree that the available work will be shared and all of them will work a 30-hour week instead of a 40-hour week. The government pays unemployment insurance benefits for a quarter of the week to all the workers, instead of paying for the full week to one quarter of the workers.
Despite the extensive European use of these work-sharing programs and their apparent benefits to individuals and companies, the system has not yet been tried in Canada and we want to make sure that it will work here. After experimentation and assessment next year, we may find voluntary and temporary work-sharing arrangements are measures we wish to develop widely for use in short-term, non-seasonal slowdowns.
The work-sharing experiments will be developed and carried on by a very small but highly effective service, the Manpower Consultative Service, which my department has operated for a decade, and which we shall expand for this purpose.
The Manpower Consultative Service brings together companies, workers, and unions to develop an action plan for overcoming a variety of employment problems. Such problems may range from an impending shutdown, resulting from difficulties occasioned by technological change; problems associated with high turnover and chronic absenteeism; to simple problems of anticipated shortages of skilled workers. Although too little known, the Manpower Consultative Service is one of the most effective preventive tools we have. It eliminates, before they arise, many employment problems that workers and companies would otherwise face.
Another new productive use of unemployment insurance lies in the field of occupational training. Our plan is to encourage unemployed people who lack job skills to use their idle time to take training and prepare for the new jobs that will develop. Naturally we shall not train people who already have marketable skills; we shall train only for skills that we believe will be in demand. Unemployment insurance will partly replace our regular training allowances and thereby free funds to provide for additional industrial and institutional training.
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
We also plan to experiment with direction job creation projects in which unemployed Canadians receiving unemployment insurance will be offered the chance to participate in community service projects. We would, of course, maintain job counselling and job search activities so that they could move to regular private sector jobs that became available. But in the meantime they could protect their job skills and enhance their feeling of participating in activities of community value.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), right off the bat I must accuse him of plagiarism. Obviously he has dug up some Conservative policies and platforms of the fifties. All of this was implemented years ago. Six of these schools were established for technical and vocational training. It is unfortunate that the program was not continued by the Liberals. However, I congratulate the minister this evening on reviving this very successful Conservative program. I am sure it will be very successful.
I am familiar with the technical school that was established in Manitoba by the Diefenbaker government. I checked figures there. It has trained many Canadians, young and old, to a profession. In this it has been very successful. The minister is to be congratulated for continuing this Conservative program, even though there was a ten year lapse.
Tonight I would like to take the opportunity to extend my congratulations and best wishes for good health to His Excellency the Governor General, and Madam Leger. Their presence and participation at the opening of this session of parliament served to re-affirm our continued support of the monarchy which makes Canada such a unique nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: At the outset I believe I would be remiss if I did not take a few moments to extend my belated birthday greetings to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and to assure him that we on this side of the House spared nothing to make sure he got a resounding birthday message from the people of Ottawa-Carleton and St. John's West. If the Prime Minister were to call a general election for his next birthday I am sure the voters of Canada would be even more generous in their greetings and present him with an early retirement.
I will never cease to be amazed at what the Prime Minister will do to divert public attention away from the real issues facing Canada. A year ago the Prime Minister announced on Thanksgiving Day that his government had a well prepared contingency plan to fight inflation. Now, a year later, as the economic health of Canada continues to deteriorate, the Liberal government has come up with another act of governmental showbiz to cloud the issues.
What I am specifically referring to is the decision of the Prime Minister to send his cabinet around the country selling bilingualism. This is a red herring that the Liberal government is using in its desperate attempt to make as many people as possible overlook the poor state of the economy.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
At the present time there are approximately 750,000 Canadians unemployed. This gets us back to the minister's statement tonight. The government never acts when it sees trouble on the horizon. Instead of acting when there are
200,000	or 300,000 unemployed, it waits until there are 750,000. It has to be absolute, complete, total disaster before its members say maybe they had better do something. Then what they do is dig up an old Conservative program because they have no ideas of their own. They are completely bankrupt of any original ideas. At a time when approximately 750,000 Canadians are unemployed, surely one has to wonder whether their priorities are totally mixed up, or are they confused? Under the guise of promoting national unity the Liberals have angered and frustrated many Canadians. This folly must stop and the government should start concerning itself with the key national problem-our economy.
As a member who came here first in 1972 I have to admit that even after nearly four years I still have a difficult time determining when the Prime Minister and his government are telling the truth and when they are not. When the Prime Minister publicly admitted in Saint John, New Brunswick, that the Liberals had lied on the controls issue during the 1974 election I was not at all surprised. It served to reinforce the question: when are the Liberals telling the truth and when are they resorting to falsehoods? For example, in the Speech from the Throne the following passage appears:
... the government will continue to practice fiscal restraint. The control of inflation will remain the single most important condition for economic stability in Canada, even after price and income controls are removed. Determined restraint in fiscal and monetary policy is essential to the long-term control of inflation.
These are worthy goals, Mr. Speaker, but looking at the record I find myself wondering when the Liberal government began to practice fiscal restraint and to control inflation. This is but one example of the doubt it creates. To say there is a credibility gap would be an understatement.
It is deceitful on the part of the government to pretend that bilingualism is now the burning issue of the day when no serious attempt has been made to restore health to the economy. Anyone taking a close look at the government's economic record would be bound to agree that ministerial priorities are confusing, to say the least. The last significant legislation introduced by the Trudeau administration was the controls program last fall. For almost 12 months the country was without any economic accounting, and the budget which did come down in May took no initiative in the economic field. Instead it left responsibility for restraint to the provinces, and responsibility for growth stimulus to the United States. Yet the government still acts as though our economy is in fine shape. Who are the Canadian people to believe?
Prior to last May's budget there were four events which had serious impact upon the economy. First was the resignation of finance minister John Turner who will be proven to be the most irresponsible minister of finance in Canadian history because of the way he allowed government spending to run

rampant. There was the about-face of the Liberals on the controls issue, and, of course, the Prime Minister's speech on his new society. Last I should mention the way in which the controls program was, and still is, being handled. Each of these events damaged confidence in the economy at a time when inflation, industrial disputes, and a worsening balance of payments deficit were only further testing the system. When such reputable groups as the Economic Council of Canada, the C.D. Howe Institute, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce all share the view that our economy is in a mess we can be sure they are not exaggerating. It is small wonder the government is using diversionary tactics to take people's minds off the economy.
Government spending presents a greater threat to the future of Canada than any other which faces us. With a projected federal spending deficit amounting to $6 billion I am of the opinion that the Prime Minister and his cabinet should be explaining to the Canadian people how they intend to solve present economic problems rather than gallivanting around the country spouting rhetoric on the Liberal-created issue of national unity. Wastefulness and bureaucratic incompetence only bring us closer and closer to bankruptcy.
The annual report of the Auditor General presented last December confirmed a deeply rooted belief held by many Canadians that the Liberal government is the biggest culprit in bringing about the growth of inflation. In his last report the Auditor General served up columns of shocking news, horrible stories of mismanagement, bumbling, over-spending-black comedy at the expense of the taxpayer. From all the reports of financial mismanagement it is evident that the Liberals have lost their grip on government spending. Policy objectives are not being reached. Millions are being wasted because of official sloppiness, poor communications, and abrogation of responsibility. These have all become the trademarks of the Liberal Party of Canada.
People cannot fail to be concerned about what the Auditor General has to say with regard to the government's financial habits. In the face of the combination of high inflation and high unemployment which has sent the economy staggering, the government can no longer ignore the cry for better financial control in Ottawa. In his report the Auditor General stated, and I quote:
The present state of financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
Soon after that statement appeared in the Auditor General's Report, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), in his capacity as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, put the following question to the Auditor General:
Since the Auditor General is so critical about the financial controls in government departments, how can you assure the House that the public accounts and financial statements of the government are accurate and reliable?
The Auditor General's response was:
We feel very strongly about the fact that unless the systems are corrected the day may well come when I cannot give a clear certificate on the accounts of Canada.
October 21, 1976

I contend, Mr. Speaker, that this gives us a clear indication of the financial fiasco the Liberal government has led us into. The financial implications are such that one must wonder aloud why the government is employing accounting procedures which it would not accept were they used by a business or by a private citizen. Revenue officials have little patience with an individual whose books are not clear and accurate, yet the government is using methods about which the Auditor General has serious reservations.
The Liberal government has become a spending machine without a control centre. For the record, I should like to call attention to a few examples in support of that statement. The Department of National Defence, at the time of a national housing crisis, lost $214,000 on unoccupied housing in Halifax where there was a severe housing shortage. The Department of Supply and Services wasted $3.8 million on a computerized government payroll system which proved unworkable and had to be abandoned. The federal government paid $4.5 million for offices it did not use. The federal government has developed a bizarre practice of making loans to itself and then counting the loans as assets.
Those, Mr. Speaker, constitute but a tiny sampling of the gross financial misdeeds of the Liberal government. This is why I have serious reservations about the section in the Speech from the Throne which states:
You will be asked to consider a bill designed to clarify the duties and responsibilities of the Auditor General of Canada and to provide him with better means of fulfilling his important function as a servant of parliament.
My reservations stem from the past performance of the Liberal government which has failed to act on the recommendations of the Auditor General to put its financial house in order. Again, this goes back to my comments that it is difficult to determine if the government is telling the truth or using deception. Judging from their past performance, however, one can only assume that the Liberals are being less than sincere.
We on this side of the House have for some time been in favour of strengthening the office of the Auditor General. Time and time again our calls for implementation of his recommendations have fallen upon the deaf ears of the government. To date, little if any action has been taken on the report of the independent review committee with regard to the office of the Auditor General. Yet we are now asked to take seriously the government's pledge to assist that office. I hope members opposite are sincere in their intentions, Mr. Speaker, motivated by the way in which government spending has gone out of control, that this is not just political window dressing in a further attempt to con the public into thinking the government is actually serious about fiscal restraint.
A Progressive Conservative government would be committed to the idea of being prepared to be completely accountable to parliament for all government spending. At the present time the control of supply by the elected representatives is not respected by the Liberal government. It has reached the point
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
where spending estimates are presented in a form that cannot be readily understood. The public accounts are insufficient enough to let the government get away with unlimited spending.
Let me point out that it was the Liberal government that in 1969 changed the rules under closure and put an end to the proper examination of federal government spending. Now liberals have trapped themselves. They do not even know what is going on today. They are under the complete control of the bureaucracy. Not only are parliament and the public unable to assess the value or purpose of much of the government's spending, but even the cabinet, treasury board, department heads and program managers are unable to judge the worth of what they are doing. It is no wonder that the Auditor General has publicly stated that parliament has lost effective control over government spending.
It was somewhat refreshing to hear the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) a former cabinet minister, say to this House last week, as reported at page 83 of Hansard:
Whether the government is able to proceed down this middle road will depend in some part on how this parliament can control government spending.
The point I am going to make is that we do not now control government spending-
Then the hon. member for Scarborough East went on to say:
In my view it is urgent that we find new means of controlling government spending-
It is so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker, under the present committee system to examine the estimates after all the money has been spent. I suggest this is one of the most irresponsible actions of the government. Reviewing spending estimates after the money has been spent is an absolute joke. As I was saying, it was refreshing to hear a former Liberal cabinet minister come to grips with the evils of increased government spending and take a positive stand by offering what in many respects sounded like Progressive Conservative proposals.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has proposed certain action to be taken if we form the government. For example, he has called for the strengthening of the committee system in parliament by giving the committees investigative powers so that public spending might be better scrutinized. The actual record of the Liberal government, compared to its performance, can only lead one to conclude that it is a government that cannot be trusted, Mr. Speaker. Only a change in government will alter the trend of financial mismanagement.
There are, of course, other areas where the government has created a breach of faith with Canadians because it has said one thing and done another. Freedom of information is a perfect example of the double standards of the Liberal government. My colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), has done an excellent job of bringing this issue into

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
the public forum and has shown leadership in the effort to make government more open. This is indeed a healthy move at a time when there is growing cynicism with government. Even the former member for Ottawa-Carleton has been crusading for freedom of information.
It would seem to me that the emphasis on freedom of information in the throne speech is another example of the Liberal government's attempting to use an issue for the sake of political expediency. It is interesting to note that the government has hit an all-time high in the use of terms such as "top secret", "confidential", "restricted", and so on to cover even the most trivial government documents. Yet it now expects us to believe that it is suddenly going to be open.
On September 7 Gordon Robertson, secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations, said this in the course of a speech:
Most of the articulate argument in favour of increased access to government documents comes from special interests-the media, members of parliament-
He says members of parliament are a special interest group. We are here to represent the people.
-the pressure groups, and the academics.
What I find amazing about that statement, Mr. Speaker, is that an employee of the federal cabinet is insinuating that members of parliament are a special interest group. As elected representatives of the people I am sure that my colleagues share my feeling that an employee of the Liberal government should have more respect for parliament than to insinuate that it is just another group that is after government documents. I wonder what the real attitude of the Liberal government is on freedom of information.
I should like to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to touch on the subject of bilingualism. For too long the Liberal party has used bilingualism as a political device to claim that it was the be all and end all of national unity. All too often in the past the public has been led to believe that this nation could only be united under a Liberal government. I share the sentiments of my leader who, on October 13, said that the manner in which bilingualism has been implemented has caused some concern among Canadians.
I can understand this concern among Canadians. The two ministers who spoke today, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), came to Winnipeg and said that western Canadians are shoving English down the throats of the citizens of Quebec. That is all they said; they did not qualify it. I say that is a lot of nonsense. I find very little support for Bill 22 under which Canadians are being denied the right to learn English in the province of Quebec. That could only happen under a Liberal government. As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition said there was concern among many Canadians, both French speaking and English speaking, but that there is no reason to call them bigots or racists.
Many moderate and reasonable Canadians are growing apprehensive about bilingualism because they doubt the

motives of the Liberal government. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, a government without trust cannot govern, because trust in a federal and diverse country like Canada is elemental to national unity. This government no longer has that trust, Mr. Speaker. Many Canadians have become apprehensive about bilingualism because of such things as the Liberal attitude on Bill 22 in Quebec, the practice of having middle aged civil servants take costly and unnecessary language training, rather than develop long-range programs, use of a quota system at the expense of the merit system, a bilingual labelling and packaging act which is hurting many businesses, and finally, over-all implementation of bilingualism.
I can only concur with my colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who said:
The principle of bilingualism is only valid when it means the same to Canadians as the principle of fairness. This government has somehow managed to divide the two principles in the minds of many Canadians. That is the single, greatest tragedy of the present government. That is the single, most gnawing doubt that attacks the very gut and fibre of our country. There the record of this government is a record of failure.
The Secretary of State and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration also stated in Winnipeg that they were not shoving French down the throats of Canadians. I attended one meeting where the Secretary of State made that statement and I pointed out to him that this is what was happening. The government is forcing French television channels into areas where they are not needed or not wanted, as was the case in northern Manitoba, British Columbia, and St. Thomas, Ontario.
Yesterday the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) related how the CBC was cancelling out an FM radio station in his area in order to bring in a French channel, and his area is 98 per cent English speaking. If I were a government member I would not be trying to shove an English channel down the throats of the citizens of Rimouski if they did not want it. I am sure Rimouski is about 98 per cent French speaking and the people there want French radio stations and French television stations. I say that the Liberal government is shoving French down people's throats in implementing the bilingualism program.
Some of the members of this party have attended CRTC hearings to oppose the introduction of these channels in areas where they are unnecessary. I hear a lot of rumbling on the other side, Mr. Speaker. Let them get up on their feet and say something about this. I am complaining about the implementation of the program on the part of the government. If that program, which was introduced in 1969, is so terrific, why was it brought back into the House of Commons in 1973 to be re-endorsed? And hon. members are still talking about it. That program is an absolute, complete and total failure, and 20 years from now we will still be talking about it and there will still be dissension.
The government does not know what it is doing. A Progressive Conservative government would not use bilingualism as an

emotional political issue, because we want to make Canada a better place. When the former minister of national defence had to resign over the government's language policy you can be sure the Liberal government is not acting in the best interests of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Would the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) kindly get up on his feet? You are always mumbling and rumbling over there.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: O.K., Joe, you are on.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I have to wait until the hon. member sits down. The only point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the only thing I said was that the only thing the member knows is how to read, because that is what he is doing, reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There is no point of order.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I know exactly what I am doing, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking for the people of Manitoba.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Keep on reading, because that is what you are doing.


A. Daniel McKenzie: You are not speaking for the people of Manitoba. You are an absolute mouse. We never hear anything from you at all on any issue-nothing. You were challenged to go on the radio station with me to discuss Liberal policies.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: When?


A. Daniel McKenzie: They could not get you to show up. They can never get a Liberal to show up on a radio station in Manitoba to discuss Liberal policy.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am speaking to you and not to the hon. member opposite. If I was not with him on that radio station, the only reason was that I realized my responsibility was to be in this House and not on a radio station shooting my mouth off on things I know nothing about. I would rather be here representing my constituency than be away when I should be in the House. I have the best record of being in the House every day of the year, while the hon. member is away half the time.


An hon. Member:: That is not a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I can bring out the record any time.
The Address-Mr. De Bane


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Boniface is here representing the Liberal party, he is not here representing the residents of the constituency of St. Boniface. I am here representing my people, and his remarks about me only being here part of the time are incorrect. I am here five days a week.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will prove that you are never here five days a week and I have got the records right here. Anybody who wants to see them I have them right here.


A. Daniel McKenzie: And that record is about as phony as everything else on that side.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am looking at it now, Mr. Speaker, and I will show it to him any time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, we come back on the same plane every Sunday night. I am a five-day a week member.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We can check the record because you are never here.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, that is a red herring and obviously this member is nothing but a Liberal puppet. I have lost my place here now. Mr. Speaker, the government has let the Canadian people down, but rather than dwell on partisan matters I would like to say that we on this side of the House are not going to sit around complacently and allow the government to defeat itself without our offering positive and constructive alternatives for Canada. That would be doing the country a grave injustice. The Progressive Conservative party is going to be ready to form a government which will give leadership in every field, and a distinct alternative to the present government.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it would be a very positive sign if the government would repent and change, but we all know better. It will not do that, yet I know that in a short time Canadians will have the opportunity of restoring confidence and faith by joining their fellows from Ottawa-Carleton and St. John's West, giving Canada a Progressive Conservative government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre De Ban6 (Matane):: Mr. Speaker, I was very concerned about certain themes which were brought up during the debate by a good majority of members as well as by certain ministers. The first assertion that worried me is that which some members used to try to give a restrictive interpretation of the Official Languages Act. A great number of members- especially those who are English-speaking-and certain ministers said that the sole objective of this act was to allow citizens of this country, and particularly the francophones, to communicate in French with the federal government.

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. De Bane
If this is my reason for being here, I can assure you that this type of fight does not interest me in the least. Indeed, we must consider the fact that a mostly bilingual minority, especially the French-speaking group outside Quebec, will always have a tendency to use the language of the strongest group, particularly when this language corresponds to the real dynamics of the community, and it is not the offer of linguistic services which can go against what we can still call the basic law of economic means. There are those who want to weaken this law to the point of a caricature so as to allow us to communicate in French with the government and to receive a reply in French. It is certainly not worth it to fight for objectives so subtle and insignificant.
The second theme which has often been brought up concerns the inhuman implementation of the Official Languages Act. On this subject, I would like to recall that the implementation of the Official Languages Act was negotiated with the Public Service Alliance, the union which represents civil servants, and unless I am mistaken, I have not often heard the union complain about the implementation of the act, since it was done with its full agreement. On the other hand the commissioner of Official Languages himself has concluded after many investigations that if there are in fact some terrible examples of implementation, the percentage of such occurrences under this policy is really insignificant.
The other theme which was often touched upon concerns the fact that the implementation of this act has been much too rapid. I would like to quote a few figures to show that, since the statement made by the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson about 15 years ago, far from being rapid, advances concerning linguistic equality have been extremely slow. It is therefore useless to put on safety belts since everything is happening at a very slow pace.
In 1976 a mere 12 per cent of federal civil servants are working in their mother tongue which is French. If you look at French-speaking Canadians, there are six times as many- almost 75 per cent-who can work in their mother tongue. If we look at the National Capital area only 7 per cent of the positions require French proficiency while in this city which is supposed to reflect the language duality of our country, more than 66 per cent of the positions require English proficiency only.
In fact, according to a study made by the Treasury Board in 1975, the majority of French-speaking Canadians working in the National Capital area must do so in English. In the province of Quebec, more than 40 per cent of the positions require English proficiency. I am not even talking about French-speaking persons who must work exclusively in English in the province of Quebec, which is true for 12 per cent of those in the so-called technical category. Of course there is even worse: like the Air Canada repair workshop where the use of French has always been completely forbidden.

I wish to quote a few figures about the development of the situation in 1974 and two years later, that is today. At the Agriculture Department, in 1974 only 5.6 per cent of the management was French-speaking and today, in 1976, it is 5.3 per cent. At the Canadian Livestock Feed Board, the Francophones were 3.4 per cent in 1974 against 3.5 per cent today. In the Customs and Excise Division of National Revenue we held 26 per cent of management positions two years ago and today 20 per cent. In the Taxation Division 9.5 per cent of the management were French-speaking three years ago and, today, 6 per cent. In the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Department, 14.8 per cent of the management was Frenchspeaking in 1974 and today this figure has dropped to a mere 9 per cent. Two years ago the Communications Department included 10.9 per cent of French-speaking scientists and today they are even less than that. The Canadian Transportation Commission had 16 per cent of Francophones two years ago and today they have 14 per cent. At National Defence, the percentage of French-speaking employed in a managerial capacity was 4.3, now it is 4.2; to put it another way, out of 24 members of management there was only one French-speaking Canadian. In the Environment Department with 53 management positions two years ago, ten were held by French-speaking persons. Today there is one more Francophone and 11 Anglophones, so this obviously reduces substantially the percentage of French-speaking employees. At Energy, Mines and Resources, quite an important department, two years ago we had 24 English-speaking and two French-speaking members of management. Today the management of that department boasts 31 English-speaking and still only two French-speaking members. At the Department of External Affairs, there were eleven positions two years ago, one French-speaking employee; today, the situation is the same. At the Department of Finance, only two out of 27 management positions were held by French-speaking persons. Today the situation is exactly the same. At the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, French-speaking employees represent 13 per cent of the personnel. At the Department of Urban Affairs, they represented 18 per cent of management two years ago and they have now shrunk to 6 per cent.
The B and B Commission pointed out the limited involvement of French-speaking employees at the intermediate and higher levels of the public service, the almost exclusive use of English as a working language and the gradual acculturation of the French-speaking civil servants. And some dare say today, notwithstanding these public figures, that we are going too fast. So much for that when it comes to language equalit-yin Ottawa; I am just as concerned about the situation in the province of Quebec where, according to some members, French unilingualism is the order of the day.
A French-speaking person wishing to take up a career in major industry in Quebec faces a dilemma. He feels he will often have to choose between his own promotion and the gradual loss of his linguistic and cultural identity. Even more, this person deeply feels he is alienated.
October 21, 1976

More than half the managerial staff of large firms think that a French Canadian who succeeds in a big company should be more English than French. And the firms which are prepared to appoint French-speaking Canadians to key positions always require at least three conditions: the candidates must be perfectly fluent in English, they must accept to be transferred outside Quebec and they must carry out their activity exactly like their English-speaking fellow employees, that is they must think and act in English.
If we look at the average income derived from work by salaried people in Quebec according to the ethnic origin, we notice that French Canadians rank just above the natives. Even more, with equal instruction, French Canadians earn less than other groups. It is to French Canadians that education benefits the least and the gains they have when going from the elementary to the secondary and the university level are even less than those of other groups.
Inside large Canadian manufacturing industries, we see fewer and fewer French Canadians as we go up the hierarchy. In Montreal, French Canadians make up 60 per cent of the staff but only 17 per cent of the executive, which is of 83 per cent English speaking. Ninety per cent of Canadian immigrants in the Montreal region adopt English as their new Canadian language and send their children to English schools even though they live in a province and a city where French is the language of the majority.
When the French-speaking population will have dropped to the rank of a minority in what is the only French-speaking metropolis in North America, something which may happen at the turn of the century at the rate we are going, future prospects will be irreversibly jeopardized for the French-speaking community of North America. We cannot therefore think of French Canada's future without first solving this problem. The present solution is untenable in the long run because it entails the genocide of the French speaking people.
In Quebec, blue collar workers come from the local labour force but three quarters of the positions with an annual salary of over $25,000 are taken up by administrators with Englishspeaking background. In Quebec, with the exception of Montreal, 30 per cent of the executives are English and they hold 80 per cent of the higher ranking positions even though they represent only about 7 per cent of the labour force. More than 96 per cent of French-speaking executives are bound by contract to be bilingual, whereas half of the English-speaking employees are not compelled to know French.
The case is even worse in Montreal, where 86 per cent of the English-speaking persons earning more than $25,000 a year are unilingual. The B and B Commission has reported that the English-speaking minority in Quebec earned the highest wages in all of Canada. Nowhere else do English-speaking workers earn as much as in Quebec. As noted in the report of the commission on the status of the French language and linguistic rights in Quebec, a royal commission set up by the Quebec government under the chairmanship of Mr. Jean-Denis Gen-dron, and I quote:
The Address-Mr. De Bane
Even though they are relatively few in number, the English-speaking residents of Quebec succeed in giving their mother tongue a usage status equal in importance to that of French. The balance is in favour of English as soon as we consider the numerical importance of linguistic groups or note the appeal of this language for the third group.
And to quote the report of the same commission, on page 25 of the first volume:
It is nonetheless clear, according to our data, that the vast majority of English people in Quebec (660,000 out of 788,000) are not obliged to use French. We will get many other confirmations, but this first confirmation is significant for it is quite a good indication, on the numerical viewpoint, to what extent, in view of the public and private institution we have referred to, Anglophones can live together with Francophones without any contact with them. It is obvious then that francophones bear the cost of their language when the moment comes to set up the necessary contacts between both communities, particularly in labour relations.
Mr. Speaker, individually, within each generation since 1760, thousands of French Canadians join or try to join the English population of North America. In other Canadian provinces and in the United States, over two million are now totally integrated into the Anglo-American mass. Within the very borders of the province of Quebec, that individual assimilation process has been going on for two centuries, but with a great deal of difficulty, because French Canadians always made up and still make up the majority of the Quebec population. They always kept sight of the fact that they represent a community, a society, nay, a separate nation.
Now, the latter, as such, has been living a self-contained existence for three and a half centuries in the St. Lawrence Valley. We are beginning to realize both in French and English Canada that we must immediately give up our illusions of yester years. Canada will not be populated by a French-speaking majority as Quebec had long hoped for. On the other hand, the survival of French Canadians as a distinct community in Quebec is an accomplished fact. Any realistic policy must rest on the realization that two major groups or two nations now co-exist in Canada. Such is the wish of history.
The political philosophy of French-speaking people in Quebec is no longer that of a group who, having survived linguistically, would be contented with a minority status. Therefore two conclusions must be drawn: first, the need to put an end to the misconception on which the association of French- and English-speaking Canadians within confederation has been resting up to the present day and, second, the need to grant official recognition to the national rights of French Canadians.
Yielding to the will of the nation which had conquered the St. Lawrence Valley, the descendants of the vanquished in 1760 had to accept their fate as a minority group. The few concessions which their leaders gained concerning the use of French, the preservation of civil rights in Quebec and the protection of Catholic schools made this acceptance easier. It remains nevertheless that French Canadians were permanently reduced as a community to a subordinate position in the country built by the conquerors of 1760 and their heirs.
350

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. De Bane
Each time they were convinced by their leaders that their unfortunate condition was solely due to the ill will of a few English Canadian extremists. They were only too willing to believe that sooner or later all Canadians would show the same patriotism and have the same ideals. French Canadians thought that one day English Canada would no longer be English Canada. It seems that most of them thought that soon English Canadians would at last share their views.
Many French Canadians even believed for quite a long while that the community they belonged to was itself mainly if not solely responsible for their misfortunes. Supreme humiliation, the people who have been brought into subjection are generally inclined to feel they are themselves responsible for their unhappy fate and to accuse themselves publicly of loosing because they were not bold enough.
The time has come for English Canadians to realize that the French Canadians of Quebec will never be assimilated. On the contrary, since they have been better educated and better prepared for their modern tasks, French Canadians, far from giving up the fact that they want to live as a collectivity, a willingness that the former generations maintained with the few means they had, want to give it another dimension. The French-Canadian nation is buoying with new social, economic and political ideas. It is no longer a question of surviving, of building up a new human environment where it can fully develop and where it can offer to all its members all those possibilities of promotion which up to now had not existed.
To the worries and distress of most of the peoples of the earth in this era of violence, both physical and symbolical, we must add those of a people which strives for its survivance and its development. Now that it is fully self-conscious, it feels, deep in itself, that it must accomplish an uncommon destiny, but the conditions of this accomplishment are not always obvious.
For more than ten years, I have been involved in all the great battles which marked the life of Quebec in Ottawa. 1 passionately lived through the whole evolution of this linguistic and ethnic duality which claims to be the very essence of our great country. One day, the crisis bursts out, the blow is hard. The next day, you wake up all alone, disarmed, reduced to nothing, contemplating a national catastrophy in which all our hopes for unity and fraternity were destroyed. The national unity of Canada is now greatly threatened. It hurts, it really hurts when you see yourself a prisoner, unable to guide your own destiny, the prisoner of a play written in advance.
I realize more and more that our behaviour shows a false confidence, it contributes to create a situation which is in fact artificial because we try with all possible means to evade a sometimes unduly disturbing reality. Canada is built up of two different nations, cultures, languages. Consequently, unless we want the state to split up, it is very urgent that we recognize that socio-political reality and adapt to it quickly as long as it is still time.
From the cultural point of view, some want to subjugate the French-speaking Canadians by bringing the French-speaking majority of Quebec to the condition of the French-speaking

minorities in other provinces, where the differences of languages, laws, origins, traditions are not recognized as a sufficient basis to justify and preserve a real autonomy which at the same time could be legally and practically recognized in a constitution which would respect the sociological reality.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: I wonder why my colleague, who has a certain experience and knows the practice of the House, insists on reading his speech.


Mr. Duclos:: This is not a rare occurrence in the House!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, but we must listen and be objective. Some newly elected backbenchers still insist they are entitled to read their speeches.


Louis Duclos: This is not so!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Louis Duclos: This is not so! Why did the hon. member not rise earlier?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There may be standing orders, but they are antiquated. They are outdated. We should not read from notes in this House, but I believe this is done every day, and I would allow the hon. member from Matane to go on with his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Edmonton West on a point of order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I insist that the hon. member put his views forward without reading from notes. I have known him for a long time, and I insist that we shall have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Montmorency on a point of order.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I would simply remind the hon. member for Edmonton West that on both sides of this House we are on equal footing. Whether we have been elected in 1974, in 1972 or 1968, there should be no difference. I speak as much for my opposition colleagues who were elected in 1974 or 1972.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This has degenerated into a debate, and I do not believe there is a bona fide point of order on either side. I would therefore allow the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) to go on with his remarks.
October 21, 1976


Mr.   De Bane@: Such a constant attitude of wondering about one's destiny may be interpreted as a sign of good health. It is an indication in any case of a will to live, which is, of course, an essential condition for the survival of any community. However, there is the risk that it may dampen energies.
A community cannot wonder indefinitely about its identity and its destiny. It must hold on to a core of certainty, cling to certain answers. There is now a strong feeling that French Canada must make important options. It must take up difficult challenges, which requires a great deal of lucidity and courage. So, it has become obvious that French Canada cannot count on the support of Quebec or Canadian Anglophones. The latter are totally indifferent to the problems, unaware of their importance or unwilling to do so. They do not understand or pretend not to understand how vital the problem is to the whole French-Canadian community that barely makes up 2 per cent of the population in North America.
That is one of the reasons why I think the concept of a bilingual Canada is a faulty political solution to the cultural problems that must be posed in different terms. An analysis of the destiny of French Canada and English Canada in North America and their quest for identity finally always boils down to two national communities with close historical links pursuing their future in an independant way.
On the other hand, the French Canadian never feels at home in a English-Canadian nationalism, while the English-Canadi-an, particularly if he is a second generation Canadian of non-British origin, remains irremediably impervious to French-Canadian nationalism. I still believe that the only political formula likely to provide both national communities with the required relative autonomy and guarantee them the conditions of cultural self-determination would be to entrench in a new constitution the concept of two nations and their association in a renewed confederation.
We must be grateful to the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission in its preliminary and subsequent reports for not trying to conceal the fact that the Canadian reality is still from the ideal from which it draws its inspiration. In its preliminary report the Commission dealt plainly with the crisis and the increasing perils which threaten Canada. A main point emerged: the ambiguity of the Canadian ideal resulted in Canada being defined until now in different, and even contradictory terms. Francophones have traditionally insisted on Canadian duality, Anglophones on Canadian unity, ethnic minorities, integration or diversity. French Canadians believed in equality; English Canadians held up the concepts of majority and minority; the other ethnic groups hesitated between multiculturalism and complete assimilation. Quebecers make up a community whose majority is composed of-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Edmonton West on a point of order.
The Address-Mr. De Bane


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I insist on the fact that the hon. member for Matane does not have the right to read his speech in the House. It is a rule established long before the protesting hon. members opposite came here. Further, I insist so that the hon. member whose representations I respect-

The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) has no lesson to make to me.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) wants to interrupt me. I simply want to tell her that if she wants to quote us as an example, that is not a reason to disregard the Standing Orders. If she means that the hon. member for Matane or the Chair insist that we should have in this place prepared speeches on all occasions, then we have the Standing Orders. The assistant whip of the Liberal party can say in his lack of knowledge that we have the right to use and abuse speeches prepared by some researchers. If the hon. member for Matane-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member for Matane-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member has set forth his views. In Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 144, it is said that hon. members cannot read a prepared speech in the House. He can quote some notes from time to time and the Chair had the impression that the hon. member was doing so. If he reads from a speech, I hope he will simply follow his notes and continue his speech, but he should not read it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I make a comment Mr. Speaker? The hon. member did not make any correction-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not make a single correction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) on a point of order.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I Find the points being made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) to be phony.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: It is absolutely phony for that member to get up in the House and comment upon a member on the opposite side reading his speech when we witnessed a whole line of Tories reading their speeches this afternoon.
80001-231^

October 21, 1976
The Address-Mr. De Bane


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the hon. member that he take the beam out of his own party's eye before he starts taking the speck out of somebody else's eye.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This from the greatest reader in the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) rises on a question of privilege.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I feel that since I have been attacked here, and other backbenchers who have only been here one term are attacked-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Two terms.


Simma Holt: One term, two sessions. Mr. Speaker, it is wrong that we are insulted here. Maybe it is time there was new blood in this House; the old blood is running tired.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to curb their remarks and let the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) continue his speech.
[ Translation]
Mr. De Bank Quebecers make up a community whose majority is composed of francophone Canadians. This Community has its own history, its own institutions, its own culture, its own way of life, its own values and its members are linked by unbreakable ties. We can therefore talk about a Quebec society or a Quebec nation. Each Canadian province has indeed its own people which differ from those of the next, but it is only in Quebec that it is possible to find a nation, in the sociological sense of the word. Whether we like it or not, Quebecers see themselves as Quebecers first, Canadians second. There are of course other nations in Canada, the Eskimos, the Indians. It is not the existence of a Quebec nation which is questioned here, but the principle whether every nation has the right to be necessarily independent, without consideration for any other nation.
The people from Quebec have always been nationalists. Before the sixties, Quebec nationalism was rather conservative, arising largely from a defence reflex and from an insecurity feeling which we must not be ashamed of. Any people in the world in the same situation as Quebecers would have behaved in a similar way. As for the new nationalism, its history is still too recent to enable us to place a final label on it. However, it seems much more dynamic than before, more open, in a word, more positive. One thing is certain, it is here to stay. All those who think that the mixing of ideas and initiatives which has taken and is still taking place in Quebec is a temporary phenomenon are making a big mistake.
We do not argue that each Quebecer as an individual is clearly aware of all those differences we are trying to emphasize. We do not contend either that all Quebecers unanimously agree on political measures to take. On the contrary, there are

considerable differences of opinion. This is quite normal. However, the fact is that the Quebec society represents a separate entity and gradually, it understands that its full development requires a certain freedom and the presence of psychological conditions which are not present now.
One can always argue, through ignorance or to alleviate one's conscience, that within the present constitutional framework Quebec can act almost as it wants in areas under its jurisdiction and that it rests with it to assume all its responsibilities. This line of thinking, which reassures those who are concerned about possible changes, is deceitful. It is only true for legislative matters which undoubtedly are and have always been recognized by everybody as being under the exclusive jurisdiction of the province.
We are confronted by the following situation. On one hand, the Quebec society wants to assert its authority, find its identity, do what it wants within the Canadian framework. This movement is not only powerful but it is here for good. On the other hand, the basic law of the land, that is the Constitution, which' should normally determine the rules of the game and to which we should be able to refer to whenever there is a dispute, is outdated, inappropriate, both in its form and its content and above all, it entirely ignores the existence of a distinct Quebec society.
As I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks with the following quote from Arnold Toynbee:
If a generally happy future awaits humanity, then I willingly predict that there is hope, in the old world for the Chinese . . .
Mr. Speaker, I think that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think we should give the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) the opportunity to finish his remarks.
Mr. De Bank Mr. Speaker, I shall refrain from using unparliamentary language. No, let us continue to overlook what has just been said.
And now to go back to Arnold Toynbee. He said, and I quote:
If a generally happy future awaits humanity, then I willingly predict that there is hope, in the old world for the Chinese, in the island of North America for the French Canadians. Whatever the future holds for humanity in North America, I am almost sure that those French-speaking Canadians, at all events, will still be there when the adventure comes to a close.
No matter how one envisages the Quebec fact, one realizes that there is no other solution for that people but to continue to endure and fight for its survival.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time is over.
October 21, 1976


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that these notes I have here are just to be of psychological assistance to what will be an extemporaneous speech.
First, I join with my colleagues in congratulating the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He didn't read that.


William Herbert Jarvis: Second, Sir, I extend my sincere congratulations to you. I hope that we, your colleagues in this House, will be the benefactors of your wisdom, good nature, and understanding during the second session of the present parliament.


John R. Rodriguez: He didn't read that, either.


William Herbert Jarvis: I am all right so far, John. Third, I extend good wishes to the newly appointed Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), who is combining that responsibility with the responsibility for fisheries. I came to know him when he was minister of state responsible for fisheries. I enjoyed that association and certainly respect and admire him. 1 particularly wanted to say that, because I think what I said reflects the views of most members of this House. More important, much of what I shall say tonight, and I shall confine my remarks mostly to the environment, could be interpreted by some as a personal attack on the minister. That is certainly not my intention. I wish to make that very clear.
I deplore the appointment of a minister responsible for both fisheries and the environment. The combination of these two responsibilities is, in my view, and the view of members in all parties, I believe, a regressive step. It is retrograde, that is, it is a step backward, not forward. I believe that this regression is emphasized when a government appoints a former minister of state responsible for fisheries as Minister of Fisheries and the Environment because, immediately, there is a perceptual problem. It is this. Such a minister will be perceived as being preoccupied with those responsibilities concerning fisheries, to the detriment of the challenging problems concerning his environmental responsibilities. He will be perceived in that light, accurately, I suggest, by many in this country. The jobs are conflicting ones, by their very nature. The hon. member opposite from the west coast should know that because, of all provinces of this country, British Columbia ought to be most concerned about the preservation of its delicate environment.
What I am tempted to say, at least in a moral sense, is that there is a conflict of interest. But I shall content myself with saying this: these two interests, fisheries and the environment, often by their nature are in an adversary position. How then can these interests be served adequately by one minister?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself has been known to say, for example, with respect to the departments of agriculture and consumer and corporate affairs, that the adversary approach is a welcome one and healthy one. I have no quarrel
The Address-Mr. Jarvis
with that statement but I would be interested in knowing how the right hon. gentleman could justify the combination of responsibilities for fishermen and for environmentalists under one minister as acceptable, welcome or healthy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He misjudges the people of Canada.


William Herbert Jarvis: I personally was not content to have a minister of state for fisheries on the one hand, and a minister of the environment on the other, within the same department. Although I may not have been content, at least that situation was far better than the present situation whereby one minister exercises dual responsibilities. Therefore I say to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I reject categorically the wisdom of this particular appointment, without any reflection whatever on the hon. member who at present is undertaking these responsibilities.
I believe the opportunity to serve both interests has been weakened, and weakened seriously. I suggest again, because it demands our emphasis, that the present minister, because of his previous responsibilities, is perceived as being more preoccupied with fisheries than with the environment.
The problem is much more serious than a merely perceptual one. As is well known, the party for which I speak tonight has long adopted the position-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member is wearing his glasses.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the intervention of the member from British Columbia with respect to the environment.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, I regret rising on a point of order because the hon. member is making a favourite kind of speech, but just a few minutes ago a former Speaker of this House made a great scene in the House. The hon. member opposite had to put on his glasses to read his speech. The hon. member on my side already wore glasses.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to assure the hon. member that, if I could, I would wear contact lenses; and if that would offend the hon. member less I would make every effort to do that.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, nothing was said to the hon. member opposite, yet the hon. member made it impossible for us to hear the speech made by the hon. member on my side-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the Chair gave ample time to the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) to finish his speech. Perhaps hon. members will afford the same courtesy to the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis).


William Herbert Jarvis: I thank the hon. member for her intervention. I was about to quote the Prime Minister. I hope she will not object-because I would hate to misquote him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It's impossible to paraphrase the guy.

The Address-Mr. Jarvis


William Herbert Jarvis: For some years it has been the position of my party that not only should there be two separate ministers fulfilling these responsibilities, but that there should be two departments, distinct and separate, one for fisheries, and one for the environment. We repeat that position. We see no reason at all to change our position in this regard. We made our views known some years ago and events since then have only reinforced our belief, namely, that this is a proper and justifiable position.
It is apparent to us that the government is either unaware of the basic difference of these two departments or, in the alternative, is so completely indifferent to their individual importance that it chooses to reject the national and international implications connected with the operations of these two units of the government.
Surely one need not be an expert to appreciate that the nature of Fisheries is economic, social, and even cultural. On the other hand, one does not need great perceptual insight to appreciate that with respect to the environment we are dealing basically with scientific research. By their very nature, activities concerning Fisheries and the environment should be distinct and separate from each other. In ignoring this fact the government has undoubtedly weakened both sectors, at a time, unhappily, when both should have been strengthened.
One might say that combining these two activities under one minister is justiFied in terms of restraint. If the government had so ordered its economic priorities as to indicate some justiFication for this uniFication of function that would have been fine. But those priorities have not been made known; they have not been forthcoming. It seems to me that, in the absence of such justification, and having regard to the size of the present cabinet, such alleged restriction in government spending can only be an excuse for this combination, not a reason. Only the government's unwillingness to embark on progressive action and to undertake its responsibilities in the Fields of fisheries and the environment has led it along this course.
If I have time I shall return to this topic and deal with the very structure of the department. At the moment I want to deal with what the Speech from the Throne had to say about the environment. I suppose hon. members opposite would be only too happy if I said absolutely nothing about the topic, because that is exactly what the Speech from the Throne said-nothing. It said absolutely nothing about the environment. We heard of the necessity to place further emphasis on research and development of renewable energy resources, but nothing about measures to regulate exploration and development on federal lands. Again, no mention whatsoever was made of environmental concerns. Yes, we did hear about native peoples' land claims in the James Bay region, but nothing about environmental concerns in that important region. We even heard about our international responsibilities in terms of environmental protection, but nothing about our national responsibilities-and all this from a government which has professed over the years to be concerned about our environment.
In the throne speech of September, 1968, the government talked about the broad importance of the problem of pollution. In October, 1969, in his speech following the throne speech of that year, the Prime Minister spoke about the increasing concern with regard to the environment, about the ruthless destruction of a landscape and the useless pollution of air and water. He spoke of determination to overcome noise, noxious fumes, and the pollution from industrial waste, and said:
First of all, we will never sacrifice, in the name of progress, a clean and healthy environment to industrial or commercial development.
The year 1970 was a vintage year for the environment. The Speech from the Throne had this to say:
Pollution is a many-headed hydra and requires action in many forms. You will be asked to consider bills intended to deal with pollution in two of its aspects: in the ocean and in the atmosphere. More pressing than any single step or steps, however, is the need to co-ordinate and consolidate our efforts in an effective fashion. There will be proposed the establishment of a department to be concerned with the environment and the husbanding of those renewable resources that are a part of and dependent upon it.
This was welcome news for the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) who then was leader of the opposition.
The then minister of fisheries was absolutely glowing on October 15, 1970, when he said:
Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words this afternoon about the establishment of a new Department of Environmental Affairs, and I should like to say at the outset that shaping our Canadian environment is the biggest challenge we face in the 1970's. It is a bigger challenge than unemployment. It is a bigger challenge than inflation. It is a bigger issue than pensions or skyjacking or the FLQ. To many Canadians it is a bigger challenge than all of our financial and social problems put together.
It was the first minister of the environment who said that exactly six years ago last week. Since then it has been all downhill. In 1972 there was just passing reference made. In
1973	there was one brief reference in the throne speech. In
1974	the only reference was a wish to enhance the environment of cities and towns. In September, 1974, there was an almost seeming obsession with the environment. We had an overwhelming two sentences in the throne speech devoted to this subject.
If we need to look for any further evidence of the government's disinterest in the Department of the Environment we have only to realize that there have been four ministers in 24 months. Nothing in this government changes more than ministers of the environment, except economic policy. Therefore one can hardly be surprised at the lack of policy direction which results from this constant changing at the ministerial level.
This is all the more tragic when one appreciates that the Department of the Environment appeared to have been created in 1970 in an air of responsibility, concern, and even optimism. For the first time we recognized the inter-relationships among water, air and soil pollution. For the first time we acknowledged the importance of environmental considerations in planning government programs.
The Prime Minister on October 9, 1970, said that the new department was intended, and I quote:

October 21, 1976

-to bring under the direction of a single minister the principal government activities relating to environmental quality in general, and pollution in particular.
Six years ago Canadians believed we were on the right track and the government was indeed concerned about this problem. I take no satisfaction in saying that perhaps the creation of the Department of the Environment was really little more than another of the Prime Minister's intellectual daydreams or, perhaps more accurately, his reaction to the situation in the 1960's when environmental concerns were the fashion of the day, a fad, an emotional reaction, and sometimes even overreaction in the sixties, mainly by young people and community activists who found a convenient and sometimes temporary cause, who found activities that were attractive to the media and politicians alike. I do not say this unkindly because it was their idealism and enthusiasm and vigor that gave birth to the environmental movement of today. However, a decade later the same situation does not exist and the government, with a great sigh of relief, says to itself well, thank heavens, we need not worry about environment any more.
What the government has failed to realize is that environmental concerns have not gone away. They have, in a short ten years, matured remarkably. Community groups, instead of fishing rubber boots out of rivers, are working with research scientists in our universities. Whole new faculties of environmental sciences have sprung up. Protest marchers of the sixties now prepare educational video tapes, and work quietly but effectively with our school children, service clubs, and so on.
Pollution protest rallies have been replaced by national and international environment seminars. Pollution protesters have become planners, and I commend them for it. May I give two examples.
In my riding of Perth-Wilmot an environmental group formed by students at Northwestern Secondary School is involved in the concerns resulting from the planning of new hydro lines and highways.
On a national scale I point out the Canadian Wildlife Federation which, ten years ago, with a two-man staff, preoccupied itself with writing protest letters and briefs to elected representatives. Today that federation, at the national level in research staff alone has a staff of eight, including a biologist, an environmental scientist, and an economist, all with high academic credentials. In addition they have an impressive inventory of research people and are now preoccupied with the environmental planning process. They are able to challenge professional scientific reports on such difficult subjects as the MacKenzie Valley pipeline and the Garrison dam.
It is tragic that the government has not matured along with those it purports to represent.
I might mention that this department must preoccupy itself with environmental concerns. A few of these, in no particular order of priority, are coastal ocean petroleum drilling, shipping and the handling of hazardous cargo, environmental protection of the north, protection of the ozone layer and other atmospheric concerns, water quality and quantity problems, and nuclear waste disposal. Other challenges are found in the
Adjournment Debate
department's relationship to other governmental bodies, such as other departments and other governments.
In offshore drilling, for example, we find Energy, Mines and Resources responsible in areas south of the sixtieth parallel; Indian and Northern Affairs responsible north of sixty; provincial governments likely responsible within three or 12 miles off our coasts, and federal responsibility beyond these limits.
In terms of its responsibility with regard to relationships with provincial governments, the conflicts and the problems are limitless. At the federal level maybe we have assumed too much responsibility, for historic reasons which now have disappeared. Now certainly should be the occasion for this department to have the time and resources to examine whether other governments, particularly provincial governments, should become more active, or may indeed wish a more vital role in environmental matters.
There is one other matter. No department could welcome more the freedom of information policy than the Department of the Environment. I commend them in terms of the Beaufort report which they released to concerned municipalities. It would bring great credit to this department if they would pursue such a policy without the compulsion of the proposed legislation.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is a challenge to be faced in terms of the difficulties of melding what have been essentially individual approaches to particular resource issues into major environmental objectives and then fitting these objectives into national priorities.
I suggest to the new minister that this department need not of necessity be a homogeneous totally inter-related department. Some of the structural changes that I see in the department, in my judgment are not healthy and are not functioning well. I would point out to him as one approach that instead of looking for a homogeneous inter-related department, he might investigate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


William Herbert Jarvis: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



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

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have at my disposal I want to demonstrate for the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) that I

October 21, 1976
Adjournment Debate
am about to speak extemporaneously without the aid of mirrors or eyeglasses. I will try to make a point in which she will be very interested, that is, the question which I raised on October 15 with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) in regard to faciliting the appointment of women as directors of chartered banks in Canada. I see my friend has stayed and will give me moral and actual support in the particular representation which I made to the Minister of Finance at that time.
The minister indicated in his response, in a positive but rather general way, that he would be giving some consideration to an amendment to the Bank Act which would allow women to be elected more easily as directors of our chartered banks. He also referred to the fact the amendments might also make it easier for other people in our country to become bank directors.
I see the parliamentary secretary is here representing the minister. I want to bring to his attention some information which he may in fact be possessed of already, but which I alluded to in my question.
A study was sponsored by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and the Canadian Bankers' Association, and prepared by Marianne Bossen, entitled "Employment in Chartered Banks: 1969-1975." In 1975, 122,572 men and women were employed by all branches of the chartered banks in Canada. At least 72 per cent of these employees were women. Marianne Bossen reports that the position of women in the banking industry has improved both quantitatively and qualitatively since 1969. This is principally because of the rapid expansion of the banking industry in those years.
According to this study, some banks have introduced more enlightened policies and the measure of responsibility given to women at every level has increased. Be that as it may, the study notes that in 1975 no women earned more than $30,000 a year, whereas 442 men did; only three women earned more than $20,000, while 1,279 men did; 32 per cent of the women employed earned between $6,000 and $6,900, while 73 per cent of them earned less than $8,000.
The other statistic 1 should bring to the attention of the House is this: as of October, 1976, six women hold corporate directorships in chartered banks compared with a total of 220 men who are directors of Canada's five big chartered banks.
My colleague, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), who is the spokesman for our party on the status of women, has this session brought forward a private member's bill which would have the effect of repealing subsection (2) of section 18 of the Bank Act thereby removing the necessity for a bank director to hold a prohibitively costly amount of stock in order to qualify. This is really the nub of the problem. The removal of that subsection would democratize directorships of the chartered banks, and I believe it is not asking too much to urge the government to consider bringing in the necessary amendment. The government would find all the opposition parties agreeable to making a quick disposition of the legislation.
I hope the minister and the government will not wait until the white paper on banking has been considered and we go through the whole rather tedious and lengthy process of considering revisions to the Bank Act now that the ten-year period has expired. I see the parliamentary secretary is ready to stand up and say that this amendment will be brought in during the present session. At least I hope that this will be the case.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, representations in favour of the bill to which the hon. member referred have not come only from the other side of the House. I am glad to tell the hon. member that similar representations have come from this side of the House, as well as from officials responsible for advising on the status of women.
The advancement of the status of women is a major goal of the government, as has already been shown in many ways. Laws which discriminated against women have been changed. A human rights code has been proposed to afford recourse to women when they are the victims of discrimination in areas where the federal authority can reach. As to the deplorable statistics about banks which the hon. member put on record, I am glad to remind him that banks are under federal jurisdiction and that this human rights code will cover banks. I hope the code will receive rapid passage.
I am not proud to remind the House that in 1970, when the Royal Commission on the Status of Women made its recommendations, there was only one woman in the SX category of the Canadian public service. But today there are 30. This has been the result of positive action to give women a fair chance. In order in Council appointments, women have also begun to get the recognition that simple justice requires.
The government has also campaigned actively to change public attitudes which have been a large factor in holding women back. How far the public attitude has progressed was shown by the genuine and healthy outrage felt toward the dinosaur attitudes of some conservative bankers. To their credit the bankers have quickly learned something of the consequences of writing off half of our population as possible directors of banks. The Canadian people simply will not accept rationalizations for the absence of women from bank boards.
The white paper on banking legislation proposes specific qualifications for directors in line with the general corporate law, and this may obviate the need for substantial, direct financial interest in a bank by its directors. This will help to open the door to many capable women who cannot now qualify. As the minister said in the House, we are ready to look at the question as the new legislation proceeds.


SOCIAL SECURITY-RECIPROCITY OF PENSIONS BETWEEN CANADA AND CERTAIN COUNTRIES-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because of an unsatisfactory answer that I received to a question that I asked today about amendments in the proposed old age security bill.
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.)
October 21, 1976


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean yesterday.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yesterday. I should like to put on the record a bit of the history of this bill. On April 14 the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) announced that he was going to bring in legislation that would enable us to have reciprocity of pensions between Canada and some western European countries, including the United Kingdom. On October 13, as soon as parliament resumed, my hon. friend from Hamilton West asked the minister when he was going to bring in the bill affecting, among other things, residency and reciprocal agreements affecting persons who have earned pensions overseas. The answer then, believe it or not, was as follows, as reported at page 19 of Hansard:
The bill is being drafted and I hope I will be able to table it in the House for first reading in the next few months.
Those are the words of the Minister of National Health and Welfare on October 13, almost exactly the same words as he used when on April 14 he was boasting that he was going to bring in this bill in the next few months.
This caused me to ask my later question about the bill, and it also caused me to include this subject in my speech on October 15 when I pointed out that, according to the minister, he said that the project had been discussed with his colleagues, if he remembered well, at the last federal-provincial conference held in June and no objection was made to the project either at the June conference or afterwards. He went on to say that consequently he thought we could undertake with confidence a study of this project.
As the days go by and the situation gets worse, not only does he not have the bill ready but the minister is talking about having a study of the project made. This is a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker. If one considers the twin devils of inflation and devaluation, particularly so far as people who came here from Britain a few years ago are concerned, one can realize the desperate circumstances in which they find themselves today.
I had some research on this subject done today and I should like to point out the following. A couple who came to Canada in 1965 on a pension of 100 pounds sterling a month would have drawn a cheque worth $301. The cost of living then stood at 80 in the consumer price index. Today that same pension cheque would be worth $161, barely half what it was worth in 1965, and cost of living on the same scale has gone from 80 to 150. This means that this couple would be able to buy only one third of the items they were able to buy 11 years ago.
What have these people done to deserve a fate like that? These are the very people that we maintain are the rockbed of our society, people who saved to pay into a pension plan so they could comfortably survive in their old age. What have we done to them? We have taken away two-thirds of the value of their pension.
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and I have been writing letters to the Minister of National Health and Welfare about this subject since the first day we came to the House. We have received nothing but procrastination and put-offs from him. First he blamed the British for not making their pensions convertible. Both the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and myself wrote and asked the British government what was the holdup. The reply we received indicated that the holdup had resulted because the Canadian government was dragging its feet on this matter.
Let me go back to this set of tables to point out what has happened in the last four years since we came to parliament. Some four years ago this mythical couple had an income of $263 a month when the cost of groceries was $106. In only four years their cheques have decreased from $263 to $161, while the cost of their groceries has increased from $106 to $150. The cost of groceries has gone up about 50 per cent while the pension has gone down something like one third. It is absolutely impossible for these people to go on this way.
I was taken in on April 14 by the minister. I believed he was going to bring this legislation in, as he said, in a few months. We had a summer recess of a few months and it should have been the most simple thing in the world to get the bill ready. Now the minister says the bill is being drafted. I thought it was being drafted on April 14. When I was questioned by my constituents I said I trusted and believed the minister and thought the bill would be in probably the day we got back to parliament. Instead the government has spent the summer drafting a bill to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. That is apparently the priority of the government, not the senior citizens, Or the people trying to exist on pensions that have been cut in half at a time when food costs have increased 50 per cent.
The government is apparently very much concerned about spending its time contemplating the bill on historic sites and monuments, which was given first reading today, whereas the bill in respect of pensions, according to the minister, is being drafted, had he hopes to be able to introduce it in the House for first reading in the next few months.
Can the parliamentary secretary give any hope to these people that this year, perhaps before Christmas, they will be able to get a pension equivalent to the one they were getting when they came to this country ten years ago?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for this question. I think we all share the desire to get this thing out of the way. I do not think I can give him the assurance that it will be out of the way by Christmas, but I can certainly assure him that it will be within a few months, perhaps shortly after Christmas.
In announcing on April 14 the government's intention to amend the Old Age Security Act the minister indicated that one of its effects would be to enhance Canada's ability to enter into international social security agreements. As the act now
358

October 21, 1976
Adjournment Debate
stands it does not provide for international agreements, yet the several countries which have expressed an interest in having reciprocal social agreements with Canada have all insisted that the OAS program be included in such agreements alongside the Canada Pension Plan. This has complicated the whole issue.
It follows, therefore, that the negotiation of such agreements cannot be undertaken until the proposed legislation amending the Old Age Security Act has been enacted by parliament. I would add that, taken as a whole, the proposals formulated by other countries to date cover the whole field of social security as understood in Europe. In the Canadian context, international agreements could, therefore, involve programs which come under provincial jurisdiction, such as workmen's compensation and hospital and medical care insurance. Hon. members will be happy, therefore, to know that considerable progress has been made both in the drafting of the amendments to the OAS Act and in the necessary interdepartmental and federal-provincial consultations.
Several hon. members, both orally and in writing, have requested an indication of those countries likely to be involved in such negotiations. Our tendency would be to negotiate first with those countries which have been pressing Canada for agreements-the United Kingdom, Italy and the United States-since the highest number of potential beneficiaries residing in Canada would be covered by agreements with those countries.
France also might be included in this list, having shown some interest. I wish to emphasize, however, as the minister did in the House on April 14, that Canada is prepared, in due course, to enter into agreements with all interested countries whenever this is in the interests of Canada and of residents of Canada. In conclusion, I hope that within the next few months this bill will be proposed and will be put through the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not next week?


SEARCH AND RESCUE-DATE OF TABLING REPORT OF TASK FORCE-REQUEST FOR IMPROVEMENT IN OPERATION OF SERVICE
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, it is nice to note that there are two members on the government side here tonight. My topic concerns the unfortunate and tragic loss of 13 seamen some 60 miles off the southeast coast of Newfoundland and the slow reaction in response to the distress call of the motor vessel Gabriella, which prompted my question yesterday, along with that of my colleague from St. John's East. We request again, in addition to the many representations we made during the last session, that our air search and rescue capability be expanded and, more specifically, that elements of the force be deployed to the province of Newfoundland.
For too many months now we have been hearing the same answers from the minister. On December 5, 1975,4he minister related to me in a letter that the review of the national search

and rescue policy had been completed and that the necessary implementation documents were being prepared in consultation with the Department of National Defence, and that he expected that the revised policy would be ready for submission to Cabinet in April of 1976 following approval by himself and his colleague, the Minister of National Defence.
Then in April of this year it was noted in the minister's release that a Canadian coastguard task force had reviewed the national search and rescue policy and that the revised policy was expected to be ready for submission to cabinet by mid-1976. But here we are in late October, with winter upon us, and no progress, while we are concerned that a repeat of last year's incidents are imminent.
I realize that the implementation of a co-ordinated operation order must be thought out carefully. I realize also that the funding required for the expanded responsibility both in hardware and manpower will be immense. But I say as strongly as I can that there is no reason why part of the force capability cannot be deployed closer to the action. Notwithstanding the minister's reply that the coastguard facilities could not be everywhere awaiting an accident, which would be impossible, surely the almost five-hour period of reaction time from the mainland in the lastest incident, and similar experiences last year, would suggest that attention should be given to the stationing of helicopters in the province of Newfoundland.
Certainly when we consider that we are talking about lives, even with the argument that it would not be of any advantage to have an air search and rescue presence in Newfoundland, it is worth a try for at least a year to see what the result would be. Certainly the stationing of a crew in western central and eastern Newfoundland is worth while if it could prevent the loss of lives. I note the following statement in the minister's release:
It has become evident that, in spite of the provision of additional resources, facilities and co-ordination capabilities over the years, the marine search and rescue organization is no longer adequate.
I hope the minister will discuss this with his colleague responsible for the Department of National Defence.
Time does not permit me to go into detail about the coastguard sea rescue capability but I am interested in an item in the release which states that one of the areas which will receive immediate attention is that dealing with a proposed voluntary coast guard auxiliary and that implementation guidelines would be available this summer. Here we are in October and there are no implementation guidelines.
I should like to make a suggestion to the parliamentary secretary to give to his minister. I think it is worthy of consideration and will have some merit in the planning.
The nature of Newfoundland lends itself to sea orientation, and I suggest that the minister should consider the establishment of an adjunct to the coast guard college to train our youth for careers in the coast guard to supplement the permanent establishment which will be created and, what is more important, to provide employment in line with the job creation

thrust that is due to be announced. More than adequate accommodation is available-it was left to the province by the United States air force-as well as more than adequate classroom space, and all the other infrastructure support that is required. I understand, after checking with the staffing officer at the coast guard college, that they received far more applications than they have vacancies.
I hope the minister will consider this suggestion in line with the expansion of the coast guard, and I hope I will receive a positive response to my proposal for the immediate tabling of the task force report by the Canadian coast guard, and immediate consideration to deploy elements of air search and rescue in Newfoundland so as to ensure that the proper precautions will be taken to alleviate the situation, and proper action will be taken to prevent accidents from occurring in the future.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I must say in opening my remarks that I appreciate the opportunity that I have tonight to reply to the comments made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). This first late tete-a-tete for this session will be followed, I am quite sure, by a number of similar occasions in the months ahead.
In reply to the question raised by the member opposite may I, Mr. Speaker, very clearly repeat the response given twice
Adjournment Debate
thus far in this session by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the first time in reply to a question put to him on Monday, October 18, in the House by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and the second just yesterday in reply to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. The minister indicated very definitely that an announcement was imminent in regard to the Canadian Coast Guard and search and rescue.
One must appreciate that because of fiscal decisions which are taking place, and the resulting decisions in terms of improved equipment and its location, the hon. member should bear with us and await the announcement that has been promised.
Again in the case of deployment of search and rescue forces I want to give the same assurance that was given by the Minister of Transport that it is our intention to deploy our search and rescue resources in the places where they are going to be most useful.
In conclusion I should like to congratulate the hon. member who raised the question, and I want to assure him that the government will give full consideration to his suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80001-24^

Friday, October 22, 1976