1976-06-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, which has to do with the latest issue by Canada Post of a philatelic description of postage stamps commemorating the 1976 Olympic games. In this one, as in other similar pamphlets issued earlier, Queen Elizabeth The Second of Canada is not mentioned. The reference to the opening of the Olympic games is, and I quote, "The Head of State normally declares the games open". This is another example of the way in which the Queen is being by-passed, and corresponds with some recent speeches made by the Prime Minister in which he refers to her as Queen of England, a gratuitous injustice to her, and contempt of the provisions of the Constitution and of Parliament, of which she is an integral part. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House views with deep concern the manner in which the Trudeau government is endeavouring to undermine the position the Queen occupies as Queen of Canada by avoiding any mention of her.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that projected government spending is $700 million more than last year with an estimated deficit of $5 billion at a time when the government is calling for
restraint and in light of the fact that the former Minister of Finance, John Turner, was instrumental in developing during his term this fiscal mismanagement which has no precedent in the annals of handling public finance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House instruct Mr. John Turner to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to account for and explain his mismanagement of public funds.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can only be presented with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that we are negotiating a deal with West Germany for the Leopard tank which involves an expenditure of some $150 million, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Went-worth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That the minister investigate the feasibility of building our own tank in Canada, which could reduce unemployment as well as instill a little self-confidence and pride in Canadians, and that we name this new Canadian built tank "The Beaver".


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED MASTER PLAN FOR PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY TO EASTERN CANADA- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Robert J. Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an urgent and pressing matter pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the sharing of the electric power product of generating facilities using renewable resources and lowest cost fuels is an urgent need for all Canadian consumers, and whereas the Atlantic provinces and Quebec have tremendous unused potential
95570-5%

June 9, 1976
Oral Questions
development sites for power and industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be directed to contact representatives of each of the government of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces and work with them in a spirit of co-operation to produce a master plan for the production, transmission and distribution of electric power and energy at the lowest possible cost in an eastern Canadian power pool.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM ICELAND
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before proceeding to the oral question period I wonder if I might ask hon. members to permit me to call attention to the presence in our gallery of a distinguished delegation from Iceland led by their most distinguished Speaker of the Upper House, Mr. Speaker Kristjansson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister has announced that a 200 mile limit would come into effect by January 1, 1977. In light of this statement of intent, why has not more been done to reach agreement with the provinces over the ownership of the resources on the seabed and in the subsoil, so that oil and gas companies might be encouraged to increase their exploration activity in these areas? Will the minister make a statement of government policy concerning this matter in the House in the near future?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question of negotiations between the federal government and the provinces with respect to the off-shore resources is not directly under my department, but I will draw the attention of the Prime Minister to it.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: According to Ambassador Beesley who is Canada's major negotiator at the perennial Law of the Sea Conference, we do not have the ships, the planes or the manpower to do the necessary patrol work in a 200 mile area. In light of this criticism I should like to ask the minister what steps the government is planning to take to remedy this inexcusable shortfall in equipment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I will have to speak to Ambassador Beesley.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED RESEARCH IF FISHERIES ZONE EXTENDED 200 MILES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the same minister. The Minister of Fisheries in his address to ICNAF yesterday recognized that a massive surveillance effort is required and also that our budget for research should be doubled or trebled. This is something which has been pointed out to both ministers in the past. I wonder if the minister would indicate what the position of the government is with regard to a co-ordination of effort on the massive area Canada will have to protect, provide surveillance for and patrol. In addition, what are the intentions of the government coincidentally with the establishment of the 200 mile fishing limit with regard to doubling and trebling our research effort?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I made my statement giving the government's decision to extend our jurisdiction, the main element in the protection of our fisheries zone would be the consent and the acquiescence of other states which normally fish in what will be Canadian waters. In the absence of that consent, acceptance or acquiescence there would be very little effect derived from surveillance activities, as has been demonstrated in other cases. Because we have worked out, through bilateral negotiations with other countries, arrangements which will respect our jurisdiction, we believe that the surveillance role, while important, does not assume the same importance as the acquiescence of the other countries.
As I understand the arrangements under the system of extended jurisdiction, foreign vessels fishing in the Canadian economic zone would be there under licence from the government of Canada. It seems to me that the possibility of losing that licence should act as a very strong deterrent from infringing any of the Canadian regulations, and I believe it will be possible under that kind of regime to enforce Canadian jurisdiction. I should repeat what I have already said, that there has been at work within the government a task force preparing for the time when Canada will exercise its jurisdiction, and plans are being made to ensure that surveillance and enforcement can be carried out.

June 9, 1976


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON PLANS TO PATROL EXTENDED FISHERIES ZONE
Jack Marshall: agree with the minister that acquiescence would be the solution to the problem. However, in view of the fact that in the past, even with the ICNAF quotas agreed to by foreign nations-and I hesitate to mention particularly Russia, which ignored all the quotas it agreed to-I wonder if the minister would now be prepared, as I asked in my motion yesterday, to make a statement on motions with regard to this interdepartmental committee and with regard to what the actions of the committee are, and would he have referred to a combined committee of those departments responsibility to discuss the matter in order to get an agreement on Canada's position for the future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think it would be a good idea, at the appropriate time, to make a statement giving the House all the relevant information on the plans which have been put in place to enforce and patrol waters under Canadian jurisdiction, and I would consider doing that, probably not this session, but I or my colleague the Minister of State (Fisheries) may do it early in the new session.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment regarding reports that Great Canadian Oil Sands of Fort McMurray, Alberta is pumping 400,000 gallons per day of waste from its tailings into the Athabasca River despite the fact that its permit to operate requires it to keep its tailings in self-contained pits. I want to ask the minister how long his department has been aware of this situation, what steps have been taken to stop this deplorable state of affairs, and if he can tell us, following his visit to that area, what action he proposes to take now to stop this inexcusable and illegal dumping of toxic materials into the Athabasca River.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is true that some polluted water is discharged into the Athabasca River. As the hon. member mentioned, I was there last week-no, this week-or last week-anyhow I visited-


Mr. Epp:: Where are you now?


Jean Marchand: When I listen to you I do not
know; it may be heaven or hell. As you know, we had a report on this particular problem last year and the province contacted the company and they are now in the process of correcting this situation. There is about 400,000 gallons of water which is discharged into the river which is a large amount. Relatively, of course, we cannot say it is a disaster but it has to be corrected. The company is commit-
Oral Questions
ted to correcting it and they are taking steps to do so before 1977.


An hon. Member:: The minister is a disaster.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this situation has existed for some two years, and in view of the fact under the Canada Waters Act passed by parliament in 1970 the minister has the authority under section 9 by agreement to set up water quality management areas and under section 16 to do so unilaterally if the province does not agree, may I ask why this situation has been allowed to go on so long? Why could not water quality management areas have been set up. Is it the minister's intention now to establish one in the Fort McMurray area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is under the Canada Waters Act we can act but under the Fisheries Act where we have the real power. We could do it, but we have chosen to try to collaborate with the province of Alberta in order to have the standards respected and that is in the process of being done. Why it has not been done for two or three years-it is anybody's answer.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON TOXICITY TEST OF WASTE WATER DISCHARGED INTO ATHABASCA RIVER BY GREAT CANADIAN OIL SANDS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister still has not told the House what steps he intends to take. In view of the fact that the report prepared by his department in conjunction with the provincial authorities in 1975, based on tests taken in August, 1974 showed that the waste water had excessive toxic content and also the fact that the public interest groups have not been able to get copies of the results of those tests, may I ask the minister if he is prepared to table in the House the toxicity test of the waste being discharged into the Athabasca River by Great Canadian Oil Sands?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as the last part of the question is concerned, I have the report here and am ready to table it at any time.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As a result of the meeting held yesterday between some ministers and the APU representative, La Presse reported this morning that there is every reason to believe that the Canadian government will not change its present policy with regard to the $40 million requested by milk producers to face present problems. Can the Minister of Agriculture tell us today whether it is true that the difference will not be made up in any way by the federal government? I

June 9, 1976
Oral Questions
should like the minister to indicate clearly whether or not the request for special assistance in the form of $40 million has definitely been rejected by the government?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we never intimated to them that we were going to give them the $40 million. We told them of the processes that were taking place with the subcommittee that is presently meeting and had been meeting for three or four weeks to review the situation. I repeated what I had said in the Agriculture Committee about farm credit when it was discussed there, and said that we would be very lenient with those people who possibly got into trouble with repayment through no fault of their own. We compounded that action yesterday. We have already said the same thing to other dairy producing provinces that are making the same kind of representation. Yesterday I told the people who were here from Quebec the same thing that I told their executive members last Thursday-that I have to act as Minister of Agriculture for all industrial dairy producers in Canada, not just one province.


POSSIBILITY OF OTHER MEASURES TO AID MILK PRODUCERS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
In view of the minister's reply, can he tell us whether, to make up their losses, the producers can recuperate those $40 million, and whether the government might not be willing to pay, in part or in whole, those $40 million; and also whether he will take more efficient means than merely making farm credit conditions more flexible to solve the problem?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, what we are mainly concerned about and what the committee is presently reviewing is the present supply position, how much quotas can be cut back and whether the penalty of $8.60 per hundredweight is too severe. If that can be relaxed in any way it would mean tremendous savings to dairy farmers.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my first question is directed to the Prime Minister. Since he has stated that one of the roles of the Canadian navy is to patrol the extra 200-mile fisheries zone and since, according to reports, he learned from seamen during a recent trip to the west coast that they do not relish this role, can he say why the government has never considered building smaller craft especially designed for this purpose, since it costs $4,000 a day to operate a destroyer on patrol?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, quite honestly, I cannot see the positive side of that suggestion. If the hon. member is suggesting that smaller

ships can do the job more cheaply, perhaps he is right. I take it he is not also suggesting that we should have no destroyers in the Canadian navy. The point is, we have destroyers in the Canadian navy. They are good ships and well manned. There is no war on at present and we are having them do some of this work which is helpful for the preservation of Canadian sovereignty.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my first supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since he announced the other day that Canada would extend its fisheries zone on January 1, whereas I understand that the United States will not extend its zone until March, I wonder if the Canadian action has been taken in order to extend the boundaries between the two zones in a manner most favourable to Canada or whether there have been conversations as to where the zones will come together.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, unquestionably, the action taken by the Congress, Senate and President of the United States in passing the law to bring into effect the jurisdiction of that country on March 1 had a bearing on the over-all action taken by Canada, but not necessarily on the timing. As my statement indicated, we will ensure that the 200-mile fishing zone is in place by January 1, 1977. It could happen earlier; probably it will not.
With respect to the boundary question, there have already been discussions with the United States on this subject. Recently, when I advised Secretary Kissinger of proposed Canadian action, I suggested that early attention ought to be paid by both governments to the question of boundary disputes, or boundary arrangements between the two countries. I hope these discussions will begin at an early date. We have not set a date at the moment but I hope the discussions will begin soon so that this aspect of our bilateral relations will not flare up into a matter of difficulty.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Prime Minister? In view of the objectives set by the Minister of Justice and other officials at Habitat, namely, that the world should establish 1990 as the target date for ensuring the supply of fresh, clean water throughout the world, is the government of Canada prepared, before the end of Habitat, to make a definite commitment, a dollar commitment, that it will help to clean up the world's water supplies?
June 9, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that Canada's commitment in this area is already very high. I believe a statement will be made there. I do not have all the figures, but I believe something like $200 million has been spent through our external aid program to help supply clean water to those countries which want that to be done. However, it is important for the hon. member to realize that our external aid programs are carried out under the aegis of co-operation. In other words, we do not go to a country and impose our particular priorities on it. We discuss the expenditure of Canadian funds in co-operation with the national governments. Many of them have not yet come to the conclusion that clean water is their first priority and they are asking us to spend money on other things. In that sense, I would not feel it proper for Canada to set an absolute figure now and say that we are going to spend it whether the recipient country likes it or not. We are acting in a way whereby we hope they will realize that Canada is prepared to give this priority, but they have to come to that conclusion themselves.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I expect that both the demand and the priority will be made well known and, in fact, has been made well known at Habitat. Is the government prepared to supplement the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of the Environment to ensure that all Canadians can be certain of a supply of safe, clean, fresh water by 1980?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is indeed a strange question. If any Canadians are deprived of a supply of clean water, I do not believe it is because of a lack of action on the part of the federal government. There is a lot of clean water in Canada. There is more that we are cleaning up. Of course, the provinces, municipalities and the federal government have to decide that is where the money should be spent. If the hon. member is just suggesting that we increase our expenditures for that particular purpose, I say to him that we are in a period of restraint. It would be more important to identify areas where we could cut back in order to supply clean water to those communities which presumably do not yet have it.


ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER CONCERNING AMOUNT OF AID FROM CANADA TO ENSURE POTABLE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE WORLD
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. It deals with Habitat and the clean water project. The minister is quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail, dealing with Canada's foreign aid and particularly the clean water project, as saying and I quote:
How much can we deprive Canadians of their so-called standard of living without being defeated in the next election.
As a matter of fact, many Canadians do not regard that as a crisis or a fate beyond living with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: I find this rather strange. If the minister has been misquoted, I would like to give him the opportunity of correcting it. Did the minister mean by that statement Canada should reduce its foreign aid commitment in order to increase its commitments domestically, particularly in terms of clean water? Is it the intention of the minister to increase expenditures with respect to the Great Lakes cleanup which has been the subject matter of very exhaustive and disturbing reports lately? What did the minister mean by that statement in this morning's Globe and Mail?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would be better advised to ask the Globe and Mail reporter what he meant before excerpting a sentence from an interview of half an hour expressing an idea which was not said in that sense. What I said is very simple. I said: I was asked whether we should increase Canada's foreign aid commitment because other countries have problems. As far as I am concerned, I think we should. We have to decide to what extent we can do so before the Canadian population reacts. This is the meaning of my intervention, and there is no other. Almost all the Globe and Mail can do is to report completely mistaken views of what one says.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Now that the Prime Minister has expressed his views on pure water, conspiracy, of love and problems of poverty, is he going to invite some poor kids to swim in his pool this summer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: No, answer, Mr. Speaker? That was a serious question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the government House leader. Will he undertake to consult with his counterpart in the Progressive Conservative party to try to ascertain whether that party is going to continue to block passage of Bill C-242-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

June 9, 1976
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


PROPOSED USE OF BALANCED ARMATURE RECEIVER BY BELL TELEPHONE-REQUEST FOR DELAY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Communications, I will direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Bell Telephone Company will begin this July to place a device called a "balanced armature receiver" in their telephones, and in view of the fact that this device is not compatible with the use of hearing aids or with the use of Teletype machines in the homes of the completely deaf because of the low magnetic field it produces, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will intervene with Bell Telephone with regard to withholding implementation of the new receiver until the company finds a solution to the problem in the same manner as it has done in the United States?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the organization involved has had extensive talks with Bell Telephone Company. There have been some difficulties, but I believe the CRTC is trying to play a role as an intervener in order to bring them to some point of co-operation.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that the CRTC has not been able to resolve the problem between the company and the organization of Canadians with disabled hearing, will the minister now intervene and ask the Bell Telephone Company to install the same kind of coil they install in their telephones in the United States in order that those with hearing disabilities will have the right to communicate?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly bring that to the attention of the CRTC so that as the discussions continue, they will be aware of the hon. member's views.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Due to the great concern across this country with regard to rail and air passenger traffic and the fact that both CN and Air Canada have tabled their annual reports, is the minister prepared to refer those reports to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to look at that and discuss the matter with the committee.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell us what progress has been made by cabinet which has the question under discussion as to the restructuring or reorganization of the armed forces infrastructure in Canada? I ask this because there is great concern in many areas as to possible changes and the continued procrastination that is taking place is only causing further unrest.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: They are better at asking questions than they are at hearing the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: My minister and his department have indeed prepared a forces structure review to present to cabinet. I understand it is before a cabinet committee but has not as yet been brought before the whole cabinet. As a consequence, nothing can be said about it until cabinet makes a decision.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Since the Prime Minister presides over cabinet would he assure the House that the question will be brought before cabinet at the earliest date in order to relieve the uncertainty and unrest felt not only amongst service personnel but among the civilian population in the areas concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member knows, the Minister of National Defence is in Europe attending the NATO meetings at the present time. It would be possible to bring this matter before cabinet now because we have such an excellent parliamentary secretary-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In spite of that, I think it would be better to await the return of the minister because he will have further information from his NATO colleagues and perhaps he will have further information for the hon. member who would then learn that the morale of our armed forces is very high.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 9, 1976


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the recent appointment of the Vice-Chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation. In view of the fact that considerable dissatisfaction has been expressed about this appointment by those in the agriculture sector as well as by those in the Corporation itself, may I ask whether it is now government policy to ignore qualified personnel within the Corporation in favour of defeated Liberal candidates?


Eugene Whelan: I do not
think any man should be condemned because he takes part in the democratic process by offering himself to be elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, but he should know something about agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: He was elected and he served in a distinguished fashion in this House as far as I am concerned. He has a farm background; he graduated from the Ontario College of Agriculture; he has a knowledge of agriculture which I believe is basic. We needed someone from Eastern Canada to serve as Vice-Chairman. I interviewed many people though I do not believe I received any recommendations from the hon. member. If I did, they were not quite as good.


John Wise: I was in no way condemning the appointment of the new Vice-Chairman.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will condemn it!


John Wise: Can the minister give us some indication of the number of candidates who were accorded interviews for the position?


An hon. Member:: And whether their memberships were paid up.


Eugene Whelan: It is hard to say. I can tell the House that members on all sides did make recommendations to me about certain people who had served with distinction in elected positions and who could possibly fill the vacancy. It was public knowledge for many weeks that this position was open; I held it open purposely, hoping that distinguished Canadians would come forward and offer their services, but not many did.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Oral Questions
During a very special caucus last weekend, the Minister of National Health and Welfare reportedly stated that the federal government did not need the "crutch" of the Bou-rassa government to defend the rights of Francophones in Quebec. Did the minister mean that the government of the province of Quebec does not have at any time the responsibility to see that French is being used on its territory?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, we have repeated that, as a government, the defence and promotion of the French language in Canada are important priorities for the federal government and on that matter, we count on the full cooperation of all provincial governments including the government of the province of Quebec. But we also pointed out quite clearly that it is important for each government to promote and defend the French language within its own jurisdiction. If such were the case, I think the promotion of the French language and greater cooperation between both linguistic groups of Canada would be achieved much more rapidly and efficiently.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a
supplementary.
Considering that Mr. Payeur from Quebec did not take kindly to the minister's statement last Sunday and that yesterday he reportedly sent the minister a telegram indicating the centralizing trends of the government, does the minister intend to reply to the telegram and to disclose its content for the benefits of all of us?


Marc Lalonde: I have not yet gone through the whole text of the telegram. I will surely reply. As to disclosing the reply, I will see about it in due course. But once again my statement at the convention and the federal government's position on the matter of linguistic rights has nothing to do with the centralization or decentralization of powers at these various government levels. On the contrary, hopefully this matter should be a major priority for all levels of administration, whether provincial or federal.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment-I have given him notice. It has to do with the lack of a national forest policy. Is it now the government's intention to accede to the many requests and recommendations from senior officials to announce a national forest policy? Can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether his officials are presently discussing with the provinces the implementation and structuring of such a policy?


Jean Marchand: The hon. member will understand that I cannot elaborate a national forest policy without the co-operation of all the provinces; the federal government controls not more than 10 per cent of all the territory within which such a policy might apply. However, we are to have a meeting soon with
14314
June 9, 1976

Oral Questions
the provincial ministers-some time next week, I believe- after which I may have some information for the hon. member.


Frank Oberle: Could the minister elaborate on the areas in which the federal government is prepared to share a degree of responsibility with the provinces? Will the arrangements be similar to those agreed upon with the provinces in the past? Is the government prepared to assist in measures of fire control, pest control and measures to deal with the serious problems which are facing the provinces right now?


Jean Marchand: These are some of the matters which are on the agenda so I cannot give the hon. member an answer today. Maybe later I shall be in a position to do so.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADA ACQUIRING PROPER TYPE OF SWINE FLU VACCINE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare? In view of the false starts made by one firm or perhaps more than one, in manufacturing vaccine of the old swine flu type instead of modernizing and incorporating the transmutations which have occurred in the interval may I ask the minister this: since Canada is buying vaccine in Australia, Europe and the U.S.A., can he assure the House he is getting the right type of vaccine, the modernized swine flu vaccine which affords much higher protection?


Marc Lalonde: I am advised by my officials that all the commitments we have obtained concerning the supply of vaccine completely meet Canadian standards in that respect.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Has the minister been in touch with the manufacturing firms for reassurance on this point?


Marc Lalonde: My officials are in continuing contact on this and other matters.


INQUIRY IF ONTARIO AND QUEBEC REQUESTED ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the difficulties experienced by some governments, among which are Quebec and Ontario, to allocate funds to hospitals, so much so that some hospitals in various counties or rural areas will have to close their doors, could the minister tell us whether he had consultations with his provincial counterparts and if requests for

additional subsidies have been made by those provinces to help them provide better medical care in Quebec and Ontario?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there was a federal-provincial conference of health ministers a few months ago. I must advise the hon. member that no province asked for additional federal funds under the hospitalization insurance scheme. As the hon. member knows, under that program the federal government provides 50 per cent of all operating costs of hospitals and this still remains entirely available to the provinces.
Any decision about the restriction in the provision of hospital services at this time would be exclusively made by the provincial authorities concerned.


SITE OF DUMP FOR RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL REMOVED FROM PORT HOPE-APPOINTMENT OF PROJECT MANAGER
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and relates to cleanup at Port Hope which was to have started on June 1. In view of the fact the minister has had recommendations from several of his advisers regarding alternative dumping sites, other than the Port Granby site, since at least April 7, is he in a position today to tell us where the material in respect of the Port Hope cleanup is to be dumped permanently?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, work is still going on in respect of this very important and difficult question. Several permanent dump sites were examined within the boundaries of Port Hope, but were found to be unacceptable on the part of the citizens and the council of Port Hope. We have been looking at surrounding municipalities and they have rather the same attitude as does Port Hope. I must say that the various agencies involved, the task force in particular, are seeking an acceptable site some distance from Port Hope. This is going to require additional studies and, indeed, probably some tests in respect of the ground. I can assure the hon. member that we are going forward with this as quickly as we can. We have made arrangements for a temporary transitional site so that work can start and, indeed, I am told it did start on June 1. The program will be able to move forward with that transitional or temporary site, and the material stored there will eventually be moved to a permanent site.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the minister just once more to refer to the letter dated April 7 from the chairman of the federal-provincial task force on this matter which contained recommendations far removed from the Port Hope dump site. My supplementary question is, has a project manager for the cleanup operation been appointed by the government even yet?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, there has been a project team in operation in Port Hope for some months. I believe if a
June 9, 1976

formal appointment has not been made it will be made within a matter of days. In any event, I can assure the hon. member that is not a reason for any holdup.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, on June 1 the Minister of Supply and Services in this House denounced a senior public servant, Mr. Stopforth, accusing him of misleading the minister or of gross negligence. I read with great care what the minister said in the House and it seems to amount to the fact that the minister at one time was informed there was no information of Lockheed undertaking to put interim financing, and later he apparently discovered that Mr. Stopforth had heard of a telephone conversation between representatives of the Department of National Defence and Lockheed. I should like to ask the minister whether, in view of the great possibility of a misunderstanding in this matter which is both complex and vague at the same time, the minister will review the whole matter and reconsider whether he should make a retraction in respect of the attack he made upon Mr. Stopforth?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should read my whole statement instead of quoting part of it. In addition, this matter will be dealt with in a proper manner at a proper time.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Supply and Services has removed a senior civil servant from his position because he withheld information from the minister concerning a verbal agreement between the Department of National Defence and Lockheed. The Minister of National Defence apparently withheld the same information from the Treasury Board and the Cabinet in much the same fashion, on the same subject. I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister is going to take similar action to that taken by the Minister of Supply and Services, and relieve the Minister of National Defence of his position, or is there to be a different rule for Cabinet ministers than for senior civil servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the facts are not at all like the hon. member seems to have understood them. First of all, it was not the minister who removed the civil servant. He has asked his deputy minister to proceed in the usual way to discipline this particular civil servant. The reason for that has been stated in the House by the hon. minister who had been giving the House wrong information on the basis of wrong
Oral Questions
information he had received. I expect the House finds it proper for the minister to correct the wrong information that he conveyed, and that is what the minister did.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In a recent statement the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is reported to have said that contractors situated in northern Canada will be given a 10 per cent preference on all federal contracts tendered for the north. Is the minister satisfied that this additional leeway is necessary in order for northern contractors to compete effectively, because this could constitute a considerable increase in funds for northern projects?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with this particular statement, but I will be glad to look into it.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, under Section 22(1) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act the Secretary of State apparently has received a representation order from the representation commissioner. If that is so, when will he be tabling it in the House? If he has not received it, has he been informed when he can expect to receive it?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check into that and let the hon. member know.


Paul Wyatt Dick: That's what you said the last time I asked.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary arises from the question asked by the hon. member for Greenwood. In light of the fact that statements made by parliamentarians in the House are privileged, would the Minister of Supply and Services be prepared, if he has not done so already, to make the same remarks with regard to Mr. Stopforth being guilty of misinformation or gross negligence, outside the House as he did in the Commons and, if not, why not?
14316

June 9, 1976
Oral Questions


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question. This matter is going to be dealt with in a proper manner at an appropriate time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the question has not been answered. Will the minister say the same thing out of the House as he said in the Commons and, if not, why not?



LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REASON FOR FAILURE TO SECURE INFORMATION ON FINANCING FROM REPRESENTATIVE ON MANAGEMENT BOARD

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, since Mr. Stopforth was deputy project manager only, reporting through General Allan to the management board, and the assistant deputy minister of supply and services was on the management board, at a higher level than Mr. Stopforth, will the Minister of Supply and Services indicate whether the management board was informed of the Lockheed finance discussions including the verbal agreement and, if so, will he say why that Lockheed information was not communicated to him through his senior representative on that management board?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the hon. member to read the minutes of proceedings of the parliamentary committee.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. On April 30, in answer to a request by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar to have a written explanation regarding the actions of a senior public servant, the Prime Minister responded by saying that "by innuendo, he cast aspersions" on a civil servant who was by this simple request being "tarred" and smeared. In view of the expressed concern of the Prime Minister for civil servants and for justice, will he take the initiative to see that Mr. L. H. Stopforth is brought before a parliamentary committee so that this House and the Canadian people will know all the facts and, perhaps equally important, a man who has been a loyal public servant for many years will at least be given a chance to clear his name?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, assuming the hon. member is sincere in his desire to have Mr. Stopforth clear his name, I suggest that the best way of doing it is not by bringing him before a parliamentary committee where the Proceedings might be tainted with political input from both sides, but to follow the normal grievance procedure, of which he has several.


Peter Colwell Bawden: What are they in detail?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I just want to re-emphasize what I answered a moment ago. The minister, properly in my view, felt embarrassed at having misinformed the House on several occasions by giving it wrong information. He felt, I believe again properly, that he should explain to the House that he had been given wrong information which he did. I expect the House would have then said: Why have you given wrong information? The answer is that he had received wrong information. This is the essence of the matter before us. If the conveyor of the wrong information is not guilty he will follow the procedures and be completely rehabilitated. If he is guilty, Mr. Speaker, I think that the discipline imposed on him will follow its course.


Mr. Speaker:: A final supplementary by the hon. member for Calgary South.



AVENUES OPEN TO MR. STOPFORTH TO CLEAR HIS NAME

Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the public servant in question has neither been fired nor demoted. Therefore he has no rights under the options explained by the minister, the House Leader and the Prime Minister, so perhaps the Prime Minister would explain just how this man's rights are to be upheld and how he will be given a chance to clear himself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is some paradox in the hon. member showing concern for a civil servant and indicating that perhaps in order to get justice he should either be fired or have a loss in salary.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He did not say that.


An hon. Member:: We want to get at the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the facts as alleged by the hon. member opposite indicate that the deputy minister, on behalf of the minister, showed a certain amount of moderation in the discipline. There was no demotion, no firing and no loss of salary. I do not know the details of what discipline was imposed. I understand he has moved sideways to another post at the same salary. If the man feels he has been unjustly treated there are recourses under the law. I understand he has either an appeal to the Federal Court or else he has a grievance procedure within the rules.


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says "no". If that is the case presumably the man has suffered no grievance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Why don't you go home and take a swim?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that full questioning and answering has taken place on this question. We are now beyond the limit of the question period. The right hon. member for Prince Albert on a question of privilege.
June 9, 1976



PRIVILEGE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege arising from a statement made yesterday afternoon by the Prime Minister that was totally untrue. I did not hear what he said at the time. I was not aware of it until this morning when I read the summary in the Globe and Mail.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, these noisy interruptions indicate there are several varieties of animals over there. It is now confirmed by Hansard. He used these words concerning me:
Well, Mr. Speaker, the question, as I answered in the first place, is hypothetical in its form. I have no cause to know what the answer to that hypothetical question would be. I do not have the advantage perhaps the hon. gentleman has of having phoned a judge.
The allegation is very clear. I know the sensibilities of the hon. gentleman when since the Sky Shops revelations it became unpopular to dial judges.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to have such contributions from people who have no common sense whatsoever. The Prime Minister made it very clear that I had phoned a judge. I throw that back at him. It is false. It is not unusual for him to make false statements. That statement is completely false. It is a product of the Prime Minister's imagination in order to smear by innuendo. I have not spoken to, nor have I phoned any member of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding this matter, and that is final and complete.
Such allegations that are made by the Prime Minister, too often with that Machiavellian turn of mind, constitute a breach of the privileges of members of this House. If any one member said that, he would be subject to discipline. When the Prime Minister makes a false statement like that, with the vast prestige of his office, I would expect him to withdraw it unreservedly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the reserves of synthetic indignation the right hon. gentleman has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot believe he is serious about this point of order, Mr. Speaker. But just in case he might be, and that the indignation is founded on something within him, I would remind the House of the circumstances of the exchange. The right hon. gentleman was asking, I believe twice in' succession, the same question about would the government do such and so if the Supreme Court threw out the federal legislation, and in his repetition of his question it seemed apparent to me that he was assuming that this would be the result of the case.
I said it was not only hypothetical but was very pessimistic. This does not happen to be my view. As he seemed to be so sure that the federal government would lose the case, I said he must have more information than I have; I
Report of Committee
have not phoned a judge, perhaps he has. The hon. gentleman tells us he has not phoned a judge. I accept that. Perhaps he got it from God that we were going to lose the case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions of privilege always create great difficulty. They are subject to several interpretations, depending on the circumstances. Often they relate to unparliamentary language, to interference in the performance of hon. members' duties, to contempt of parliament and a number of other factors. Often they relate to disagreements or grievances. In any case, there is no machinery under which the Chair is entitled to permit repeated interventions by hon. members.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert has expressed, by way of a question of privilege, indignation at the remarks made yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister. The right hon. Prime Minister has made a reply to that. Hon. members know that there is no process or procedure under which the Chair can permit a second intervention by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and presumably a second intervention by the right hon. Prime Minister.
The matter is closed. It is for the Chair to decide. No motion has been put forward. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has called for either a clarification or a withdrawal of the statement made by the right hon. Prime Minister. It is not altogether certain whether or not this comes within the authority of the Chair under the provisions of questions of privilege, but in any case, the right hon. Prime Minister has indicated that he did not expect the matter would be taken seriously. In any case, it is entirely clear that the right hon. member for Prince Albert has not, in fact, contacted any member of the judiciary on this matter. This would seem to the Chair to close the question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was not given the opportunity to reply-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have not on this occasion, nor have I had on any previous occasions, a procedure which is known to me which would give me the right, with any sense of respect for the procedures that we have followed here traditionally, to allow one hon. member to participate more than once in a discussion on any point, whether it be procedural or substantive, and I think the matter should be closed at this point.

June 9, 1976
Business of the House



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourteenth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in both official languages.-Mr. Corbin.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that there have been discussions among the parties with relation to one of the rather minor bills which remains on the order paper for completion before June 30. I understand that agreement has been reached, and I now ask for unanimous consent that at 5.50 p.m. this afternoon the House shall consider third reading of Bill S-35.


Walter David Baker: There have such discussions, Mr. Speaker, and we are prepared to give unanimous consent.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been a suggestion that the House give its consent that at 5.50 p.m. this afternoon the ordinary order of business be interrupted to permit consideration of the bill referred to by the President of the Privy Council. There seems to be agreement to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed, and so ordered.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the question period today the Minister of the Environment referred to a report prepared by his department with regard to the waste material being put into the Athabasca river by the Great Canadian Oil Sands at Fort McMurray, Alberta. Since the minister has left the House and will not be able to table that report, I ask the House leader if he would undertake to see that this is tabled according to the commitment which the minister made.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the question period the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore made reference to his Bill C-242. You called him to order in the course of that, Mr. Speaker, but there was sufficient on the record before you called him to order to leave the impression that the official opposition, as a party, was opposed to this private member's bill. I think it is important to indicate to the House of Commons that that is not so. As I have said, the hon. member's bill is a private members' bill, and in that sense enjoys support on all sides of the House.
The House will recall that at the outset of the debate an attempt was made to draw out the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council and me, the House leader of the opposition, as if there had been some form or arrangement between us representing our parties in the private members' hour. I want to say that both of us studiously avoided that kind of involvement. It is interesting to note, as well-if it is any comfort to my good friend, the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore-that I spoke on second reading in support of the bill, and that those of our party who were on the committee which dealt with the bill spoke in favour of its principle. So I think there was general acceptance from all sides of the House to the priciple of the bill.
But I think it is important that we make it clear that private members' hour is just that, private members' hour, during which members of parliament can express their own personal views on the matters discussed. I want to make it extremely clear, especially to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, who I know has laboured for a long period of time on this matter, that our party is not opposed to the principle set forth in this bill, and in fact a careful reading of the committee's hearings will indicate that that is so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suppose Your Honour might call it a point of grievance. During the question period, when the Minister of Agriculture was answering questions from the hon. member for Elgin about the appointment of a new vice-chairman of the Farm Credit Corporation, he indulged in one of those sweeping generalizations that we associate with him and that we enjoy, when he said he had had recommendations for this position from all sides of the House. I suggest that that was in error. I have checked, and I find no one in this party and no one in the Social Credit party made any such recommendations. I leave the Tories to speak for themselves. But I wish the minister would contain himself a bit, instead of making these wild generalizations.


Eugene Whelan: If I recollect correctly, I thought I said "from both sides of the House" . If I did say "from all sides", maybe that was erroneous. But I will have to check my memory again, because I think one member from the hon. member's party did make a suggestion to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, that is not
so.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make a brief addition to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It gives the Chair some difficulty to restrict the right of hon. members to intervene. I stopped the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore from putting what I thought was clearly an improper question. At best it was a representation, and in any case it was argumentive. I had several reasons for ruling it out of order. I allowed the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton to raise it after the question period was over because we do not consider points of order during the question period, and even the putting of the question left an innuendo

June 9, 1976

which there was no opportunity to answer. However, I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had a good answer on the matter and I really do not think it should be discussed any further.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
2. (a) The Government, through the Secretary of State Department, has agreed to provide some assistance, mainly to defray the transportation and hotel costs of entertainers and groups performing in the Montreal Cultural Festival. A sum of $1 million has been allocated for this purpose, with the Canada Council being responsible for administering the program. Concerning questions (b), (c) and (d) COJO informs us that: (b) $3 million; (c) $l3/4 million; (d) $2 million*; an additional million is contributed by private sources.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would like to table, in both official languages, the text of the new extradition treaty with Sweden.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 5,038, 5,075 to 5,086 inclusive, 5,281, 5,342, 5,477 and 5,504.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	What is the purpose of the Olympics Arts and Culture Programme?
2.	How much has been budgeted for the Cultural Olympics and what amount will the (a) government (b) Government of Quebec (c) COJO (d) remaining provinces and territories contribute?
3.	What is the administrative cost of the programme, excluding the budget to pay entertainers, hotel costs and transportation?
4 Who are the members of the Cultural Olympics Committee and (a) what are their individual salaries (b) for what period of time are they hired (c) what degree of expertise has each?
5.	What cities other than Montreal will play host to the Cultural Olympics?
6.	How many advance tickets sales does the Arts and Culture Directorate of COJO anticipate and what is the expected revenue of such sales?
7.	What is the expected revenue from total ticket sales?
8.	What will the Arts and Culture Committee of COJO be responsible for during the Olympic Games other than staging the Cultural Olympics?
9.	What is the total amount budgeted for the Arts and Culture Committee excluding the Cultural Olympics budget?
10.	What federal departments or councils are involved in the Cultural Olympics?
11.	If the Cultural Olympics budget falls short of defraying the costs of staging the events and programmes, is the government prepared to increase its share of financial contributions to support the events and, if so, in what amount?


Mitchell William Sharp: am informed by the Department of the Secretary of State, Canada Council and Treasury Board as follows: 1. This program does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government.
'estimated
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Not applicable.
10.	The Touring Office of the Canada Council administers a fund of one million dollars specially allocated by the Secretary of State to cover the travel and accommodation costs of groups and artists participating in the Olympics Arts and Culture Programme.
11.	Not applicable.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN MANITOBA


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Manitoba for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: * 2
(a) and (b)	English	French	Radio	TV	Radio	TV(000's)	(000's)	1965/66	82	285	4	171966/67	23	672	2	101967/68	427	1786	13	651968/69	-	(166)	1	51969/70	515	422	4	1101970/71	-	428	5	821971/72	20	293	5	181972/73	-	(293)	201	2641973/74	340	1732	55	1661974/75	(160)	(182)	114	230
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2. Bracketed figures for English expenditures in 1968/69, 1972/73 and 1974/75 represent the net disposition of assets within the province, i.e. the net value of assets scrapped or otherwise written off because of obsolescence and charged to the reserves for depreciation. These figures represent the amount in excess of the value of assets purchased as replacements in that year.

June 9, 1976
Order Paper Questions
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN YUKON TERRITORY


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Yukon Territory for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	Radio (000's)	Radio/TV (000's)1965/66	-	31966/67	-	211967/68	-	121968/69	-	-1969/70	18	3951970/71	-	341971/72	-	1171972/73	-	141973/74	-	721974/75	14	58
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2.	The figures given are for English investment only. There was no French investment during this period.
3.	The "Radio/TV" designation represents costs for rebroadcast units and transmitters used for both radio and television service.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN SASKATCHEWAN


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Saskatchewan for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	English Radio (000's)	TV	French Radio (000's)	TV1965/66	6	34	-	-1966/67	-	2	-	-1967/68	8	1	-	-1968/69	7	-	-	-1969/70	193	1447	-	-1970/71	48	226	-	-1971/72	17	1275	-	-1972/73	15	59	-	-1973/74	17	109	-	-1974/75	57	917	150	-
Note: The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN BRITISH COLUMBIA


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of British Columbia for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 2 3
(a) and (b)	English Radio (000's)	TV	French Radio (000's)	TV1965/66	113	259	-	-1966/67	172	282	-	-1967/68	606	1546	-	-1968/69	-	175	133	-1969/70	887	2761	62	-1970/71	272	825	135	-1971/72	(37)	(99)	-	-1972/73	-	241	-	-1973/74	50	569	140	-1974/75	2803	8507	510	1320
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2.	Bracketed figures for English expenditures in 1971/72 represent the net disposition of assets within the province, i.e. the net value of assets scrapped or otherwise written off because of obsolescence and charged to the reserves for depreciation. These figures represent the amount in excess of the value of assets purchased as replacements in that year.
3.	The figures for expenditures in 1974/75 include expenditures on the CBC Vancouver consolidation project.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Northwest Territories for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?
(Miss Campbell (South Western Nova).)
June 9, 1976


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	Radio (000's)	Radio/TV (000's)1965/66	-	291966/67	-	-1967/68	-	871968/69	-	731969/70	13	6891970/71	-	1111971/72	10	2411972/73	-	(8)1973/74	51	3071974/75	24	150
Order Paper Questions
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2. Bracketed figures for English expenditures in 1971/72 represent the net disposition of assets within the province,
i.e. the net value of assets scrapped or otherwise written off because of obsolescence and charged to the reserves for depreciation. These figures represent the amount in excess of the value of assets purchased as replacements in that year.
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2.	The figures given are for English investment only. There was no French investment during this period.
3.	The "Radio/TV" designation represents costs for rebroadcast units and transmitters used for both radio and television service.
4.	Bracketed figures for expenditures in 1972/73 represent the net disposition of assets within the province, i.e. the net value of assets scrapped or otherwise written off because of obsolescence and charged to the reserves for depreciation. These figures represent the amount in excess of the value of assets purchased as replacements in that year.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN ALBERTA
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN P.E.I.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Prince Edward Island for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)
1965/66
1966/67
1967/68
1968/69
1969/70
1970/71
1971/72
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
English
Radio	TV
(000's)
French
Radio	TV
(000's)
7
963
294


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Alberta for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	English Radio (000's)	TV	French Radio (000's)	TV1965/66	14	233	-	-1966/67	36	1249	-	-1967/68	7	473	-	-1968/69	725	-	-	-1969/70	918	338	-	8681970/71	132	157	-	81971/72	(176)	(611)	-	41972/73	62	172	-	-1973/74	504	224	540	3091974/75	186	710	57	124
Note: The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Newfoundland for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?

June 9, 1976
Order Paper Questions


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	English	FrenchRadio (000's)	TV	Radio (000's)	TV1965/66	302	1055	1966/67	385	1012	-	-1967/68	268	1184	-	-1968/69	410	775	-	-1969/70	356	882	-	-1970/71	382	1	-	-1971/72	319	1486	-	-1972/73	(40)	(135)	30	451973/74	715	714	40	601974/75	239	694	30	131
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2. Bracketed figures for English expenditures in 1972/73 represent the net disposition of assets within the province, i.e. the net value of assets scrapped or otherwise written off because of obsolescence and charged to the reserves for depreciation. These figures represent the amount in excess of the value of assets purchased as replacements in that year.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN NEW BRUNSWICK


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN NOVA SCOTIA

Question No. 5,084-Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):
From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Nova Scotia for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	English	French	Radio	TV Radio	TV(000's)	(000's)	1965/66	88	205	40	401966/67	146	342	6	51967/68	-	-	4	-1968/69	483	1485	-	281969/70	50	1253	42	-1970/71	345	1027	10	1781971/72	125	380	-	101972/73	493	1480	69	5961973/74	390	1180	-	331974/75	139	406	-	5Note: The	above figures represent capital	expenditures	reported in	the year in which	the project	was put	into
service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of New Brunswick for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:				
(a) and (b)	English	French	Radio	TV	Radio	TV(000's)	(000's)	1965/66	11	-	11	171966/67	25	-	27	281967/68	157	-	309	3911968/69	31	-	76	1041969/70	105	-	378	4801970/71	542	-	174	7201971/72	154	-	24	5551972/73	61	-	22	2011973/74	75	-	95	1901974/75	210	-	58	734
Note: The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been

DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN ONTARIO


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Ontario for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
(a) and (b)	English	FrenchRadio	TV	Radio	TV(000's)	(000's)	1965/66	234	1,087	-	361966/67	785	3,645	67	1371967/68	835	3,875	48	1481968/69	1,245	3,310	427	1531969/70	420	1,790	50	721970/71	30	115	-	21971/72	200	895	25	351972/73	850	440	45	9381973/74	1,100	4,290	115	2901974/75	1,010	3,951	105	265
June 9, 1976

Note: The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH AND ENGLISH RADIO/TELEVISION IN QUEBEC


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): From 1965 to date, by year, what amount did the government spend in the Province of Quebec for the development of (a) French (b) English radio and television?


Coline M. Campbell: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: * 1
(a) and (b)	English	French	Radio	TV	Radio	TV(000's)	(000's)1965/66	24	78	97	5121966/67	442	1,630	2,080	10,6751967/68	53	195	245	1,2901968/69	235	1,730	1,540	4,3801969/70	85	370	425	1,9701970/71	85	350	400	1,8401971/72	724	1,203	1,530	15,1951972/73	315	677	8,619	26,1301973/74	369	1,485	3,137	13,5001974/75	146	580	1,233	5,296
Notes: 1. The above figures represent capital expenditures reported in the year in which the project was put into service. Work in process in any given year has been excluded as such information is not readily available until the year of completion of the project and, for that reason forms part of the figures for the year of completion.
2. The figures for French expenditures in 1966/67 include expenditures on projects connected with facilities required for Expo '67, while those for 1971/72, 1972/73, 1973/74 and 1974/75 include the costs of the Maison de Radio-Canada consolidation project in Montreal.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Was any money committed by DREE to the Whittaker Textile Mill at Marysville, New Brunswick and, if so, in what amount?
2.	Was the full amount actually advanced and, if not (a) what amount was advanced (b) for what reason was the balance not advanced?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the
Order Paper Questions
Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Whittaker Textiles (Marysville) Ltd. accepted a DREE incentive offer of $2,745,850 to manufacture and process textile fabrics at Marysville, New Brunswick.
2. (a) The amount of the offer actually disbursed was $928,402; (b) The balance of the authorized incentive was not advanced because the company did not fulfill its obligation under the Regional Development Incentives legislation, in that the first phase of the project on which the initial payment had been based was discontinued before the expiry of the control period. Before the amount due to the company in respect to completion of phase two could be determined, a decision was made to discontinue all production at the mill.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,121 that the cost of the aircraft for travel to and from Anticosti Island was $778 per hour (a) what was the total amount of flying time involved and the total cost (b) what was the total amount of waiting time involved, if any, and the total cost (c) did the aircraft and crew remain with the Prime Minister during his stay and, if so, what was the total cost of their stay (d) did the aircraft fly back to Ottawa, returning to pick-up the Prime Minister later and, if so, what was the total cost of all flying time involved?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: (a) 6:20; $4,927; (b) Not applicable; (c) No; (d) Yes. For total cost see (a) above.


Mr. Forrestall: With reference to the answer to Question No. 5,105 which stated in part that icebreaking and dredging services "may be beneficial to the entire St. Lawrence basin from the point of view of shipping, flood control and economic development", what is the government's best estimate of the dollar value derived by (a) shipping (b) flood control (c) economic development from all the monies spent by the government on icebreaking and dredging since 1965 and, if such figures are not available, will the government consider studying the situation to determine them?


Ralph Goodale: Transport Canada is now in the process of developing and applying the two major concepts of cost recovery and operational performance measurement which together will enable the benefits of specific transportation services to be more clearly identified. Because these two concepts are not fully developed an adequate estimate cannot be provided at this time of the benefits derived by (a) shipping (b) flood control and (c) economic development from monies spent by the government on icebreaking and dredging since 1965.


Mr. Forrestall: 1. At what percent of its estimated potential thruput assuming (a) one container crane (b) three container cranes and necessary backup equipment, is the area associated with Berths 73 and 74 at the Port of Montreal now leased by Logistic Corporation being operated?

June 9, 1976
Motions for Papers
2. How many 20 foot equivalent containers were handled at this facility in 1975 and what was its estimated potential in this respect?


Ralph Goodale: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The terminal at Berths 73-74 is not a container terminal per se but a combination general cargo-ro-ro-container terminal with a total storage area of only 9 acres. It is equipped with one container crane on Berth 73 only. Two or more such cranes would not increase the thruput which is limited by storage area. The total area is 100 percent utilized by Logistec Corporation.
2. 5,969 T.E.U containers were handled at Berth 73 in 1975. The estimated potential is 6,600 T.E.U. containers per annum for Berth 73 (4*/2 acres). In addition 93,000 tons of general and ro-ro cargo were handled at Berths 73-74.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 100 and 101?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 100-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence and minutes of meetings between the Minister and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the ministers and officials of the various departments of health of the provinces on the implementation of a national swine influenza vaccination programme.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgency of action required resulting from the March 23 meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Immunizing Agents-and I refer the hon. member to the statement and recommendations of that particular committee as tabled on March 30-no formal correspondence or minutes exist between the minister and officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare and the ministers and officials of the various provinces on the implementation of a national swine influenza vaccination program. Consultation at that time was carried out through telephone conver-

sations. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this matter and the need for the public of Canada to know the facts surrounding the whole program, I think this motion should be transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 101-Mr. Yewchuk:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all papers relating to calculations by means of which the Minister of National Health and Welfare arrived at his estimate for the cost of swine influenza vaccine at $0.60-$1.00 per dose.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, estimates for the cost of swine influenza vaccine were derived from discussions with manufacturers. More precise figures were not available because of the uncertainty over the ease with which the recombinant strains of A/N.J./76 would grow and the yields that could be obtained during the manufacturing process. Other influenza vaccines have sold generally in the price range of 60 cents to $1 per dose. In view of the hon. member having another opportunity to debate that issue on the other notice of motion, I now ask him to withdraw his notice of motion.


Paul Yewchuk: Transferred for debate, as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of documents be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) had the floor at the conclusion of the debate yesterday. Although technically yesterday's debate was on the amendment and we are now continuing on the main motion, it seems to be a generally accepted practice that an hon. member, in that circumstance, ought to be able to continue for the balance of his time on the main motion.
June 9, 1976


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the budget there are a number of measures which deserve discussion. I will devote a few minutes to talking about two aspects of the budget. One has to do with a proposed measure with regard to unemployment insurance, and the other has to do with the budget measures relating to energy conservation, and in particular to those which provide incentives for the development of alternative forms of energy.
With regard to unemployment insurance, the question which comes to mind and which is probably in the minds of those who are interested in this issue is really this: How many weeks of contribution are considered to be fair, in a social security program like unemployment insurance, before qualifying for benefits? It seems to me that the issue boils down to that basic question. If we consider other programs of a similar nature-for example, workmen's compensation, medicare and hospital insurance-we will find that in most of those programs one can become eligible for protection from the moment one starts contributing to those systems.
In other words, to the best of my knowledge there is no qualifying period for coverage; a person is covered from the moment he starts contributing. This is true in the public sector for programs of the kind I have mentioned, and it is also true in the private sector. If a person starts paying premiums for home insurance, life insurance, or any other form of insurance, for that matter, he is covered from the moment he starts paying into the scheme. Therefore, it is natural to conclude-at least, it is to me-that under the unemployment insurance scheme it is desirable to strive for a system whereby a person can qualify for coverage from the moment he joins, because that is the pattern and the criterion which has been applied to other insurance schemes both in the private and public sectors.
If we ask the proponents of 12 weeks, 16 weeks or more to give a reasoning for that period of time before qualifying, we will notice that it is very difficult, even with the best of intentions, for them to come forward with rationale for that. I cannot provide the rationale for 8 weeks either, but if I were asked what we as a government should strive for over a period of time, my answer would be that it should be something which will take us in a direction opposite to the proposal in this budget, namely, toward lowering, rather than increasing, the number of weeks required to qualify for unemployment insurance.
I know it is very popular at the present time in this country to be tough with regard to unemployment insurance. I know there is much support for the idea of increasing the number of weeks. However, I do not share that view, because I think we have in unemployment insurance a good social program which protects people, particularly in those areas of the country where employment is seasonal and the availability of jobs is very limited. Those areas are away from large industrial centres and include areas such as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I., parts of Quebec, northern Ontario and virtually all the areas of the country which benefit at present from our regional economic expansion programs.
I may be wrong, but I have noticed-despite the speech made by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who, on behalf of the Conservative party, supported the
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
increase in the number of weeks-a certain nervousness in Conservative ranks as expressed in questions asked by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on May 27 and by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on June 7. If that impression is correct, I can well understand that nervousness because some areas of this country will be seriously affected by the change in the number of weeks from 8 to 12 as proposed in this budget.
It seems to me that when a person becomes unemployed, that person becomes unemployed for reasons beyond his or her control. A good social security measure, therefore, should be available at the earliest possible time-in the shortest number of weeks that the social security system can offer. I am not so impressed by arguments that are based on the question of abuse. It is very easy to make a charge of abuse, but to the question of where the abuse occurs the answer rarely comes forth.
It must be kept in mind-and this seems to be forgotten by those who are criticizing the unemployment insurance policy-that if a person quits his or her job without reason, that person goes without benefits for six full weeks. That is a pretty long time to be without benefits, Mr. Speaker. There seems to be an impression that you qualify for unemployment insurance the moment you quit, or a week or two after. That is not so. If you quit without reason, you go six weeks without benefits. No one in his right mind would want to abandon a job with the knowledge that the social security system, in this case unemployment insurance, will not be forthcoming in less than a month and a half.
I would, therefore, urge the government to reconsider this measure in the budget and to stick with the eight weeks. It is a good measure. As the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) said, our unemployment insurance system is one of the best in the world. We should not be ashamed of it or retreat from it; we should be very proud of it. If the government does not find it possible to reconsider this measure for the whole country, I would suggest, as an alternative, that we retain the eight-week period of contributions before benefits are payable in those regions of Canada presently benefiting from regional economic expansion. I would urge that compromise at least.
I should like to devote the little time I have left to another aspect of the budget, Mr. Speaker, for which I would like to congratulate the government and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I refer to the measure that was announced on May 26 concerning energy conservation. In particular, I refer to the two-year tax write-off that is extended to cover equipment enabling industrial wastes to be used as a fuel source and industrial equipment that produces energy from municipal waste. In addition to that, the federal sales tax is removed from items which contribute to energy conservation or contribute to the development of alternative forms of energy, including solar furnaces and heating panels, wind-powered generating equipment and heat pumps.
Before I go on, Mr. Speaker, I should like to pay tribute to the work done in this area over the years, when it was rather like crying in the desert, by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton). For years he

June 9, 1976
The Budget-Mr. Gillies
has appealed for better use of wind energy in the part of the country from which he comes. Now we have come to the crunch. We have reached a point in history when it is quite clear to us that we will run out of non-renewable resources. The government's measure reflects concern and foresight in anticipation of things to come.
The Globe and Mail of June 8 published a report which read in part:
A background study prepared for the federal government estimates that renewable energy sources could provide anywhere from 2 per cent to 4 per cent of the country's total energy requirements by 1990.
It went on to say that the study reports that by the year 2020 the percentage could rise to 20 per cent of energy needs. Mr. Speaker, I am more optimistic than that, although I cannot base my optimism on any scientific knowledge. I think that at present we are badly underestimating the potential of the sun as an energy source. What concerns me is the fact that when we make $122 million available for research and development for this fiscal year, according to my calculations only 2.2 per cent of that is available for research in the renewable energy field, namely, sun, wind and tidal. I think this is an alarmingly low percentage. If we cannot increase the total amount, I would at least urge the government to review the percentage or the slice that is allocated from the research and development total fund and give much greater emphasis to research in the field of renewable energy.
As things stand at the moment, of the $122 million allocated for research and development, 8 'A per cent is for research on conservation, 10 per cent for oil and gas, 4.5 per cent for coal, almost 70 per cent for nuclear, 5V4 per cent for transportation and transmission, and only 2.2 per cent for renewable resources. In light of the very important decision embodied in the budget respecting energy conservation and incentives for the discovery and implementation of new sources of energy, I think it is imperative that we give much greater impetus to research in the field of renewable energy resources.
It seems to me that the next step will lead to the creation of a Canadian industry based on Canadian technology in the field of solar energy and, following that, the creation of industries and jobs. Then would come the development of a market at home and with countries which have similar climatic conditions to ours or, indeed, even different climatic conditions. There is an opportunity at hand, and I am certain we have the knowledge if we have the political will to move in that direction with greater speed and determination than the figures would seem to indicate.


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commence my remarks this afternoon by congratulating the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) for the brilliant speech he delivered last night on the budget. It was a speech full of original ideas and observations which, if they were followed by the government, would put this country in better shape than it is today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: I do not intend to spend much time this afternoon talking about the specific deficiencies of this budget. Both inside and outside this House, the lack of any
(Mr. Caccia.]
direction in the budget, the inability of the government to decide what it is trying to do, the loss of faith which is shown in this nation as perceived by an almost pathetic suggestions that Canada's economic destiny is controlled by foreign forces, has been commented upon by newspaper editorials and reporters very, very widely. To me, other than the technical deficiencies in the analysis and in the proposals, both in terms of economic policy-making and the government's attitude toward energy, the most disturbing aspects of this stand-pat budget, as it has been called, is that the government has so little confidence in this great nation that it can suggest at this time that what we need is a stand-pat budget when we have inflation at an annual rate of 9 per cent and unemployment at a seasonally adjusted rate of 7.4 per cent, which means that 760,000 Canadians are out of work.
The government is apparently accepting this incredibly poor economic performance and literally believes, in spite of the great resources of this country, in spite of the quality of the labour force, in spite of the fact that we have been isolated from the oil crisis created by the OPEC countries, in spite of an abundant agricultural sector, that Canada should have a slower rate of economic recovery than many other countries of the world, much slower than that of our major trading partner, the United States, and that average economic performance vis-a-vis other countries is satisfactory.
Why is there so little vision in this budget? Why, when there are such opportunities and potentials for creating a veritable Utopia in Canada, has the government turned its back on the people in the country by offering nothing? Do we not have one of the greatest opportunities of any people anywhere for creative development of techniques to bring oil from tar sands? Do we not have an overwhelming opportunity to find out new ways for operating in northern areas, new ways which could be useful for all other countries with Arctic resources? Are we not, perhaps, on the brink of one of the most exciting and far-reaching national ventures-one unparallelled since the building of the great cross-country railroads at the end of the nineteenth century-with the possible construction of pipelines from the northern resource areas?
Do we not have the great challenge of making the cities more livable and housing more available? Where is the thrust toward public transport, the ultimate aid in conservation, if not only of energy but of the urban environment? Where is the policy to encourage dispersion of industry so that we can have imaginative and controlled development of urban regions? Where is the program to really deal with structural unemployment and regional disparities? Where is the imagination that links what we could be with what we are? Where is the potentiality for taking us from underutilization of our resources to full use, for the benefit of all?
How can we accept, in the face of what we could be doing in this nation, an attitude that 7.4 per cent of the labour force unemployed, and a growth rate of less than 5 per cent, is acceptable? Again I ask, what has happened? Where is the vision? Where is the effort to rise to the opportunity? This tone of defeatism in the budget, in this
June 9, 1976

land of potentiality, surely must be disturbing-indeed distressing-to every Canadian.
The budget reflects, of course, the tone and attitude of the government, a tone and attitude that there are only problems, not opportunities; that Canadians are tired and weary; that our horizons have narrowed; that we cannot be better than we are, cannot strive to influence and shape our own destiny; that we are caught in the throes of worldwide events; that we must surrender our dreams and aspirations; that we must look for less, not more; that we cannot show the way. How wrong this is. What a misreading it is of what Canadians want from a government. What a reflection it is of a government that has been in power too long, that is tired, worn-out, unimaginative and uninspiring.
A budget is, of course, a technical document as well as a statement of economic aspirations of the government and, therefore, the country. The economic aspirations of this government are to hope for a gradual decline in inflation from its current level of 9 per cent to 4 per cent in 1978, an aspiration for performance 100 per cent less than the aspirations of the United States government which is looking for a 2 per cent inflation rate at the end of 1977.
The government is also looking for a gradual decline of unemployment with the oft-repeated suggestion that the actual unemployment rate in Canada will decline when the rest of the world recovers. This analysis, or premise, concerning what happens in the rest of the world apparently has become the cornerstone of economic policy-making of this government. It was the explanation used by the former minister of finance for his inability to turn the Canadian economy around. He will undoubtedly be remembered as the most incompetent and, finally, least courageous minister of finance this country has ever had. And it is the explanation now used by the present minister. I can only conclude that it is the basic and unswerving position of the officials of the Department of Finance.
It is this type of thinking which is destructive for the nation, because it is the ultimate cop-out for doing nothing on the domestic scene and, significantly, it also permits the abdication of careful analysis of alternatives and assessment of past performances to see if, in fact, we could have done better. When everything is determined by something beyond your control, the need for accountability of performance is removed.
No one would argue that Canada is not a part of the global economy, and a significant part. No one would argue that Canadian economic performance is unaffected by what happens in other countries. But where great issue can be taken with the minister and his advisers is that they believe Canada can take no action on its own to mitigate the impact of changes in the world economy on the Canadian economy; or, indeed, that Canada can take no actions which can in fact influence the world economy. We are not spectators in the world; we are participants. But we can influence events in the world economy, just as we can influence the impact of world events on the Canadian economy. By knowing and analysing what is happening in the world, we can adopt policies to channel the consequences of such events in Canada's interest. To suggest that we can do nothing is a surrender of responsibility and
The Budget-Mr. Gillies
ought to, and will, lead to surrender of the right to govern much longer by the party now in power.
The general apathetic, helpless approach to budget-market has been reinforced in recent years by an increasing emphasis on the part of the government on the use of broad or macroeconomic tools in preparation of the budget. While it is true that since the work of Lord Keynes in the 1930s there has been recognition of the fact that the levels of expenditures and revenues by government can greatly influence the direction of economic activity in the nation, during the past few years in Canadian budget-making there has been so much emphasis on the broad forces that influence the economy that it has been forgotten, or indeed underemphasized, that the way in which these broad forces are created is as important as their size. This retreat from traditional classical analysis has led to gross errors in the management of the Canadian economy.
Moreover, it is apparent that much less is known about the impact of gross changes in the economy than was believed only a decade ago. One does not hear much today about "fine-tuning" the economy, one of the catch phrases of the early seventies. The fact is that economists, certainly not the economists advising this government, simply do not know what impact spending, taxing and other proposals will have on the economy. The effects anticipated from specific action in periods of less competition, inflationary expectations and huge government intervention in the economy are simply, at this stage in the development of economic knowledge, unknown and unpredictable -Yet in spite of all the evidence that they do not know what they are doing, evidence supported by the record of past performance, the minister insists on bringing in a budget based on the same type of analysis at that of his predecessors. Unfortunately, it will have the same consequences for the Canadian people.
Look at some of the paradoxes. The governor of the Bank of Canada argues that it is necessary to have rapid increases in the money supply to keep interest rates down. So Canada has had a money supply increase at an unprecedented level and has, not what we were told we would get, low interest rates, but the highest interest rates in its history. In the United States, the federal reserve system has kept its rate of increase in the money supply low and interest rates are substantially lower in that country than in Canada. Clearly, it is not the rate of increase in the money supply but other factors which are establishing interest rates: But our Canadian officials do not seem to understand this simple proposition.
Consider the fact, implicit in the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) about his budget, that his officials are still talking about a trade-off in unemployment and inflation. Yet the facts are clear. We have not had in this country a substantial change in the rate of inflation as unemployment has risen. The trade-off in any meaningful sense, within any acceptable limits, simply does not exist. The facts appear, rather, to support the proposition that unemployment is created by increasing inflation and that both rise together. The policy-making is based on the false premise of the trade-off. So it is no wonder that the economic performance in Canada, in spite of the enormous advantages inherent within this nation, is so poor. Economic policy-making here is based upon a

June 9, 1976
The Budget-Mr. Gillies
theory of economy which is simply not appropriate for the time. As long as this error persists, we will have poor economic performance.
The greatest example, and the one with possibly the most extreme consequences of the error of concentrating on broad aspects of the economy instead of looking with great care at specific sectors, can be seen in the way in which the energy sector of this nation has been mishandled by the present government for the past few years. The incompetence, which can almost be labelled as scandalous, of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the National Energy Board in forecasting Canada's energy resources has been commented on many times. Today it is simply unbelievable that within this decade responsible members of the government were stating that we had endless supplies of oil and natural gas for our own needs, that we could export unlimited amounts to our neighbour, and yet next year we will probably be a net importer of oil.
It is truly unthinkable that as recently as three years ago the government had a taxing policy that literally discouraged exploration and development. It is again almost unbelievable that through the past years the government has not worked out a meaningful process for discussing and resolving energy questions which involve different jurisprudences. The fact is that even today we do not have a carefully thought-through program for conservation and development of alternative energy supplies, and yet we know that without energy great problems are ahead of us.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) spoke in the budget debate. I read his remarks with care. Most of what he said had been put forth before, and with some of it I agree. The time is long past, however, since Canada has needed an appropriate tax regime that would encourage exploration and development. The feeble steps that the government are taking in this direction are welcome, but not nearly enough. The bold imagination necessary to move effectively in the tar sands, in the north, across this entire continent, are lacking. Nothing is done for the mining industry which through the years has been one of the most important elements in the development of the Canadian economy.
What is most startling, however, and indicative of what is wrong in the way the government is approaching the problems of the nation is that the minister in his speech said very little about energy in relation to the Canadian balance of payments. I make this point because Canada's balance of payments difficulties are going to have a profound effect on every Canadian in the course of the next few years, and many of the problems are created because of our inability to deal with energy. If a solution had been found for our energy needs, a solution which would shift reliance from imports and such a high volume of domestic consumption of oil and natural gas to other sources, then our balance of payments problems would be less threatening. In 1985, the Economic Council of Canada predicts, 38 per cent of the deficit in the balance of payments will be from petroleum products-something which indeed is scandalous, given our resource base.
It is not helpful, however, to discuss the balance of payment problems in a vacuum. It is a product of neglect
of various segments of the Canadian economy, each one of which should have been dealt with specifically in the budget and by policy through the years. Again, this is one of the prices that has been paid for so much emphasis on broad policy-making. The neglect of the elements which in the last analysis are influenced by that policy, and indeed how they react in the long-run, determines whether or not such broad policies will, in fact, work.
What are the Canadian balance of payments problems, and why are they so serious for the Canadian economy? In the most simplistic sense, the base of the problem is simply that Canada is buying far more from other countries- buying, that is, services, payments for capital, and everything else-than she is selling to all other countries in the world. Indeed, Canada had a deficit, in this sense, of $5.1 billion in 1975. Since things that are purchased have to be paid for, Canada borrowed $4.7 billion in 1975 to help make up the difference. So in this period when the government is saying it is the policy to lessen foreign ownership in Canada, we are in fact faced with an economic situation which simply requires that foreign investment increases, unless we do something about it.
If we do not want to borrow, the only other thing that can happen is that the Canadian dollar can be devalued and devalued, it will be if the present situation continues. But what does this mean? Fundamentally, it means that Canadian imports will be more expensive, and that has to mean strong inflationary pressures on the Canadian economy. Although, because it is the conventional wisdom of the Minister of Finance and his officials to believe that this will increase exports because the dollar will be cheaper, the recent work of Professor Mundell of Columbia University suggests this is not true, and the evidence of the past few years supports him.
The fact is that the rise in the price of imports, and the inflation which this rise in price creates, has meant that devaluation has led, in every country he has studied, to a rise in costs to such an extent that it more than offsets the advantages of the cheaper currency. What country in the world has had the most continuous devaluation of their currency? Great Britain. And it has had the longest period of balance of payments problems. What country has had no balance of payments problems and has maintained high levels of exports? Germany. And it has not had a continuous pattern of devaluation.
It is a myth to think that devaluation will solve the balance of payments problems. It will not. It will simply add to inflation and exacerbate the difficulties. If the government does not recognize this, and if it is not prepared to see the entire Canadian economy owned by non-Canadians, it must totally revamp its economic policies or we will never get out of the inflation-unemployment dilemma which we are now experiencing.
What has to be done? We need to cut back on exports where it is possible to do so; not through tariffs or restrictive trade practices, but where we can substitute domestic production for imports on an economic basis. Certainly, this means a crash program in energy development, a program to move the tar sands ahead on a priority basis, a program to generate energy from alternative sources, the tides, the wind, the sun and nuclear power properly safeguarded. The minuscule approach to this effort indicated

June 9, 1976

by this budget clearly shows the government has no realization of the scope and implications of the change in Canada from an exporter of energy to an importer, implications for the balance of payments and the rest of the economy.
Second, we must increase our exports, not through devaluation, because devaluation will not work, but by making the areas in which Canada has a world advantage more competitive and more productive. Tax policy must be directed at stimulating productivity, at developing our mineral resources, at improving our forest industries and keeping our agricultural sector one of the most competitive and efficient in the world. The Economic Council of Canada is absolutely correct in stating that we have to move away, in our policy, from programs that put us in direct competition with Hong Kong, Taiwan and other Far-Eastern countries which are labour-intensive. We have to strengthen our industries through tax treatment, incentive programs and general support where we have some advantage. Our future is based on resources and advanced technology and we must build our policies to strengthen these areas.
The current account in trade has been in deficit in seven of the past ten years. Despite the wishful thinking of the government that this problem will go away as the world economy recovers, it will not. Canadian export trade developed in the late fifties and over the sixties because of the Kennedy Round, Viet Nam, the auto pact and other special circumstances. It is all changing. The world is developing into trading blocs and Canada is not in one of them. The Kennedy Round approach is being replaced by bilateral negotiations and commodities, and it is certain that the trading patterns of the 1950s and 1960s will not be repeated. The automobile may be on the decline in this energy-short society, so if Canada is to prosper through trade it must have new policies and be more competitive.
Therefore, this budget deserves all the condemnation that it has had from Canadians from coast to coast. It lacks vision of what this country can be, and therefore has no policies for the long-run approach to the fulfilment of the nation's potentialities. It continues to emphasize broad-gauged fiscal and monetary policies which, important as they are, are less reliable for guiding the economy because no one knows what the results of such policies will be in an inflationary, government-dominated nation. It neglects the traditional task of a budget of producing policies and programs for specific sectors of the economy which must be supported if inflation and unemployment are to be reduced. It is based upon an out-moded and patently incorrect analysis of the manner in which an economy operates. It neglects to come to grips with the most significant approaching economic problem Canada is facing-the enormous deficits in our buying and selling relationships with the rest of the world.
In studying this budget and the philosophy, economic analysis and confidence in Canada which lies behind its formulation, Canadians can only conclude that the present government is worn-out, tired, incompetent and incapable of providing the leadership which a nation with the great opportunity and potentiality of Canada clearly deserves to have.
The Budget-Mr. Chretien


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, before I go further I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) on his presentation. Of course, I do not agree with many of the points he has made, and unfortunately 1 am not replying to him; I have other topics to talk about. But I listened carefully to his speech, and even though I disagreed with it I thought it was a most useful presentation. He talked in a very commendable way about the budget, expressing his views upon it and upon what should be done.
I was surprised to hear him speak as he did about the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. As he knows, there are many articles being written at this time suggesting that we should weaken the value of the Canadian dollar in relation to the American dollar-it is now two or three points above the U.S. valuation. I am glad to note that the hon. member recognizes that there are a lot of people in Canada who say that if we want to improve our export position, we ought to have a kind of devaluation. I will pass the hon. member's views on to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). At least the hon. member for Don Valley is very happy with the healthy situation of the Canadian dollar at the present time and he does not want to change it. It is a fact of life. I was surprised to hear his condemnation of the government at the end of his speech, to the effect that it was a tired, old government, and so on. I do not feel tired at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As I say, I am happy to know there is one member who is in accord with this particular aspect of Canadian fiscal and monetary policy to the extent that the Canadian dollar should be, not at par or below the value of the American dollar but that it should be a healthier dollar.
I have notes today. Usually I provoke a lot of controversy when I speak, so on this occasion I have written down the observations I intend to make. In rising today to participate in the budget debate, I would like to discuss two aspects of my responsibility as President of the Treasury Board. First, I will speak about government spending and then I will turn to the subject of the official languages policy.
Government spending is a matter which has been receiving much attention for a long time. It is right that it should receive a lot of attention because it is very important. The trouble is that it is also very complicated, and many of those who may have much to say on the subject have not taken the trouble to learn enough to understand it. As a result, a great deal of criticism people hear is misinformed. It is not forgivable for a large segment of the opposition to be so wrong-headed in talking about government expenditures when they should be giving leadership through informed criticism. But how can they give leadership when they stand paralysed in an attempted acrobatic effort to move in three directions at the same time? They advocate cutting government expenditures in total, but are critical of cutting expenditures in any particular area. In a third dimension, they favour a whole lot of new ideas which involve expenditure. Let me touch on a few points to entertain these hon. members as they stand in their fixed position.
First, let us consider the question of the growth of expenditures. This is usually looked at in terms of current

The Budget-Mr. Chretien
dollars discounting the effects of the use in prices. In those terms, total outlays, both budgetary and non-budgetary, rose 25 per cent in 1973-74, 28 per cent in 1974-75, and according to necessarily preliminary figures presented in the budget, by 18 per cent in 1975-76. But in terms of constant dollars, with the effect of price increases removed through a deflator, the actual rise in the years I have mentioned was 15 per cent in 1972-73, 15 per cent in 1973-74, 13 per cent in 1974-75, and 8 per cent in 1975-76-a different story, one of persistent decline. If we achieve our aim of staying under a ceiling of 14 per cent growth in 1976-77, price effects included, the growth in real terms will be no more than 5 per cent, maintaining the decline.
As hon. members know, our commitment to the future is that the trend of growth in expenditures by all levels of government will not exceed to trend of growth in the gross national product. This is a collective responsibility which the provinces and municipalities must share if it is to be discharged. I have shown in the record of decline just set out that we can be expected to do our part.
The word "trend" is significant. No government worth electing would bind itself to an automatic formula. Should the economy require assistance through added expenditures from time to time, the assistance must be given. Recent history offers a pertinent case in point. There is little doubt that the performance of the Canadian economy during the recent period of slow growth was assisted by the fact that federal expenditures remained at a high level. We avoided the decline in GNP which our neighbour suffered.
I maintain that our advanced social welfare structure, put in place by a series of Liberal governments, had much to do with this favourable outcome. The collection of programs which make up this structure has, as its primary purpose, the relieving of hardship among those who are the beneficiaries. But the indirect, cumulative effect is to maintain the purchasing power of the domestic economy in the face of downward pressures. So what we intend to do, by and large, is to hold expenditure growth over the medium and long term to the trend of the GNP. But we will depart from that trend when it is the right thing to do.
There is another general aspect of government expenditures which is analogous to the welfare aspect and which appears to go unnoticed. A large part of what is spent is in the nature of investment. Every year hundreds of millions of dollars are disbursed in budgetary outlays for capital acquisitions. The convention of the government accounts is to write off these outlays in the year they occur. The balance-sheet of Canada contains an almost quaint entry of one dollar to represent the value of all these budgetary investments from all the years this country has been in existence. That is a very big dollar. Business and commercial practice would show, in similar circumstances, an entry for billions of dollars, as well it might. The airports, the wharves, the roads, the postal terminals are in their own way as productive facilities as the factories and stores which weigh heavily in valuations of the commercial sector.
I have mentioned on other occasions that after you subtract transfer payments to other governments and to
individuals, and after you subtract subsidies to transportation, research and the like, and after you subtract public debt charges, you are left with a few percentage points of the total. These few percentage points include all the budgetary capital investments I have been talking about.
On the non-budgetary side, productive investment is much more marked. Here, our accounting practice is a little close to the commercial. The public accounts for 1974-75 show $1,831 million as a return to the government on its investments. These investments include, very prominently, the mortgage funds provided to CMHC to assist housing, the funds given to the Export Development Corporation to promote export, those given to the Farm Credit Corporation to assist agriculture, the Northern Canada Power Commission to support northern development, and much more.
What I have been trying to counteract here is the false impression created by so many who wave around the big figures of total expenditures in a way that hides the beneficial effect. The subject of the beneficial effect, through transfers to all segments of our society, I hope I have covered often enough before. These investment aspects are not mentioned frequently enough.
I really must deal, now, with the remarks made the other day by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). To say the nice things first, his remarks do serve some purpose in that they illustrate what I meant about uninformed criticism. I have not the time to reply to everything he said, so I will content myself with some of the juicier morsels. He started with the Post Office, about a difference between the 1975-76 expenditures figures for that department as forecast in the main estimates and as reported in the budget papers. Surely the hon. member must know by now that the main estimates are compiled in the December preceding the start of the fiscal year on the basis of departmental submissions received around the end of October. One figure is a forecast made some months before the year ends, and the other is a figure reported after the year ends. He must also be aware, if he was around, that there was a postal strike last year, a little incident that lasted for many, many weeks.


Miss MacDonald:: Don't we remember!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, and during which the Post Office was, naturally, not paying the workers who were not working and, as a hardly surprising result, actual expenditures are less than forecast expenditures. The estimates for 1976-77 were made on the assumption that similar circumstances will not arise. So this is why you have the difference. Then the hon. member went into the question of the $725 million difference between the expenditure projection I made in February and the preliminary totals reported in the budget. The explanation is very straightforward. We had expected at that time to disburse $33,625 million in budgetary expenditures and $2,875 million in non-budgetary expenditures.
The budgetary expenditures were in fact $262 million greater, for two reasons: statutory expenditures, particularly those for the Canada Assistance Plan-and we pay the bills the provinces send to us in that regard-were higher than the forecast, and reflecting the pressures placed on departmental resources by the current restraint

une 9, 1976


Mr. Mazankowski:: Just juggling.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No, we made that decision because we had the money to do it, and I think that was a pretty good policy to follow. You can see I have spent much more, and I can tell you where.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Why didn't you bail the Lockheed company out?
The Budget-Mr. Chretien


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is a different question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has the floor and I suggest we listen to him.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Perhaps I should go back to my text. A third subject the hon. member went into was the familiar delusion of the opposition about the amount spent on consulting contracts. We went to some trouble to clear up their confusion in the 1976-77 version of "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent". The opposition has again and again confused the object "professional and special services" for which $1,162 million is provided in the main estimates, with one of its minor components, just a little component-as a matter of fact, less than 8 per cent of the total- for that purpose. To make it very clear, the total is only 8 per cent for that. The opposition should not be confused. I have said this a dozen times, and I repeat it.
The so-called experts who were there-and they may be good at managing banks-could not understand that. It is just a percentage of the total. The total covers the cost of all outside services obtained by departments, including some they obtained from one another for which they are required to pay. The hon. member does not understand, so I will try to make myself very clear. Eight per cent is for consultants from outside. When one department pays another department for services, it is included there. Thirty-nine per cent of that amount of money, for example, covers educational and manpower services purchased from the provinces. It is not consultants in the sense they want the people to believe. If they were honest about it, they would recognize that the money that is spent in the provincial sector for training by the federal government is a consultant's fee we pay to the ministry of education of every province. So it is not a friendly little consultant of the government, which is the impression they try to leave.
Other consultants' fees are fees paid to private medical practitioners, lawyers, computer services, private security services, and the like. Does the hon. member, as an alternative to buying these services from the outside, suggest, instead, that we expand the public service itself? Why should we hire more dozens and dozens of lawyers, doctors, and so on, when we can have those services from the outside?


Frank Oberle: You have consultants now to tell you what you want to do.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am trying to clarify your mind. I know you want to understand, but your guys on the front bench confuse you all the time. I think that from the wobbly base he established with his Post Office example, his misconception of professional and special services, the elimination of some unspecified departments and what would amount to retrenchment in export and energy investment, the hon. member came up with a magic figure of $1,025 million in savings. May we all give fervent thanks that the finances of this country are not in such hands. Perhaps

The Budget-Mr. Chretien
now, Mr. Speaker, I can turn to my other preoccupation for today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal now with the government program on official languages. As you know, the cost of such programs gives rise to many comments, particularly because of the present restriction period. However, from the outset the consideration of all those linguistic matters must be placed in its real context.
As for any other government program, the funds allocated to the official language program are now subject to the strictest assessment. In the light of available data, the government estimates will have to spend about $310 million on those linguistic programs during the current fiscal year. This represents .8 of 1 per cent of the government overall spending which, according to the estimates, will be around $42 billion.
If we compare the cost of the official language programs with those of other sectors, we see that the linguistic programs require less money than the military equipment needed for national defence: $322 million. The same goes for the manpower rehabilitation and training program: $530 million.

This is one of the arguments they use. They think these are consulting firms.

As for the program concerning the native people of Canada, their budget of $605 million is almost double the total budget for official languages.
Out of the total projections of $310 million, 43 per cent or approximately $135 million are included in transfers for financing provincial programs of second language education. The amount of $135 million is spent and transferred to provincial governments, to Quebec for teaching English as well as outside Quebec for teaching French. In other words, the government has already agreed to the wishes expressed by the Commissioner of Official Languages and others that it would be more profitable to invest in young people attending school.
Moreover, $39 million were assigned to the bilingual program for military personnel in order that a national service of the scope of the Canadian Armed Forces can, within the country and abroad, reflect the bilingualism of Canada.
Regarding expenditures on programs for Canadian civil servants, these will reach $137 million, approximately half the subsidies to be paid to milk producers. That figure includes the cost of language training for civil servants, that of translation services for all documents, of course translation services for the House of Commons, and the budget of the Commissioner of Official Languages and also the operation costs incurred by my department under vote 15, that is the salaries of civil servants absent from work to follow language courses. The total is $137 million. All translation services at the House of Commons-


An hon. Member:: Too loud!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: ... do I speak too loud? It will not be very long.
There have been reservations concerning the linguistic designation of jobs within the Public Service of Canada and the language training program for civil servants. It has been implied for example that the identification of too many bilingual jobs would of necessity entail a lack of unilingual ones. However, any evaluation of that particular aspect of the program must adhere strictly to the original aims and criteria followed in the identification of language requirements for each job.
Under the Official Languages Act, government policies and programs are intended firstly to ensure that members of the Canadian community can communicate with and be served by federal bodies and departments in their own official language. The second objective is to make available to public servants every opportunity to work in the official language of their choice.
Procedures which were used to identify the linguistic requirements for various positions, while taking into consideration previous objectives, were described in the text of the resolution adopted in June 1973 by all parties represented in the House of Commons. The system used to identify the requirements for positions were not designed as if the situation would never change. On the contrary, it was meant to adapt to any situation which could arise and to promote the development of the official languages whenever it was desirable. I should point out in that respect that the resolution on official languages also included provisions for the increasing use of French within the confines of the merit principle, thus involving both francophone and anglophone communities in the federal administration process. The positions have therefore been identified to meet not only immediate needs, but also future requirements of the linguistic development of the public service.
As I already announced publicly, the Treasury Board, in cooperation with federal agencies and departments, will undertake the systematic review of linguistic requirements of all federal positions. If, in the light of the data collected during this review, we have to recognize that too many bilingual positions have been identified within the federal administrations, we shall not hesitate to take the required action.
In November 1974, I announced in the House that the government had decided to commission some experts to study linguistic training programs in the public service. The government has just received the thick report prepared by this study group, and it is now being translated and printed. We hope to make it public as soon as possible.
I would like to take this opportunity to express on behalf of the government my gratefulness to Mr. Gilles Bibeau of the University of Montreal who was asked to direct this important study. I would like to tell him once again that the government will study closely his evaluation and recommendations.
There is no doubt that the transformation of the Public Service of Canada into a functionally bilingual institution at an acceptable but fair cost is an enormous task. The concept of linguistic planning is in itself revolutionary and until now, no other country in the world has undertaken such a wide linguistic training program for adults.

June 9, 1976

Those who never had the opportunity to take part in the activity of a bilingual organization sometimes find it hard to understand how bilingualism can be introduced in a working context. Occasionally, the vocabulary used by those who are interested in bilingualism can lead to confusion. It is obvious that someone in the academic field who has the opportunity to have a sabbatical year in a second language will have a tendency to consider bilingualism differently than a federal employee who is faced-


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out that I answered some questions at the request of some hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go ahead.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am going ahead. I have to switch to French, and I need a couple of seconds to adjust. I will give you a couple of hours to adjust also, if need be.

A whole vocabulary was established to distinguish between the various forms of bilingualism, from operational bilingualism to institutional bilingualism. I for one believe that in more than one situation, operational bilingualism will have to be used where one expresses himself in his language while all understand one another. In the Treasury Board, for example, that is the formula being used because we believe everyone must have the opportunity to participate in the creative process, and for most of us that is only possible in our mother tongue. But we all want to use our knowledge of the second language at work.
Some Treasury Board meetings sometimes take place entirely in English, and others entirely in French, but I sometimes express myself in French while others speak in English. Such a flexible and relaxed approach seems to us particularly successful when it comes to working without being bound by a prepared text. Mr. Speaker, I only touched on a few of the particular aspects of the government official languages policy and programs.
In concluding, I could not overemphasize the importance of another dimension of official languages, because it would be wrong to reduce them to a simple linguistic matter. If through that linguistic reform we want to achieve a civil service that provides services suited to the needs of the Canadian public on the one hand and, on the other hand, a hospitable working climate for the civil servant, the Public Service of Canada will have to become aware of and sensitive to the culture dimension. In other words, when it comes to a decision likely to affect the whole of this country, it is important for those who participate in the decision-making process to seek to understand and respect provincial variables. In short, we must pursue
The Budget-Mr. Chretien
and try by all means to implement in the federal public service the very climate that Prime Minister Pearson was proposing when he stated in 1966, and I quote:
Civil servants of both linguistic groups will be able to work together toward common goals using their own language and drawing from their respective cultural values while at the same time appreciating to their full value and respecting those of others.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important at this moment to thank everyone in the various departments in Ottawa for their great understanding of the government's policy in this respect. I think we have made a lot of progress. There is much good will, and this should be emphasized more often because I know that in my department this has been a great experience. As I have said in my speech, everyone uses his own language at meetings when we have to make decisions. This is of great satisfaction even to people who sometimes appear to object the most to this policy.
It is sometimes said that we do not provide sufficient opportunity for those who have learned the French language, to use it. Some people say that not enough French is spoken in Ottawa. I must tell hon. members that I have been a member of the House since 1963, and in my view the situation now is completely different. Sometimes when we have technical discussions in my department I prefer to use my native language. I speak in French, which my officials understand, and they reply in English. This is the kind of attitude that is being developed and one which is gratifying to both sides.
In my view, too many people tend to raise the problems and not talk about the results. The other day I heard someone complain that some people claim they use French only 9 per cent or 10 per cent of the time. I refer here to English people who have learned French. Some Englishspeaking officials in Ottawa have learned French and use it only 10 per cent of the time, and yet this is a revolution, a revolution in the right direction. I think we have gained from those exchanges.
Of course there are many problems, but I think that not enough people speak about the real progress that has been achieved, the understanding between people and their willingness to understand each other. We should not try to put into perspective only the problems, because there will always be problems. I see, after talking with members on both sides of the House and from all parties, that they want this policy to be a success. This will not take place overnight, but I think every one of us should look at the problem realistically and not forget the good progress we have made in the last ten years in Canada in this respect. The other day I was in British Columbia and some people came up to me to talk about this policy, people who want to be part of the fabric of this nation, who want to have access to the two greatest western cultures, the French and the English. There are other components-


Frank Oberle: Too much, too fast. Start in the schools.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have made much progress in Canada and we should try to put the progress into perspective and not speak only about the difficulties. After two years in this position I can say that I was somewhat worried when I assumed the position because of my own personal background. I was worried that some people would assume that

June 9, 1976
The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack
I had ulterior motives in doing what I was trying to do. I think the reception of the whole public service and the willingness of public servants to participate in this policy is gratifying. I think we have made a lot of progress and everyone is helping to develop a better understanding within our nation.


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) must have put a lot of time and effort into the drafting of this budget. It is obvious that this has not been a hasty effort or one lacking in ingenuity, either. It took an awful lot of planning, enterprise and expertise to prepare a budget that does not contain a single, solitary item that should have been in the budget. In fact, it is such a sterile and useless document that the Minister of Finance might have used his time to better advantage, possibly rounding up some money with which to buy long-range patrol aircraft for the Canadian armed forces. There are so many things missing from this budget that it might become famous as the case of the missing budget. It might have to share billing with Keith Spicer's famous annual reports on the failure of bilingualism in the public service, or that infamous volume of instructions on how to tender for contracts at the nation's federal airports.
Because of its shortcomings, this budget is guaranteed a place in history, the history of "nothing" budgets, "nothing" reports and "nothing" programs, because there is not a program in it. It was inspired and inaugurated by the Liberal aggregation across the floor. It is not surprising that the advisers of the Minister of Finance disagreed with him as to what kind of budget this is. The finance minister said that it is slightly stimulative and mildly expansionary. His economic advisers are reported to have described the budget as mildly restrictive. Surely, a minister responsible for approving and tabling national budgets should know the difference between expansionary and restrictive policies; at least that is what I hope.
Things do not change much from day to day around here in the life of this Trudeau government. It staggers along in disarray and chaos. The situation has become so bad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet are now unable to confront the confusion, corruption, hypocrisy and ineptitude of his administration. The multi-million dollar loss incurred by either one of his two ministers, or both, in the ill-fated Lockheed deal is the latest albatross around the neck of the Trudeau government, and the best thing the Prime Minister could do would be to sack both the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). The government's policies are damaging our economy, or what is left of it.
We had the dubious distinction last Thursday afternoon of being the spectators of stormy scenes here on the Hill, brought about by the demonstration of the Quebec milk producers. That demonstration proved to be quite impressive. I can appreciate their milk marketing problem because I come from a farm background. I have milked cows and helped produce milk at ridiculously low prices in the past, and I have witnessed milk surpluses in my area as well as nationally. Nevertheless, I cannot condone the
damage done to public property by a small minority of the Quebec milk producers. If this deliberate vandalism does not stop, the government should ban all demonstrations on the upper concourse in front of the Peace Tower and permit demonstrations on the lower level of the front lawn only. Persons and property must be protected. That is the first duty of the government. But the Prime Minister can blame himself and his own policies to a great degree for the terrible state of general insolvency in the dairy industry in Canada today.
The Prime Minister has been the chief abettor of the main grievance of the Quebec dairy farmers, namely, the accumulated surplus milk products and the lack of market for this surplus. I want the House to pay special attention to the following: The Prime Minister's importing this year of 50 million pounds of cheese, much of it from the European Common Market, which is part of his much vaunted contractual link with that group of nations, only contributes to our own surplus. This represents about 500 million pounds of milk and costs our producers an additional $3.6 million over and above our current surpluses. This import item of cheese was one of the chief points of protest raised by the Quebec milk producers.
One of the statements made by the finance minister on budget night sticks in my mind and worries me, but I think it was the closest the minister has ever come to levelling with us. He said: "The outlook for 1977 is, of course, much more uncertain at this time." Every finance minister since the present government took office could say, and in many cases did, that the coming fiscal year looked uncertain. We have lived for a long time in that atmosphere of uncertainty-too long-and it shows up in everything we see when we summon the nerve to look around us.
I just have time to look in one more direction at present. We should consider our manufacturing industry and certain parts of it. The budget does nothing for our manufacturers, our secondary industry and especially for the textile industry. The Canadian textile industry, in all its facets, is in deep trouble and severely depressed because of our damaging imports of vast quantities of low-cost offshore products. I received a protest from Celanese Canada Limited, the owner and operator of a large plant at Mill-haven in my constituency of Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. I want to put that protest on the record. I have a letter here from Celanese Canada dated May 17 which reads in part as follows:
Dear Mr. Alkenbrack,
Further to my letter of April 15th, the polyester yarn business continues to be severely depressed. You may have noticed since that our competitor, DuPont, has deferred the opening of a new plant at Coteau-du-Lac, Quebec.
We have now found it necessary to cut back production further at our Millhaven, Ontario plant. This entails the lay-off of an additional 94 employees, bringing to 465 the total number of jobs lost this year in the Company's polyester filament yarn operations in Ontario.
I also received a resolution from the county of Lennox and Addington. The county government is so concerned about this that it sent this resolution to me, to many other elected representatives in this House and in the provincial government in Toronto. The county government goes back quite a way in the record of this government. The resolution reads as follows:

June 9, 1976

Whereas on May 14th, 1970, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, Minister, Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, tabled a document known as the Canadian Textile Policy;
And whereas its intention was to give the textile trade in Canada-
That is referring to Mr. Pepin's document which he tabled.
-the necessary protection against low-cost and damaging offshore imports;
And whereas on the local scene there is much evidence of the Canadian textile industry being in serious trouble as evidenced by large lay-offs in two main fibre producing plants in this area and cut-backs in expansion of facilities and a slow down in production of output;
Now therefore the council of the county of Lennox and Addington requests the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-
That is, the present minister.

to hasten the implementation of the immediate and long-term remedial action necessary to bring the textile trade in Canada to an acceptable economic level.
I also want to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) that a major recommendation has been made to him by the Clothing and Textile Board with regard to polyester yarn and filament. It has been in his hands now for five weeks. The minister promised to table it in the House and to table his answer within 15 days. I ask the government, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Prime Minister as well: In light of the serious situation now present in the general textile industry of Canada, why has this report not been tabled? Why has the minister failed to do this?
The Canadian economy at the present time is all tied up in knots, and the example I just gave is just one of the complaints. The Canadian economy is tied up in knots with the gold-dust twins, Jean-Luc Pepin and Beryl Plumptre, grinning and fawning as they try to justify their enormous salaries and preemptive power over every aspect of our economy. This is what the present government told Canadian voters in the 1974 federal election campaign could not possibly work. The Prime Minister was right, even as he was deceiving the voters into returning this government to office. Soon after the election, this government implemented a program of wage and price controls that had been drafted and approved long before the election campaign. The finance minister of that time has since resigned from the cabinet and from the House. There can be no doubt that the former minister knew a lot that we did not know, and do not know to this day, and that it was too much for him to accept and to live with and remain in the government.
We could have been less honest with the voters at that time, but that is not Conservative policy. We could have warned the people what to expect in the way of controls and restrictions if the then government were returned. Instead, we proposed a program-a sensible program-of selective income and price restraints, tied in with restraints in federal government spending-I repeat, tied in with restraints in federal government spending. The result of that honesty is history. The Prime Minister conned the Canadian voters and they turned down our sensible and reasonable restraints program. Now they are
The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack
caught up in a gigantic and expensive bureaucratic web, and it is both possible and probable that our economy may never fully recover from the effects of these controls and restrictions.
I am surprised that the Minister of Finance did not use this opportunity to respond to the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages and slash the budget for bilingualism in the public service, since Mr. Spicer says it is a failure. We could find the money to buy the equipment and airplanes we need for our armed forces simply by establishing realistic priorities for government spending. The billion dollars we need for aircraft to replace the aging Argus patrol aircraft has been available to us, but most of it has been spent on bilingualism-"squandered" would be a better word.
What do we have for that money? We have a level of inefficiency in our public service that is lower than at any time in our history. There is no merit system left. We have a morale problem both in the public service and in our armed forces that is a disgrace. Our country is divided as never before in our history, yet we are told continually that bilingualism is bringing our people closer together. The plain fact is that this government's bilingualism program is destroying confederation by creating the two nations that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has been warning against for the past decade.
This would be a good time for the Minister of Finance to come clean on the ill-starred Lockheed deal, a boondoggle that threatens our good relations with our NATO partners and could cost us up to $20 million for nothing. The Minister of Supply and Services has found a likely goat to hang the Lockheed fiasco on, a public service official who cannot defend himself. The minister claims that he was not kept informed of what was going on in the Lockheed negotiations, so the offending official must go. What a travesty, Mr. Speaker!
I simply cannot believe that a minister of the Crown, a minister responsible for federal government purchasing, could suggest that he was not kept informed of negotiations on the largest proposed armed forces purchase in the history of our country. Even though we have seen the ultimate in inefficiency and bungling among cabinet ministers in this government, I still cannot accept the minister's statement that he did not make an attempt to follow each and every step in the Lockheed negotiations. If he allowed other people to carry out negotiations on their own, without assuming responsibility for what was said and done, then he cannot do anything except resign his cabinet post. Passing the buck to someone in the ranks is simply not good enough. It would not be acceptable on the part of a public servant, and it is not good enough for a minister of the Crown. What we need more than anything else, though, at this point in time is the full story of the Lockheed deal.
If it is true that a senior official in the public service is responsible for the colossal blunder that promises to cost the Canadian taxpayer $16 million or more, then we should know exactly how it happened so that we can plug that loophole. If a senior public servant has been guilty of negligence, or has been guilty of assuming authority to disburse sums from the treasury that were not lawfully his

June 9, 1976
The Budget-Mr. Alkenbrack
to assume authority for, then his indictment must be supported by facts, not innuendo, and this evidence must be presented to this House. The members on this side of the House who moved for a public inquiry are to be commended.
If, on the other hand, this is simply more ministerial bungling, then that minister must be forced to accept responsibility for the expenditure and in fact the misapplication of millions of dollars of public funds. For the minister to simply announce that he has fired an offending public service employee is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker, and the minister is not naive enough to believe that we will accept that as a full and complete explanation and expiation of this appalling example of negligence. This House, and through us the Canadian people, must be made aware of the full and complete story of the Lockheed affair.
Mr. Speaker, this might be the time and place to ask why the Prime Minister does not see fit to give us the full story on another case of ministerial shenanigans-the case of the Sky Shops contract tendering. My colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) has done a great service to all Canadians by exposing the sordid details of the Sky Shops affair and I do not intend to add to or detract from that member's excellent efforts. I only wish to say that there must be some compelling reason why the Prime Minister insists on protecting those involved in the Sky Shops affair, in a conspiracy of prime ministerial silence. I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, if one or more of the principals in that sordid affair might have been among the anonymous donors of the Prime Minister's now famous swimming pool. Could that be the reason for his reluctance to have the full story known?
There is one item in the budget that I concur with, and that is the provision to extend the eligibility period of insured employment from eight to twelve weeks in order to receive Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits. I do not agree with all its ramifications, but I agree with the time limit. This is not a sufficient reason to bring in a budget, though, Mr. Speaker. This could, and should, have been done long ago by the simple expedient of tabling a bill in the House. There is one thing wrong with this item, though, and that is the effect that it could have on people in areas of high unemployment, such as in the maritimes. Some of the traditional jobs in the maritimes, largely in fisheries, have a seasonal duration of eight weeks and these people will not now be eligible for benefits.
I urge the government to re-examine this provision in the UIC regulations to see if there is some way that these people can be considered as exceptions to this rule-not fishermen only, but others as well. I know that exceptions lead to more exceptions, but these are worthy exceptions. I know there is a danger that the desirable effects of this change in the regulations could be watered down, but surely we should be able to work out some way whereby these people will not be further penalized by a situation that is unique to the region or area in which they live. They might well become victims of the very uniqueness of their types of principal employment.
I have also suggested that if a way cannot be found to include them in the benefit program, then these people should not be required to pay unemployment insurance premiums in the first eight weeks. It would be grossly
unfair to expect anyone excluded from the benefit program to pay premiums. This principle is a sound one and it is in fact enshrined in the founding principles of the American revolution. The colonies, rightfully, refused to pay taxes to support a parliament in which they were not represented and could not therefore derive any benefit. This is a parallel to the question I have raised. I say that where there is no possibility of receiving benefits, there should not be the requirement to pay premiums.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for Fron-tenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) and heard him often refer to the budget as a "nothing" budget, I might conclude he made a "nothing" speech. I promise to read it tomorrow and appraise it fairly.

Mr. Speaker, the participation in this debate on the budget in the last few days is perhaps a repetition of some remarks already made. For some hon. members, it was congratulations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), for other hon. members, it was an opportunity to speak on a topic, and for my hon. colleagues opposite, it was simply criticism, even negative criticism, because I heard nobody offer alternative solutions or even one alternative to the budgetary measures. In any case, I congratulate them for their participation in this democratic process.
I should like to join my colleagues who spoke before me to congratulate the Minister of Finance for his first budget. As the Canadian public on the whole seems to welcome it, and even if our most ardent critics from the media agree to say that this budget is trying to meet the needs of the state and of the economy at this time, it seems to me that perhaps the most important sector of our economy has been neglected namely agriculture.
It seems to me that there would have been room in the budget for these 5 or 6 per cent of the Canadian people who provide us with all our food. I will come back to this later. Even though I make this remark, Mr. Speaker, I must, in all sincerity, comend the Minister of Finance for several items of his budget.
First, concerning the conservation of energy, I fully endorse the proposed measures, namely the increases in the prices of oil and natural gas, so that the exploration and development of these resources may continue. Those who venture into that field assume enormous financial risks. It is very easy to criticize oil and multinational companies, but even if for economic reasons these companies decided to discontinue their research and exploration activities, we would be the first to feel the secondary effects of that decision. We would immediately be subject to the world price for oil, which would mean increases of almost 50 per cent, and I am convinced that this is not the wish of the Canadian people.
In my opinion, a price increase such as that proposed in the budget is a positive factor of conservation. We must realize that our per capita spending of non-renewable energy is higher than that of any other industrial country. It is a moral issue. We have no right to use more than our share of these non-renewable resources. We must leave

June 9, 1976

their fair share to the coming generations. A price increase would therefore bring the desired effect, that is less waste.
In his comments my hon. friend from York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) accuses this government of taking an overly large share of the tax on a gallon of gas-almost 13 cents. But he does not dare mention much higher taxes collected by provincial governments and particularly the producing provinces. At least that 10-cent federal tax is only aimed at protecting the consumers in the east of the country and if the hon. member for York-Simcoe wishes a return to the Borden line system he should have the honesty to admit it.
I wish also to mention the proposed changes to the unemployment insurance system. Merging unemployment insurance and manpower services is certainly a step in the right direction as those two services have so many things in common. The qualifying period will be increased from 8 to 12 weeks, a change which also received strong support because, in fact, the 8 weeks were mainly for the underprivileged areas which only have seasonal employment. But like in any good program there are abuses and changes must be made. We had reached the point where full employment areas had so many profiteers who worked only 8 weeks to qualify and received their benefits when in the same areas employers were looking for manpower. Then, I endorse those changes in principle but I shall encourage the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) to bring about all those changes to help areas with seasonal employment and to adopt even stricter measures for full employment areas.
For the less privileged areas maybe we should have LIP projects on a continuous basis but strictly with the cooperation of municipalities. We could even return to our Opportunities for Youth Program but still strictly with the cooperation of municipalities. It would eliminate criticism that some of those projects were not productive. There would be an authority or I should say a control.
Without any doubt, several of those projects gave very good results in our communities but as in the case of the 8-week qualifying period for unemployment insurance there were abuses. I was listening to my friend, the hon. member for York-Simcoe when he criticized the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. He asked that the unemployment insurance system operate on the principle that we should collect as much as we contribute. But two lines further he says that he supports the principle that the government should give a revenue to those who need it.

The hon. gentleman cannot have it both ways. He either supports a social measure, or he does not. This is something like his criticizing the government's policy on the Olympic gold coin which is being minted to help cover the Olympic deficit. He managed to slip the subject into his speech to show his refusal to co-operate on any measure concerning the Olympic deficit. Yet while he says this in the House, his leader, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), is touring Quebec and telling the people of the province that if a Progressive Conservative government were to assume power in Ottawa, it would help the province directly to eliminate the Olympic deficit. Here, again, they cannot have it both ways. Inside Quebec they support the Olympics; outside Quebec they do not support them.
The Budget-Mr. Ethier


Steve Eugene Paproski: When did he say that?


Denis Éthier: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people are entitled to know where the official opposition stands concerning the Olympics.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't know what you are talking about.


Denis Éthier: In that budget closely following the antiinflation program, it is fair and reasonable to expect stricter measures concerning government expenditures. This means a sacrifice for a number of our citizens, because the reduction of government expenditures directly affects the social welfare programs directly or indirectly under our jurisdiction.
The changes to the unemployment insurance scheme will require sacrifices from the residents of areas where employment is seasonal. Urban dwellers are also asked to co-operate since the anti-inflation program is in effect. Many young unionists have seen their collective bargainings rejected by the Anti-Inflation Board. However, they had expected a raise comparable with what they had received in the last five years, which does not seem exaggerated. Professionals will have to restrict their increase in income to a limit of $2,400. Businesses will surely be asked to accept a smaller margin of profit.
The people in rural areas were also prepared to do their share. They were ready to make a sacrifice just as the rest of our society, but a shared sacrifice and not one supported only by the dairy community.
This is the main reason for my intervening today. Following the demonstration of June 3, it is obvious that there is a problem, an uneasy feeling, but we cannot and should not accept this responsibility alone. I have been quite surprised that so few producers understand the responsibility of their own marketing committee since this committee is composed of their own fellow producers who, as a matter of fact, appoint their delegates to sit on the management and supply committee with the Canadian Dairy Board.
I have been amazed and humiliated, Mr. Speaker, to see how the delegation treated the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on June 3. I am sure several of the participants will regret this gesture, because they will soon find out how quickly they have forgotten their hero of the day before. Yes, I do say hero, for never in the history of Canada has a Minister of Agriculture done so much and in such a short time for those he is defending in cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, I would rather believe what many people have suggested, namely that this demonstration which was supposed to be peaceful turned out differently as a result of the infiltration of a few professional trouble makers. The large majority of producers are blaming the federal government for all the problems that the dairy industry is facing as a result. But the marketing boards have a responsibility and I would say it is their duty to better control the dairy production for 1975-76. They have done just the opposite. They have encouraged overproduction up to the very last minute. These marketing boards are operating under a provincial legislation so as to control production.
14338

June 9, 1976
The Budget-Mr. Ethier
That is why I say we will never agree to assume full responsibility.
As regards the problem which dairy producers are facing, at the beginning of the 1975-76 dairy year, the Minister of Agriculture informed the marketing boards through the Canadian Dairy Commission that the money available for subsidies amounted to only $266 million, that is $2.66 per hundred weight of milk. Obviously they meant that all production in excess of 100 million hundredweights of milk would not be subsidized.
In August and September 1975, the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Minister of Agriculture warned the producers and the marketing boards in particular that there was overproduction and that if this was not under control as soon as possible, it might have an adverse effect on the dairy industry especially in the industrial sector.
I read an article in the Ottawa Journal of May 8, 1976 where Ontario Agriculture Minister William Newman is quoted as still arguing that there is no overproduction in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, it is shameful for a minister to play on words in such a way. He knows very well the difference between production eligible for subsidies and quota production. True, the production has not gone over the quota but the minister should show a minimum of integrity and confess that our production was more important than what was necessary to be eligible for the subsidies and this is precisely where the problem is, namely the lack of money. The necessary production to be eligible for subsidies was 100 million hundredweights of milk and we have produced 112.6 million hundredweights. If we wanted to play with words, it would be very easy to say that we are not asking for a 5 per cent reduction but simply for a 15 per cent reduction, because last year we were asking for a production of 100 million hundredweights of milk and, this year, we ask for 95 million hundredweights to be eligible. But we do not want to play with words and we will not. There is a problem which must be dealt with, but before all we must be frank.
The problem is all the more important in Quebec because in that province there are two marketing bodies. The Federation of Industrial Milk Producers controls industrial milk producers and the Federation of Milk Producers controls producers of fluid milk and also the integrated producers, those who produce both fluid and industrial milk. I think that, here again, there is some misunderstanding. They too refused to assume their responsibilities and keep production below the necessary level to be eligible for subsidies. Here again, these two bodies are run according to a provincial law.
I think we are far from having a national policy with a single market for milk if, in one single province, they insist on keeping two federations, one for fluid milk and the other for industrial milk. I think that it would be more profitable to take some time to solve this problem of the two markets than to come and pour milk on Parliament hill.
Mr. Speaker, here are some propositions which might help this group which belongs to the industrial sector.
The cabinet could perhaps consider the possibility of creating a system to promote our dairy products on the export markets, at competitive prices. There might result a

lower price for our dairy products but not necessarily a reduction of net incomes. For example, with regard to the producer who is getting nothing for the milk produced in excess of his quota, I am sure he would choose to get a lower price, but for his whole production.
It will now cost the producer something for having overproduced, for not only will he not be paid anything for the excess milk but under the existing policy the Canadian Dairy Commission could charge the producer for a product he has not been paid for.
So a good advertising at world level is imperative if we are to find outlets for our dairy products, even at the risk of products commanding lower prices. If, as I was saying earlier, producers were free to produce as much as they want, this would have a double impact: higher income for producers and lower prices for consumers.
I would like to make another suggestion, Mr. Speaker. We could perhaps urge provincial governments to get back to the old custom of distributing free milk in primary schools and providing milk at special or reduced price in secondary schools. Schools should even be forced to have automatic vending machines for milk; there are always some for soft drinks, but seldom for milk.
I would like to make another suggestion if I may. There is still this agreement between producers and the Canadian Dairy Commission about the levy, that famous levy which affects industrial milk producers only. It is intended to cover the deficit incurred by the lower export prices compared with the home-market price or the subsidized price. This five year old agreement ought to be renegotiated and the burden could be shared in one of the two following ways: Either by the industrial milk producer, the natural milk producer, the processing plants and the two levels of government which are also responsible to the producers, or by the provincial and federal governments.
This would help us dispose of our present surpluses and empty out our storage rooms, then we could use the same system which is being practised in the European Economic Community, namely do away with the levy and, as I have said before, do away also with the export support price as the common market countries do.
Right now, our producers find themselves in competition with the government of those countries and not with the producers and I think this is not fair.
Another suggestion would be to have a single market for the milk but there again, as I said previously, as long as we insist on having two federations in one province, that does not seem possible.

I was pleased to read in today's Montreal Gazette that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) informed the producers that a two-year moratorium had been offered on the repayment of loans to the Farm Credit Corporation. I hope this will also include the interest. If not, it means very little to the producers who have just contracted large loans, since during the first years very little is in the form of repayment of capital; it is mostly interest.
Another welcomed announcement by the Minister was that the present limit of 95 million hundredweight will be raised if farmers demonstrate their willingness to stay within their assigned quota level. As I have said, there is a
June 9, 1976

serious problem for the industrial milk producers, and all those responsible should work together toward a policy or formula whereby situations such as the one we are not witnessing do not happen again. All those responsible should include the federal government, the provincial governments, the transformation plants, the fluid milk producers and the industrial milk producers.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, this budget has been called a status quo or stand-pat budget by some. By others it is referred to in over-all terms as being fiscally neutral, a "wait and see" budget. That means we must wait and see if the American economy, slowly making its way out of its deep recession, will accelerate enough during the presidential election year to also lift our national economy by its bootstraps.
The budget, in essence, expects that the growth of the American economy will greatly improve the performance of our export sector. It seems to expect, at the same time, an increase of imports at reduced prices and thus improve our internal price structure as measured by the gross national product price deflater to 9.5 per cent. It projects a growth rate of 5 per cent which in real gross national product will just create enough new jobs to cover the increase in the labour force and thus leave us with average national unemployment that will remain at a seasonally adjusted rate of 7 per cent.
One of the disconcerting things about the budget, as I read it, is the finance minister's remark about the relationship between the present economic systems of control as characterized by the Anti-Inflation Board and what the economists call aggregate demand in the economy during peacetime conditions. He says on this point:
A clear lesson of history is that controls cannot be made to work in peacetime in the face of excess pressures of demand.
There is scarcely anyone who would argue the point, but surely even a neophyte Minister of Finance can see that when you have a seasonally adjusted 7.3 per cent level of national unemployment, you do not have an "excess demand" situation but a lack of demand. It surely called for some tax cuts or tax credits for the low income groups in this country. This lack of demand tends to create a level of unemployment which is about the highest in the western world. Indeed, if we exclude the United States we can truthfully say that Canada has by far the highest rate of unemployment in the western world.
Some would like to deny the reality of what that means in billions of dollars in goods and services which are not produced and which quantitatively and/or qualitatively could improve the lives of many Canadians. These people also think that young adults and women workers, with their material needs and desire for work, can be dismissed by trite slogans or phrases such as "marginal attachment to the labour force" or "secondary workers". The very people who measure their own standard of living by the level of their family income would deny that the same criterion be applied to hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians.
The old bromide is still around, that there are lots of job vacancies if "they" would only look. The fact is, Mr. Speak-
The Budget-Mr. Hogan
er, that we now have estimates from Statistics Canada on job vacancies which include both full and part-time categories. As the leader of our party noted earlier in this debate, these figures show there are now 12 unemployed Canadians for every available job in this country. He stated:
If every available job was filled tomorrow, there would be more than
700.000	Canadians who would be unable to find work.
The finance minister's remarks in the budget on Canada's central bank money supply growth targets provide clear evidence that a relatively tight money supply and an accompanying high structure of interest rates will be with us well into the future. The effect of this on our already overvalued exchange rate and the current account of our balance of payments-to say nothing of our own housing sector and investment in the business sector-and the likely consequent increase of unemployment is not seriously considered in this budget.
One may rightfully doubt that even a sluggish growth rate at this time, of 5 per cent, one which will produce
250.000	jobs and leave us with a 7 per cent level of national unemployment, will result from this so-called fiscally neutral budget. What if the game plan turns out to give us only 4 per cent or 4V4 per cent real growth in GNP? It will take at least six months fiscally to stimulate the economy back to a more stable and acceptable condition. Recent Economic history in Canada seems to suggest that it takes about $800 to $900 million to reduce the unemployment rate by about one percentage point.
Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing of substance to fight unemployment. In fact, in my opinion it may increase it. It talks about productivity, but does little or nothing about it. It does nothing to reduce Canada's increasingly high interest rates. It is altogether too dependent on the economic stimulus of the American economy. It might be considered a fiscally neutral budget in over-all terms, but in reality it is more of a do-nothing budget. It certainly will not be neutral in its effect on certain sub-regions and categories of people who can least protect themselves.
Granted, single parent families and families in which both parents work will be able to make larger income tax deductions with respect to child-care expenses. The most significant change is in the proposed amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Unemployment rates were recently at a 15-year high. What does the government do? Does it implement measures to stimulate employment? No. It makes it harder for those same unemployed people to receive benefits. This, despite the protestations of the Minister of Manpower (Mr. Andras), smacks of a cynical move on the part of the government to shift the blame of its failure to create jobs on to the very people who have suffered from that failure. On budget night the minister announced his intention to increase the number of weeks of insured employment from 8 to 12 with respect to eligibility for benefit. Regional extended benefits, he stated, would be related in a more sensitive manner to levels of regional unemployment. This second statement was taken as a concession to ease the burden of changes in areas of high unemployment. The Canadian Press story in the Halifax Herald of May 26 fell for this line when it stated:
This will result in a longer benefit period in areas of high unemployment such as the Atlantic provinces.
95 5 70-V/2

June 9, 1976
The Budget-Mr. Hogan
Mr. Speaker, I suggest this is not the case at all. Take, for example, a person who has worked for 12 weeks before losing his job, in a region with 10.5 per cent unemployment. At present, due to a system of national and regional extended benefits he could draw unemployment insurance for 44 weeks. Under the revised, and supposedly more sensitive system, he could collect for only 32 weeks. So much for helping the regions where unemployment is traditionally high!
I want to pursue this question of regional extended benefits. The minister claims they will be related in a more sensitive manner in future to levels of regional unemployment. The present legislation includes the notion of extension of benefits based on regional figures. The problem here is that the region chosen is, for example, the whole of the province of Nova Scotia. Let me show how this discriminates against the unemployed in Cape Breton, including my own constituency, that of Cape Breton-East Richmond, as well as that of Cape Breton-The Sydneys, Cape Breton Highland-Canso and other Nova Scotian ridings. Indeed, it applies to many ridings in the Atlantic provinces and probably through Quebec as well.
Under the normal labour force surveys carried out by Statistics Canada, Nova Scotia is divided into three economic zones for the purpose of measuring unemployment. Group four consists of the four counties on Cape Breton Island. Group five includes the eight counties from the Strait of Canso to the Bay of Fundy. Group six comprises Halifax County including the well-off Halifax-Dartmouth metropolitan area and the South Shore counties. The average unemployment rate in these three groups varied widely for 1975. Group four-Cape Breton Island-had 13 per cent unemployment. Group five had 7.5 unemployment. Group six experienced 6.2 per cent unemployment. But the unemployment rate for Nova Scotia as a whole was 7.8 per cent for 1975.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration last Tuesday, I think it was, when he made his speech claimed that almost half of those who were in the category of the eight weeks are under the age of 25 and many are working wives and young persons living at home. What he left unsaid was that over half are over 25; 75,000 are between 25 and 34;
41,000	are between 35 and 44; 35,000 are between 45 and 54; and 19,000 are between 55 and 64. As for the charge that some of these people represent only a second income to the family, according to the 1971 census 6,200 heads of households in my riding draw less than $5,800. These families, surely, should not be denied a second source of income by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Further, the minister said that only 30 per cent of the 8 to 11-weekers have established a seasonal repeat pattern. That is only 110,000 Canadians in the course of a year. That is 110,000 people who quite probably will not even be able to remain where they are to work those 8 to 11 weeks per year if this measure passes. Has the minister given any thought to what will happen to these seasonal enterprises if the people can no longer stay in the area to work for the two months because it does not provide the necessary stamps to carry the person over the winter? Job creation is the proposed solution to the gap left by these measures.

suggest this is a sham. In reality it will be just replenishing the slashed coffers of LIP. LIP programs were cut in the last Turner budget, and now in reinstating some of the cut money the government tries to present this as a solution to high unemployment regions.
We will probably wind up making jobs for a couple of months so that people will be eligible to collect unemployment insurance benefits under the new qualification period. What does the Conservative manpower critic, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), have to say about this mutilation of a fine piece of social legislation? Five years too late, he says, and he brags about amendments proposed by himself in 1971 to increase the insured period from 8 to 12 weeks. It is easy to see that the hon. member for Hamilton West does not have to live with serious structural and seasonal unemployment in his constituency. He may feel that people in his riding work for eight weeks, quit and draw pogey and then get another job. In many areas of this country the possibility of another job is just not there. I suggest the hon. member should listen to some of his maritime colleagues on this subject.
I want to return again to the question of unemployment regional figures and to show that under the present legislation the definition of "region", when it includes the whole of the province and does not include the sub-regions which are used in a labour survey conducted by Statistics Canada, completely discriminates against those areas of very high unemployment. In other words, in the example I gave previously, the fact that you have such low levels of unemployment, from 3 per cent to 4 per cent in the Halifax-Dartmouth region-which is part of region six-lowers the average level of unemployment, and therefore the extension of regional benefits to areas like Cape Breton Island is away down and we are getting gored in two ways. First, we are not getting the jobs, and we are not getting the compensation we should get because of the lack of jobs. As I mentioned in the example of Cape Breton Island, it has the worst of both worlds. It has the highest unemployment in the province, yet it is included with the Halifax-Dartmouth region which has had full employment, or much less than 6.2 per cent.
Under the proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has not given any indication that they plan to change the definition of "region" and, therefore, the basis for regional benefits. All the minister has to do to make the benefits more sensitive to the region is to follow the sub-regional patterns of unemployment that Statistics Canada already uses for its labour force survey. Regional benefits were designed to help areas with high unemployment, and Cape Breton, among others, is not being given its fair share of benefits. To repeat, our ox is being gored twice, as it were: first, in being forced to put up with intolerable rates of unemployment, and then in not getting fair compensation for the people suffering from these hardships.
By such devious statistical sleight-of-hand, this government gets out from under the moral and legal obligations accepted when the act was changed in 1971 to protect the unemployed who sincerely could not get work. God knows, we have battled long and hard for government policies to be designed to give them permanent employment, and we know from living with these people that 80 per cent to 85
June 9, 1976

per cent of them would be glad to have a job. This is particularly disturbing when we see that a recent study published by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, "Climate for Regional Development", which was published a few months ago, purported to show that during the 1970s economic progress, as measured by per capita national income, has increased in the Atlantic region in general.
It is even more optimistic about DREE's work in the Atlantic provinces, for it shows a pretty graph that reveals that even earned income per capita has increased for the Atlantic provinces. Alas for the DREE study. Mr. Andre Raynauld, the head of the Economic Council of Canada, said before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion that any increase in income levels in the Atlantic provinces vis-a-vis the rest of Canadian provinces is the result of transfer payments. It can also be documented from Statistics Canada that unemployment in the Atlantic area has increased since the inception of the anti-inflation, restraint program.
However, this study done by DREE showed that in Nova Scotia, for example, the disparity between the central core, that is, Halifax-Dartmouth and the peripheral area, including the whole of Cape Breton-with some 160,000 people- and southwestern Nova Scotia, advanced from 31 per cent to 37 per cent during the 1970s. When you consider that the 1971 census showed that Sydney, the only city in Cape Breton, had a per capita income that was only 68 per cent of the Canadian average, this is a disturbing trend. Glace Bay, the largest town in my constituency, was then only 54 per cent of the national average, and New Waterford, the next largest town, was only 48 per cent.
Little wonder that the former national Progressive Conservative party leader, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), recently was quoted as telling a dinner meeting of the Dartmouth Chamber of Commerce, as quoted in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald., the following:
The disparities within our region have become just as great as those between our region and central Canada.
What is equally true for New Brunswick is more true for Newfoundland, and just as true to a large extent for Prince Edward Island. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration would have more to say on the matter. Did the Minister of Manpower use the occasion of his speech during the budget debate to enlighten us? The said fact is, so far as I am concerned after reading his speech, that we have to say "No." Is this government actively pursuing a policy that is linked to the concept of full employment? No. The minister says:
Our goal is the fullest employment rate possible, in light of inflationary pressures and the international economic situation.	.
These two qualifications are being used as an excuse for inaction. The Minister of Manpower quotes the Economic Council of Canada, but he does not heed their comments in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The ECC's study, "People and Jobs", on page 39 says-and I hope all Liberals will listen to this:
We believe that most Canadians affected by unemployment are well served by the unemployment insurance system and use it honestly ... It would of course be possible to try to eliminate abuses by cutting certain
The Budget-Mr. Hogan
categories of claimants or the duration of benefits, or by extending the period of work, before claimants could become eligible for benefits. But such recommendations could prove harmful to persons most exposed to periodic and genuinely involuntary unemployment.
The report by the Economic Council of Canada recognized not only the fact that most Canadians use the program honestly, but also that it provided transfer payments to persons most exposed to uncertain or seasonal jobs. Unemployment insurance serves as a major income-stabilizing element in the economy, safeguarding purchasing power at crucial times for groups and areas that would otherwise suffer. This safeguard, I fear, is about to be knocked down for these groups and areas when they most need it.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about what these proposed changes could mean for my area. According to our local Manpower centre, which I might add is most helpful in providing needed information, there are 11,000, out of a work force of 44,000, unemployed in industrial Cape Breton. This represents 25 per cent unemployment. That does not include student summer unemployment. The record of this government, as we see the unemployment situation across the nation at this time of year, especially among students, is absolutely abysmal. The government is waiting until next fall to come up with a program.
Our local economy is on the ropes and the government is about to provide a series of damaging body blows. The fishermen and fish plant workers, all seasonally employed, now have the added worry of not having enough stamps to collect unemployment insurance if it is a bad season. Even if they get 12, 15 or 20 weeks' work, the period for which they will be able to draw will be substantially reduced.
The Minister of Manpower and Immigration has not been truthful with parliament with regard to this matter. What will happen to the steelworkers laid off with no hope of being recalled until well into 1977? The Minister of Manpower-cynically, it seems to me-tries to argue that the figure of 330,000 individuals who would be affected by the increased eligibility requirement is wrong. He suggest that 100,000 at any one time would be affected. This is akin to the general who denies he had 12,000 troops die in a year, but says it was more like 1,000 a month. He states that almost half are under the age of 25 and many are working wives and young persons living at home. What is left unsaid is that over half are over 25. Furthermore, the minister says that only 80 per cent of the 8 to 11-weekers have established a seasonal repeat pattern. That is only
110,000	Canadians in the course of a year. There are 110,000 people who quite probably will not even be able to remain where they are to work those 8 to 11 weeks per year, if this measure passes.
I noted in passing what the manpower critic for the official opposition had to say in respect of minimizing the action of the government. In fact, if I may say so, the financial critic for the official opposition and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration seemed to be vying with one another as to who should receive the credit and who suggested this thing. The financial critic for the official opposition, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), congratulated the minister for adopting such a sound measure. During a question period after the budget I made up a little doggerel as I listened to the Minister of

June 9, 1976
Patent Medicines and Trade Marks Manpower and Immigration, the hon. member for Hamilton West and the hon. member for York-Simcoe vying concerning who should get the honour on this occasion. It goes like this:
Where could Mr. Andras have gotten An idea so stinky,
Likely from Cafik and Liberal Ontario Colleagues who are blinky,
But also of course from those vaunted Ontario Tories called sinkie and linkie.
The Tory manpower critic quotes editorials from the Globe and Mail to support his stand. He should also read the columnist on the same page. Geoff Stevens, in dealing with the budget, pointed out that tampering with the UIC legislation might gain the Liberals a few votes, but it would be a mean and crass political manoeuvre to hurt those in society who can defend themselves least. The member for Hamilton West is concerned about abuses and disincentives to work. Perhaps when he wants to quote editorials he should read the regional press. An editorial in the Cape Breton Post stated:
Finance minister Donald Macdonald estimates that about half of these workers will simply find work for the additional four weeks now required and thus will retain their eligibility. This estimate seems overly optimistic but, even assuming Mr. Macdonald is correct, the implication is that those workers only stay on a job long enough to qualify for the pogey.
In effect, they are shirkers who would rather collect UIC benefits than go to work. Yet they are the ones who will retain their eligibility. At worst, they will be inconvenienced by having to work an extra month.
It is the other half of these 330,000 citizens (or more than half, if our guess is correct), those who are genuinely incapable of finding steady employment, who will suffer in Cape Breton, during the present economic travail.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being 5.50 p.m., pursuant to order made this day the House will proceed to the consideration of Bill S-35, to amend an act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act.


PROPRIETARY OR PATENT MEDICINE ACT, AND TRADE MARKS ACT MEASURE TO EXTEND LICENCE DATE
Jean-Pierre Goyer: that Bill S-35, to amend an act to repeal the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and to amend the Trade Marks Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Pierre Goyer: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I think I would be remiss in my position as health critic for the official opposition if I did not make a few comments at this stage on the bill. I am sorry that the parliamentary secre-

tary and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) both think it is of little importance and neither of them is here, having known well in advance that it would be coming up at this time.
We gave this bill a fairly careful look in committee and we learned a couple of things. I think the position which we took earlier in refusing to let it whistle through the House at all stages in one sitting, without any questions asked or any debate, was justified. We have seen examples that there has been a good deal of shortsightedness on the part of the government, and even a little bullheadedness when they dealt with this matter when it was presented to the House in the form of Bill S-9.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the bill deals with the repeal of the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act and replaces it with certain regulations under the Food and Drugs Act, provision 10, part C of the food and drug regulations. When this matter was first before the Senate, the Proprietary Association of Canada stated that they would require a December 31, 1976, proclamation date in order to have sufficient time to make changes in labelling and packaging to conform with this legislation. For some reason, the government at that time adopted a stubborn position and insisted on moving the date up to July 1, 1976. Very shortly thereafter it became obvious to the Proprietary Association of Canada, as well as to the government, that the representations made by that association in the first place were valid and that the date would have to be moved forward. So here we are, once again dealing with a bill which, if it had been carefully studied in the first place, and if the government had paid the slightest attention to the results of its consultations with the industry involved, we would not have before us now.
One of the reasons given, which struck me as rather strange, was that the principal hold-up which made it impossible for the industry to be ready for July 1 was the government itself because of its failure to provide certain numbers to its proprietary patent medicines, which are required in order that the labels be appropriately printed. When we were before the committee there was another show of gross sloppiness on the part of the government in that they had the parliamentary secretary speak on behalf of the government, but no officials of any sort. Indeed, there was nobody there to answer any questions on behalf of the government. The parliamentary secretary took a few guesses, but in the final analysis we had Mr. Don Harper, the president of the Proprietary Association of Canada, giving answers on behalf of the government.
Here was a man representing private industry answering questions in committee and trying to explain things on behalf of the government whose representatives were unable to provide us with the information required. I think that is a rather shameful approach by this government to parliament and to the committee system. It indicates a certain disregard, perhaps even a certain disrespect, for the validity of the work that committees do, because if the government had had regard for our committee's work it would have at least provided us with some experts or civil servants who could give us answers to questions.
We will not hold up this bill. As a matter of fact, we agree with its intent and we think it is necessary. We agree with the bill on the basis of assurances given us in written
June 9, 1976

form that the provinces will be ready to comply with this legislation by April 1, 1977. We agree with it, also, on the basis of assurances given us by the Proprietary Association of Canada that they will be ready on April 1 with their new labels and packaging.
With those few comments, I will conclude my remarks. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that if anybody from the government side is listening-which I doubt-I hope they will have learned a lesson from this experience which suggests that if the job is not done right the first time, it has to be done again and in the long run this wastes everybody's time. We on this side of the House are not interested in wasting anybody's time. We think the government has a responsibility to try to run its business in an efficient
Patent Medicines and Trade Marks
manner, but in my view the manner in which this bill has been dealt with is far from efficient.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, whatever or however it happened, it seems quite clear that the mistake with respect to the date that was made in Bill S-9 needs to be corrected, as proposed in this bill, and therefore we are prepared to let it pass at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 10, 1976