1976-10-15

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an issue of urgent and pressing necessity. We are rapidly approaching the second anniversary of the Panarctic Air crash which dramatically illustrates the need for an independent accident investigation commission which the speech from the throne signally failed to mention. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House urge the government to introduce immediately legislation setting up this commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given that the government is about to manipulate and change the composition of the consumer price index, and given the importance placed on the consumer price index as a measure of the cost of living by governments, by business, by labour and by consumers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House instruct the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to hold hearings into the composition, applicability, and accuracy of the consumer price index with power to call witnesses and commission research and that it communicate its findings to this House before the government makes any changes to the consumer price index.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be put to the House
only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FAMILY OF THE LATE RIGHT HON. LOUIS ST. LAURENT
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the oral question period I know that all hon. members will want to join with me in adding just another small tribute to those that have already taken place during the presentation of a bust to the House of Commons this morning and the unveiling of a statue in front of the Supreme Court of Canada by the Prime Minister, both events honouring a very distinguished former Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent who is represented here by several members of his family. I should like to signal their presence in the gallery, particularly represented by his senior son, Monsieur Renault St. Laurent and Madam St. Laurent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Tributes, of course, were paid to the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent this morning by the Secretary of State and, also upon the unveiling of the statue by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. I may say that I would like to take credit for this suggestion, but I cannot in all honesty do so. The suggestion was made to me moments ago by the right hon. member for Prince Albert who has suggested that the text of both those addresses, in order that they have a special place in the annals of Canadian history, be appended to today's Hansard. If that is the wish of the House, it will be so ordered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Editor's Note: For text of address by the Prime Minister see appendix A.
For text of address by the Secretary of State see appendix


B) COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
October 15, 1976
Oral Questions


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Finance. Noting that the working paper with respect to the government's post control position concludes that there should be less direct government intervention and an increased reliance on the market economy, would the minister add credence to these words by indicating to what extent it is planned to arrest the growth of Crown corporations. For example, is it planned to abandon PetroCan's intervention in the market economy?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the role that Petro-Canada is already playing and can play as a catalyst in providing wider exploration in the frontier areas of Canada seems to be the very best argument for that kind of role by government. Indeed, there will be some areas where, for example, in manpower retraining, on which my colleague will have the occasion to speak, the role of the government will be reduced and that of the private sector increased. Particularly in determining the adequacy of Canada's energy resources and petroleum and natural gas resources in frontier areas, we still believe that Petro-Canada can and will play a very effective role.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact that the year old white paper entitled "Attack on Inflation" expressed the commitments "to reassess the costs to the private sector of many government rules and regulations" and to review the inflationary impact of its own regulatory agencies, and further noting that this commitment is reaffirmed in both the throne speech and the working paper tabled yesterday, would the minister point to any specific instances of deregulation or changes in regulation which will have the effect aimed for in the white paper and the subsequent references which I have noted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the occasion to refer again to the actions being undertaken by my colleagues with respect to the filing requirements imposed on the private sector, particularly the small business sector, which we think will be very effective in reducing the administrative load which those companies will have to bear in dealing with the government of Canada. We hope that, in turn, we will have co-operative action from provincial governments so that the collective imposition by government of regulations on the private sector will be reduced.


POSSIBLE INTRODUCTION OF NEGATIVE INCOME TAX
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have another supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. As the working paper dealing with the government's role in the post control period tabled yesterday states the following:

It will be necessary to pursue an examination of the integration of income transfers with the tax system.
Would the minister be more explicit and indicate to the House if this is a wordy way of stating that it is intended to introduce a negative income tax?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is not so. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that, indeed, under the arrangements for supplementary old age security payments we already have just such a system. It will be important to the activities of my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and others of my colleagues to pursue ways in which the tax system can be integrated with the transfer payments we now have.


METHOD OF REVIEWING PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND TRANSFERRING SOME TO PRIVATE SECTOR
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Having regard to the gestures which the government has advanced, both in the Speech from the Throne and in the documents tabled yesterday, aimed at expanding the role of the private sector and having regard to the proposition that all federal government programs will be under review, can the minister advise the House just precisely what form that review will take, what criteria the review will be based upon and who will be conducting it? Would he also elaborate and tell the House what initiatives the government is planning to permit the private sector to provide those goods and services which were referred to in the document yesterday which are now being handled by government sources or agencies?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think any elaboration I make today would follow on the comments of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. With regard to those services which are clearly public and the government responsibility, we are looking at our expenditures very carefully. Indeed, we have been doing that for some time now, and that is a process which 1 intend to continue.
With regard to those services which are being provided by Crown corporations, I do not think I can make any further comments beyond those my colleague the Minister of Finance made, except to say that the matter is under very serious review to determine what might be better provided by the private sector, but certainly with the proviso that those goods and services must continue to be made available effectively to the public whether through the private sector or through public intervention.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Am 1 to take it from the minister's answer that this review will take place within the confines of the Liberal hierarchy and that it will not be a public review? Are we to assume that from the answer the minister gave, and if the minister is not going to establish a public review of government programs and services, why not?
October 15, 1976


Robert Knight Andras: I think the events of the last few days, particularly the comments in the throne speech and the document which has been circulated, to which the hon. member for York-Sintcoe referred, are clear indications that we are going to seek the advice of a wide range of Canadians in different sectors of the economy in the process of determining what kinds of services could or could not be transferred to the private sector.


STATISTICS CANADA
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and at this time, my first opportunity to question the minister, I congratulate him on his recent appointment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: Given the importance of the consumer price index and the fact that many people are doubtful as to the veracity of the CPI, will the minister give an undertaking to this House to stop immediately any research on the proposed changes to the consumer price index and refer the question of the CPI revision to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for hearings, so an independent report may be brought back with recommendations to this House?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his kind wishes. If he has some concrete suggestions to make on the matter, he should send them to me. 1 think that we should leave the experts of my department to consider the problem and if changes must be made, we will discuss them with the committee. However, it would be premature to bypass the experts on this issue and open a debate which could be fruitless. I feel that 1 should first receive a report from my officials and refer it, if necessary, to a committee of the House.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate the minister's request for any suggestions. I put forward a very important suggestion that it go before a committee for examination. I certainly do not- and no member of the House of Commons does-have the research facilities to challenge the research facilities in the minister's department.
If I may point out to the minister that the public service is not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse.
Oral Questions


INCOME TAX
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: 
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for this answer. As a supplementary question, I should like to ask whether, under the law, taxpayers who are required to file quarterly reports during the current year and pay their income taxes are penalized or will be penalized in the same way as large corporations which are behind in their payments?


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker, if I were a parliamentary secretary, I could refer the question to the minister for further information. I hope hon. members will allow me some time to continue my apprenticeship of the income tax legislation. For the time being, however, I am not in a position to reply to the hon. member.


CRUDE OIL-DENIAL BY ALBERTA OF FEED STOCK FOR PETROSAR-ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF SUPPLY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Now that it has been confirmed that the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission is not going to approve Petrosar as an
102

October 15, 1976
Oral Questions
approved buyer of Alberta crude oil for feedstock purposes in the chemical industry, can the minister tell us what plans the minister has to ensure a supply of crude oil for that major development?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think it may be premature to put that interpretation on the news stories coming out of Alberta. I, for one, have not been successful in being able to clarify the position of the Alberta government on this particular issue. A number of messages were conveyed to them yesterday seeking a transcript of the premier's remarks and clarification of what they meant. We have not yet received them, and I am in the position of awaiting a reply to a telex sent to Mr. Getty dealing with that specific point.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question. I cannot understand the difficulty the minister is having with this communication because the statement was made by the premier of Alberta in the House the day before yesterday and as long ago as April 1974 a letter was sent to the chairman of Petrosar, with a copy to the Prime Minister, saying that Alberta was not going to permit its crude oil to be used as feedstock for Petrosar. I am concerned and I should like to know what the minister has done during the last two years because it was telegraphed to the country that Alberta was going to take this position. What contingency plan has been put in place by the government to deal with this important problem?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not prepared yet to accept the assumption that the hon. member has made that there will be no Alberta crude oil delivered to the Petrosar plant.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary. I should like to ask the minister why he is not prepared to accept that assumption now that the premier of Alberta has made the statement in the legislature of Alberta that this feedstock will not be available.


BANK ACT
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the House and country if he intends during the present session to introduce legislation amending the Bank Act, in order to facilitate the appointment of women as directors of our chartered banks? I ask this as probably 75 per cent of bank employees and half of all bank customers are women.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have noted the statements of a number of senior bank executives in this regard. I am sure the hon. member was as delighted as I was at this morning's announcement that the Bank of Nova Scotia has now appointed a woman director. One of the principal difficulties drawn to my attention by the Bank of Nova Scotia was that the subscription requirement for
| Mr. Gillies.)
qualification as a director would require the expenditure of about $100,000. Very clearly that is a disincentive. During the course of the Bank Act amendments we might take a fresh look at whether this requirement, which has been part of the Bank Act for a long time, might be reduced, in order to open up greater participation in such directorships not only to women but to others in the community as well.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. Since the Canadian Wire Service Guild was certified as the bargaining unit for 275 Canadian Press journalists and staff as long ago as September, 1975, and since there is still no contract, which, personally, I find a shocking disgrace-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: -even though the Guild has been willing to submit to binding arbitration, can the minister advise the House what is preventing agreement on a contract, keeping in mind that this legal strike of Canadian Press employees affects 108 daily newspapers and about 200 radio stations, to say nothing of the hardship it is creating for the employees and their families.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the hon. member's interest in this dispute. I think one of the many stumbling blocks concerns the question of union security. My officials have been meeting with the union and the publisher's executive committee, in an attempt to resolve this dispute and get a first agreement-so far without success. There is an indication that I may meet with them next week. I shall have a further report at that time as to where we stand.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. 1 thank the minister for his reply and ask if he intends, as he intimated, to act in the matter, will he advise the publishers that this is 1976, not 1926 or even 1936 when we had to fight for union recognition? Bring them up to the present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to convey the hon. member's views to the publishers and note particularly that the Prime Minister refused to cross that particular picket line.
October 15, 1976


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture relates to the Canadian beef import issue and has particular reference to the minister's news release of October 13 headed "Federal Actions to Protect the Beef producers." Since beef has been on the Canadian import control list all year, and since nowhere in the minister's statement does he indicate that this individual permit device will be used to restrict, reduce and, hopefully, temporarily stop Australian and New Zealand beef imports to Canada, will the minister indicate clearly if he finally intends to act now, in the interest of the Canadian cattle industry, by taking immediate action to restrict severely Australian and New Zealand beef imports and, in so doing, give protection to the Canadian cattle industry?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of government action no beef or veal will be allowed into Canada after Sunday night, October 17, unless by permit. That covers all nations presently exporting beef or veal to Canada.


BEEF-RIGHT OF UNITED STATES TO RESTRICT IMPORTS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I raise a further question relating to yesterday's meeting in Washington on the important beef import issue. Since Canadian meat exports to the United States now exceed 70 million pounds for 1976, some 5 million pounds above the first agreed level of our exports to the United States and, further, in view of the recent denial by the U.S. Acting Secretary of Agriculture, namely, that there was no U.S. agreement which would permit 90 million pounds of Canadian exports, does the minister still insist that President Ford has no right to halt Canadian beef imports, as the minister indicated last Monday?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, part of the agreement we have with the United States of America is on beef moving into their country and beef moving into our country. You can technically say the Acting Secretary of Agriculture is correct because there was no figure used. They were to notify us when our trade to them became abnormal and we were to notify them when their trade to our country became what we thought was excessive. That was not done. As far as we are concerned, negotiations in the United States yesterday went fairly well. Beef is moving freely into the United States as of today. 1 am sure the hon. member is aware that live cattle are still going to move to the United States and I am sure he is happy they went up $3 a hundredweight yesterday.
Oral Questions HEALTH


SWINE INFLUENZA-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will he inform the House about the present state of the selective immunization program against swine influenza in particular, why the program is behind schedule and any precautions the minister may have taken in view of reported complications in the United States?


Mr. Paproski:: The Prime Minister has not taken his shot yet.
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, as far as the complications in the United States are concerned, the hon. member knows that the disease centre in Atlanta is examining the situation very closely. Up to this time, there is no indication that the complications referred to in the press are related to the swine fluvaccine. There will be further periodic reports from that particular disease centre. With regard to the slight delay in the delivery of the vaccine, it is related to production and delivery problems from the European producers in particular. I understand that the first delivery of bivalent vaccine for the high risk groups should begin at the end of this month.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment concerning what appears to be a clear case of racial discrimination by his department's officials. The chairman of the Pond inlet Settlement Council, a Baffin Island community, has been advised by Department of the Environment official from Toronto that as a matter of policy his department will not directly hire local Inuit, Metis and Indians for this branch of the federal government service. Will the minister investigate this matter and report back to the House as soon as possible?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly investigate this matter. If the facts turn out to be as the hon. member alleges, I can assure him that type of directive will be withdrawn.


MANPOWER
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration
80001-8Vi

October 15, 1976
Oral Questions
who I congratulate and offer my very best wishes, as well as my condolences, because he has a very difficult portfolio, even though he has taken some employees of his department from my constituency. In arriving at the unemployment figure, are those persons who are not on unemployment insurance who register at Canada Manpower Centres included and are those persons who are not on unemployment insurance who Canada Manpower does not or is reluctant to register for employment included?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I do not know the answer to that Mr. Speaker.


PUBLISHING
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In congratulating him, I wonder if he is going to grow a beard which seems to be the symbol of that office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: Also, I would like to ask the Secretary whether he will be as forthcoming as a minister as he professed to be as a backbencher. Can he share soon with the rest of us a report on Canadian book publishing which for some strange reason is marked secret?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no immediate plans to grow a beard, but on the recommendation of the hon. member I will take it under advisement. I assure the hon. member that I plan to be as forthcoming as I always have been. It is our intention to publish the report to which he referred. I would like to have a chance to look at it more thoroughly than I have so far. I may have some comments to make at the time it is presented.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will he advise the House as to what course the government intends to take with respect to the gun control legislation which met its demise with the end of the last session? What does the government intend to do in this regard?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the previous President of the Privy Council had some discussions with the House leaders. The present President of the Privy Council will be having discussions with his counterparts as to the legislative program of the government and will be seeking the unanimous consent of the House to reinstate the measure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Horner:: It's dead.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The consent of the Liberal party.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, the government is going to endeavour to resuscitate it and restore it to life. I, for one, am opposed to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the reaction from the opposition appears to have simplified the discussions that my colleague, the House leader, intended to have.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The Liberal caucus took care of that.


Stanley Ronald Basford: However, I in no way want to discount the persuasive powers of my colleague, the House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: I hope that the jubilation of members opposite will not continue when, as will undoubtedly occur, there is a tragic shooting in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: 
AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the United States is sending in stripper potatoes to British Columbia, therefore depressing the price of potatoes in British Columbia below the price of production of British Columbia potatoes, can the minister tell us when he is going to put on an automatic surcharge against this unfair competition?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to put on a surcharge. We are going to announce a program of stabilization which will amount to payments to producers of their cost of production plus current input costs.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the seriousness of this situation in British Columbia, can the minister tell us how quickly he will be bringing in that program?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we cannot bring it in before the final accounting for all shipments of potatoes is made. It will be done as soon as possible. We have the final figures for the early crop and are now working on that. There will be meetings with the potato growers concerned in western Canada.
|Mr. Jones.]
October 15, 1976


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is the minister aware that when the federal government signed the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement on November 11, 1975, the Naskapi Indians, indigenous to the area, had been excluded from the agreement, despite their genuine efforts to reach a responsible settlement?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have been made aware of this situation. We are trying to take steps to resolve this particular problem as quickly as possible. Some communications have been sent to me by the Naskapi Indians and I am trying to deal with this problem.


John Robert Holmes: The minister knows the federal government has a special constitutional and trust responsibility on behalf of native people and their lands. I would like to ask the minister if he can indicate if an agreement will be reached with the Naskapi Indians before the James Bay legislation is introduced into this House?


William Warren Allmand: I would have to look into that. We have a commitment to introduce the bill as quickly as possible and we shall probably introduce it within a few weeks. In the meantime, we are trying to resolve the problems of the Naskapi people.


CONTINUANCE OF LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER
Mr. F. E. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: I should like to follow up that question by inquiring as to the present status of the office of claims commissioner established by the minister's predecessor. Will it be continued? Will this office and these activities be carried over into British Columbia where special problems exist as a result of the absence of treaties?


William Warren Allmand: I am not sure whether the hon. member is referring to the office which was held by Mr. Barber or not.


Frank Oberle: No. I was referring to the office which was held by Mr. Digby Hunt, the commissioner they brought from the Yukon.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Hunt's position will be filled very shortly.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State who answers for the CBC. Is the hon. gentleman aware that the telecast of the Canada Save the Children college football game will once again this year be delayed by one day rather than coming live? Is this being done as a result of agreement or does it follow a unilateral decision by the CBC?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am aware of the situation. My understanding is that the college authorities themselves desired this course to be taken.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: A question to the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. Does the hon. gentleman have any information he can give the House with respect to progress of his efforts to achieve settlement of the dispute which has tied up the Port of Halifax for many weeks?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am continuing to urge the MEA to accept the terms of settlement. As the hon. gentleman knows, the union has accepted them. I understand the MEA is meeting with the Premier of Nova Scotia this morning. I might add that I received a telegram from the President of Dart Containers who do a considerable amount of work in the port advising me he has been in touch with the MEA expressing the hope that the association will accept the proposal because his company wishes to resume business in the Port of Halifax immediately.


REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister advise us whether he is in a position to indicate the government's response to the urgent request from Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island for substantial temporary aid by way of subsidy in connection with their serious problems in meeting excessively high energy costs, details of which I am sure are well known to the hon. gentleman.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have nothing new to add on this question. The matter is under continuing study at the present time.

October 15, 1976
Oral Questions FLOODS


GOVERNMENT REACTION TO PETITION FOR CONTROL MEASURES ON RIDEAU RIVER
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister had an opportunity to review the petition which was sent to him by some 500 residents on the Rideau river concerning flood control and the maintenance of the water level on the river? If he has had a chance to do so and consult his officials with respect to it, can he tell the House what he intends to be about this problem?


William Warren Allmand: I do recall some correspondence with respect to this matter; I do not recall seeing a petition. However, I will check and make sure that all the material is brought to my attention. I might say that as a result of the correspondence certain action is being taken.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the new Solicitor General whom I should like to congratulate because, finally, his talents have gained some recognition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: In wishing him good luck I feel obliged to sympathize with him, even to commiserate with him, because of the shambles left him by his predecessor.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You have all the prisoners on your side.


Donald W. Munro: In formulating my question I should like to hope that the minister will manage to avoid-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a question, will he please put it?


Donald W. Munro: I was hoping he would be able to avoid the leather jacket. Can the minister inform the House whether some of the dangerous inmates from the east wing of the BC Penitentiary who held a guard captive at knifepoint recently at that institution are being transferred, or are to be transferred to, William Head on Vancouver Island-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why not Ivan Head?


Donald W. Munro: -and, if so, when will the transfer take place and how many prisoners are involved?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his kind words. As far as the transfer of prisoners is concerned, possibly one third of the inmates there were already classified as medium security risks. I am informed that the only people being transferred out to medium security institutions from the BC Penitentiary are those who were previously classified as medium security risks.


Donald W. Munro: I am sorry, but the minister's information does not appear to correspond with the information which is reaching me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: I say this because extra security precautions would be required in advance of any transfer-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald W. Munro: The minister has not answered my question yet. I am speaking of extra precautions either in the form of physical security-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Humber-St.
George's-St. Barbe.


HOUSING
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Bearing in mind that many people across Canada who own their own homes cannot, because of their low incomes and the effects of inflation, afford to repair them, can the minister tell us whether there are any plans to expand the funding for the residential rehabilitation program under NIP and Rural and Native Housing?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I might tell the hon. member that funds have been increased for this year. The program is proving highly successful both in the NIP area and in the area of rural and native housing. I am presently looking at new approaches with a view to making the programs apply to a broader number of people, since it does rehabilitate existing housing, making it more attractive at prices people can afford. I give this a very high priority.


Jack Marshall: Can the minister inform us as to the status of a request by the command of the Canadian Legion in Newfoundland for a $4 million program for the rehabilitation of veterans homes?


Barnett Jerome Danson: This is under review as a pilot project.
October 15, 1976


AIR CANADA
Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question.
Considering the decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal to reject the appeal by Air Canada in the case involving this corporation and French-speaking pilots who are members of the Quebec Association des gens de l'Air has the Prime Minister considered the possibility of availing himself of the power of evocation of the Governor General in Council, in the Supreme Court, so as to bring this issue before the highest judiciary authorities in the country and provide a clear interpretation of the Official Languages Act regarding its significance in the present dispute?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I shall consider this proposal very carefully. However, 1 am not in a position to answer one way or the other today, except to say that it is a very valuable suggestion.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour a question supplementary to one asked earlier in connection with the strike at Canadian Press. Is the minister aware of the fact that the proceedings of this House are being reported for Canadian Press by scab newsmen, and in view of the Prime Minister's quite proper refusal to cross a picket line arising from this dispute will the minister look into what can be done to stop this deplorable situation in this House of Commons?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances that led the hon. member to make these comments. I think he is as aware, as I am, that this is not a matter for me or the government to resolve. As far as the unfortunate strike itself at CP is concerned, we are going to do everything possible to resolve it.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the Minister responsible for DREE if he can advise me whether he or his senior officials have conferred some special mandate, some special tutorage, some special consultation in respect of DREE policy in British Columbia to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General and former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and to Mr. Hornby of the office of the Justice Minister, and to Senator Jack Austin of British Columbia?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a mandate having been given to any people the hon. member referred to, but if he would be kind enough to be more specific I will try to answer.


An hon. Member:: How specific can he be?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in light of the minister's comment I wonder whether he would either educate those individuals responsible or muzzle them so they will no longer come into Kootenay West spreading groundless rumours when in fact they have no foundation, and could he perhaps educate those people or put a muzzle on them-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Marcel Lessard: I will consider the matter, Mr. Speaker.


AIR CANADA
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In the past seven months Air Canada has lost two DC8's under lease to Cuba. Will the right hon. gentleman please table the agreement with Cuba and advise the House what is the quid pro quol Just exactly what is he hiding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoiled his question by the last phrase. I have answered this question before and refer it again to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

October 15, 1976
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


PENITENTIARIES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the honour you have extended to me in allowing me to ask our new Solicitor General my first question in this new session.

He is a capable man and I wish him well. Having served with the Solicitor General in the past on a committee which investigated the Canadian penitentiary service I know that the Solicitor General, along with others, prepared very excellent reports which included suggestions for improvement. I ask the minister if he is now in a position to do something about this, and will he implement his own suggestions about reforming the Canadian penitentiary service?


Francis Fox: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his very kind words. I assure him that I will always take my own advice very seriously.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and relates to a question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. Because of the humorous attitude of the government toward Bill C-83, which is now dead, will the minister confirm that the people of Canada were misled with the peace and security package which linked Bills C-83 and C-84, leaving parliament to vote for abolition of capital punishment without the accompanying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but, because it is supplementary to one asked by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, perhaps I should direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the October 13 announcement by the Minister of Agriculture that "the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has instructed that the general import permit for beef and veal into Canada be changed at midnight next Sunday", and due to the fact that importation of beef and veal from Australia and New Zealand is 60 per cent over the historical level at the present time, does this mean that imports will be cut off for the balance of the year or

that New Zealand and Australian imports will enter Canada at the same price at which they are entering the United States?


Eugene Whelan: No, it does not, Mr. Speaker. Negotiations are going on with Australia and New Zealand at the present time. We are awaiting figures from Australia and New Zealand to confirm what commitments have been made. We will consider this, but that does not mean we will accept them as legitimate shipments to Canada. They will come under the same restrictions on Sunday, October 17, as those from any other country.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that the minister already spoke about a guaranteed national income, can he tell the House now whether he will submit during this session a legislation regarding the application of a guaranteed annual income program which he himself promised?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, during discussions I had with the provinces in the past years and particularly last June, it was clearly agreed that no legislation in this regard would be submitted in the course of this session. It has never been considered.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Justice tell the House when we can expect to receive a copy of the Badgely report?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my latest information is that I may expect to have it for publication in November. Whether some delays may occur, I do not know.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture which relates to the government ways and means motion and
October 15, 1976

custom tariff tabled in the House on October 13. In this schedule many food items produced in Canada have been subject to a reduction in the protection of duties levied on imports of these products. Was the Minister of Agriculture consulted before these reductions found their way into the ways and means motion, and does he agree that it is in the best interests of agriculture that these reductions be made?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if the hon. gentleman will study them he will find that these tariffs are insignificant, amounting to hardly anything at all. I was consulted and I was in agreement with them.
*
* *


FISHERIES
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a similar question to the minister responsible for fisheries. Fish and fish processed products coming into Canada have also experienced a reduction in protection by tariff levy. Does the minister feel this is advisable in view of the fishing situation as it presently exists in Canada, and the market structures as they exist?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look at the implications of the hon. gentleman's question and report to him at a later date.


Fred Alward McCain: Was he consulted?


TRANSPORT
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he assure the House that the government still intends to proceed with legislation to set up an independent accident investigation commission, and that its omission from the Speech from the Throne was not deliberate?

Trade


PRIVACY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the Speech from the Throne promised legislation protecting the privacy of individuals, will the minister tell the House when this legislation will be introduced? Can he give the House the assurance that, unlike the limited bill which died on the order paper and which would have provided more protection for the government than for the individual citizen, the new bill will spell out in detail in the legislation itself the conditions under which information about the individual can be collected, stored and disseminated instead of leaving it up to the government to legislate by regulation?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I expect it can be introduced shortly, and I would expect that it will be considerably different from Bill C-72.
* *
*


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I would refer him to the working paper entitled "The Way Ahead" which makes reference to experimentation in the use of unemployment insurance funds to support job creation. I would ask the minister to clarify whether such initiatives would be used to establish a program of income support for the low income employed, or would the money be taken directly from the UIC fund for job creation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it will be dovetailed with other funds to be made available to cover a whole series of projects under job creation and I will be speaking on this at some length 1 think during the throne speech debate.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

["Your Excellencies, Mr. Prime Minister, Your Eminence, members of the St. Laurent family, honoured guests.\nIt is indeed a great pleasure and honour for me as Secretary of State to welcome you to this unveiling ceremomy, graced by the presence of:\nLeurs Excellences Le Gouverneur General et Madame Leger\nLe Premier Ministre et Madame Trudeau Chief Justice Bora Laskin\nThe Right Honourable Roland Michener and Mrs. Michener\nThe Right Honourable John Diefenbaker L'honorable Renaude Lapointe The Honourable James Jerome and Mrs. Jerome Son Excellence M. Philippe Cantave et Mme Cantave Mrs. Lester B. Pearson\nMayor Lorry Greenberg and Mrs. Greenberg Le Ma:.e de Quebec et Madame Lamontagne Le Maire de Compton et Madame Beaudoin Le depute et Madame Gerard Duquet\nWe are very happy today to have amongst us members of the St. Laurent family represented on the platform by:\nMonsieur et Madame Renault St-Laurent\nMonsieur et Madame Jean-Paul St-Laurent\nMonsieur et Madame G. Lafferty\nMadame Madeleine St-Laurent et Madame Therese Cartier\nSuch an occasion would not be possible without the talent of the sculptor Mr. Elik Imredy of Vancouver who has joined us here today with his wife.\nToday, we honour the memory of Louis S. St. Laurent, former Prime Minister of Canada. It is my great pleasure to ask The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada to deliver the eulogy and to unveil the statue.\nMr. Prime Minister . ..", 'Monday, October 18, 1976']
Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the question as notice and give the hon. member a reply some time next week.



Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table a copy, in both official languages, of a report on

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. Wagner
an inquiry respecting sweaters, cardigans and pullovers, from the Textile Clothing Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please,


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have more, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I would like to table, in the two official languages, two copies of the report complying with section 19 of the Textile and Clothing Board Act and dealing with socks.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, October 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Harquail for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Clark (p. 28).
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne spoke abundantly of national unity. Paradoxically, in his reply to the House, the Prime Minister (Mr.Trudeau) did not breathe a word of it.
I refuse to believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister chose deliberately to ignore the prime concern of all Canadians. In all indulgence, I attribute the behaviour of the leader of the government to the shock he must have suffered when his Minister of National Defence resigned for strange and enigmatic reasons. It therefore behoves us of the official opposition to make up for the pusillanimity of the Prime Minister in the House and broach openly this delicate matter which some would sweep under the rug.
To remain silent at this time would justly provoke the anger of my fellow citizens. To remain silent while federal institutions are cracking up in various places would amount to ratifying national suicide. People are well aware, Mr. Speaker, of the reaction against the implementation of the Official Languages Act, they are aware of the inequity suffered by many citizens for various reasons, and they are well aware that in the province of Quebec, resignation has given way to impatience to such a point that I feel in the majority of Quebecers, since 1973, a disgust which could soon be expressed in the provincial election by a spectacular increase in the popular vote for the independence movement and which could realistically give at least 30 seats to the Parti Quebecois.
In this morning's Devoir, Mr. Michel Roy, with his usual insight, asked this question, and I quote:
Does Canada want to separate from Quebec?
[Mr. Chretien.)
His intellectual integrity should have made Mr. Roy ask the real question, which is: Does Canada want to separate from the Liberal Party? We already know what would be the reply of the Canadian people. If the Liberals in Quebec are defeated in the next elections, I shall not be heartbroken, and I know that several of my friends opposite share this feeling. Moreover, the fact that a wish for change should be felt at all levels of society does not surprise me either; and if a new team should replace an inadequate team bogged down in mediocrity, this would not worry me in the least. What frightens me is that this feeling which is getting stronger and stronger in one of the two Canadian majorities has increased as the federal government has demonstrated inability, delays, contradictions and arrogance. And on this last point, neither the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) nor the Gens de Pair will disagree with me.

Mr. Speaker, on this issue of national unity, this speech from the throne is an indication of just how sad and muddled the present government is in its approach to the challenge.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: When the problem is people, they put their faith in a piece of paper. When the questions are complex, they hide behind the simplistic and the shallow. Let me be precise.
The question of the constitution is quite separate from the question of national unity. Only the most partisan of interests would suggest the blurring of both concerns-blurring, by the way, which could seriously make national unity the victim of a badly thought-out approach. The people of Canada want their constitution brought home. We want the right to be able to change the rules of the game in our own way as a mature and sovereign nation. We can benefit measurably from the final instrument of independence. That instrument, however, is not the panacea that the government opposite hopes it will be. It is, more realistically, a test-a test of the maturity of our nation, a test which we will have to respond to by both bringing it home and making it work for Canadians. It is a document which has not served this nation badly over the years, a document that can serve all Canadians more effectively at home.
I ask this government to be cognizant of one thing. The bringing home of a constitution is, in the thrust of things, a symbolic gesture symbolizing maturity, independence, consensus and unity. If it is done in such a way so as to threaten the very qualities the constitution seeks to symbolize, then the onus for that will be on the heads of this government and its leader.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) might indeed like to see the members of our party oppose the return of the constitution so that he might fan this issue as only he knows how. But that will not happen. We are at peace with the patriation of the constitution. We embrace its importance and its significance. We understand what was to be the Victoria charter. We
October 15, 1976

understand what the premiers have said to each other and what they have said to Ottawa, and we are impressed with the room for moderation and understanding on all sides. We obviously have more faith than some opposite. Nevertheless, there is a way, based on further federal-provincial talks and a conciliatory attitude, for the thing to be done right, with guarantees for French and English Canadians and without defranchising any one section of this country. It would be fitting and appropriate if Her Majesty could celebrate her jubilee in Canada with a ceremony which passed Canada's constitution to Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: It would be quite a day if she could lend her imprimatur to a process that has brought Canadians together and unified this nation. This government has a duty to ensure that that is what happens, because that is what this great country deserves. But let this government, in dealing with the constitution, not overwhelm itself with delusions of adequacy. French and English Canadians have fears and concerns which have yet to be met and yet to be understood.
The principle of bilingualism is only valid when it means the same to Canadians as the principle of fairness. This government has somehow managed to divide the two principles in the minds of many Canadians. That is the single, greatest tragedy of the present government. That is the single, most gnawing doubt that attacks the very gut and fibre of our country. There the record of this government is a record of failure.
But the time for dwelling on that is not best spent here. Perhaps the cabinet might have its own discussions and sort itself out first. I say only this: Louis St. Laurent and the French fact were not unpopular in English Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mike Pearson dealt with it adequately and fairly and made progress which was respected on all sides. The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made important strides, and did so with support from all Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) would like to ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) a question.


Claude Wagner: I will be pleased to answer any question when I finish my speech.
As I was saying before 1 was interrupted, the right hon. member for Prince Albert made important strides, and did so with support from all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: May I suggest that the days of dogmatism, of imbalance and of emotionalism are the days when bilingualism suffered its greatest body blows. The principle of fairness was the principle that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) joined with others in the House to endorse and support.
The Address-Mr. Wagner


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: He believed, and I believe, as well as responsible English and French speaking Canadians believe, that the two principles are still synonymous. A parliament approves a principle; a government makes that principle operate fairly. This government has failed. It cannot make the principle work fairly because Canadians do not believe that if is fair or that it can be fair. All the deathbed conversions in the world will change nothing. The damage is too great. The wounds are too deep.
This country deserves a government that will make bilingualism and fairness synonymous, that will make equality of opportunity synonymous with encouragement, not with discrimination; that will make second language skill a factor of opportunity and not simply one of compulsion and threat.

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister had not strived to systematically undermine our constitutional regime and to stealthily assume responsibilities which de jure fall under provincial jurisdiction; had he not, on so many occasions and against so many people, used abusive language; had he not given such hopes to so many Canadians whom he deceived eventually miserably; had he not been, regarding controls, so shamelessly deceitful towards the people, he would not have created around him such an hostile climate which now compromises even his most commendable initiatives.
However, the Prime Minister seems ill-advised to maintain that even general bilingualism in the public service of Canada constitutes almost the only condition of Canada's survival as a political entity.
Bilingualism is undoubtedly important for the future unity of Confederation. But this country's unity also requires the federal government to uphold a general policy that is acceptable to everybody. We will be in a better position to achieve such unity in this country when the government stops treating the provinces as competitors rather than associates and when it sincerely asks them to take part in the development of national policies. We will achieve this goal more quickly when this government further promotes the development of regional communities according to their own dynamism.
The main feature of Canadian federalism must be the free development of these communities within the framework of national goals which are not too demanding. But in this regard the government deserves some blame. If its bilingualism policy was not welcome in many circles, it is not only because of its deficiencies and the wrong directions it takes but also because the government is vigorously opposed to many legitimate regional expectations.
The day Ottawa will stop acting like a steamroller, the day they will stop trying to hoard for their sole benefit all the live forces of the country, that day we will no longer have to worry seriously about the future of the Canadian Confederation.

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. Wagner

Had the ministers of this cabinet shown more compassion for the elderly public servants, they would not be faced with the prospect of backing down on their program. Fairness in its implementation would have brought unity and peace of mind within the ranks of the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: National understanding would have been enhanced. We would have been spared the ugliness of the latest utterances which shocked public opinion and forced the government to wonder about its own wisdom. I am referring to last summer's flare-up over the language issue in air-ground communications in Quebec. Panic, 1 hope, and sheer bias gave rise to one of the worst crises this country has experienced over the last decades. It is my hope that cold reason will ultimately prevail.
I expect that the commission of inquiry will provide satisfactory answers to both the issue of air safety and to the understandable desire of French-speaking Quebeckers to use their own language in air-ground communications. It would be a pity should a majority of Canadians deny my fellow compatriots the right to speak French amongst themselves while performing their duties in Quebec air space. Only the most stringent considerations of safety should cause that right to be circumvented.
For the first time the throne speech has been strangely silent on world affairs, as if Canada was living in complete isolation and as if this government did not care about what is happening abroad. Before I proceed further on this subject, may I, as spokesman for my party on foreign policy, welcome the appointment of the new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I am sure our relations will be fruitful and pleasant, and that whatever differences might occur between us on policy matters, our personal friendship will remain undisturbed. Surely the minister will not take umbrage if I say to his predecessor how much his departure from this post after such a brief stay will be noticed. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) is leaving the portfolio of External Affairs just as he was beginning to shine in his own right and was emerging from the status of glorified usher to which from the start he had been reduced unwillingly by the Prime Minister's personal advisers on foreign policy.
In Europe I was told that the former minister played a most appreciated role in the north-south conference and that his contribution would be missed. I must, however, deplore the fact that the tenure of office of the minister was marred by a couple of incidents which profoundly shocked Canadian opinion and did serious harm to our country's image abroad. 1 refer especially to the Taiwan gaffe which brought so much ridicule
and disrepute to Canada and almost scuttled the Montreal Olympiad.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Claude Wagner: Perhaps more serious was the unfortunate decision to allow the High Commission in London to grant certificates of non-Jewish origin to Canadians wishing to visit Arab countries. The public outcry which ensued caused the ministry to desist from such a despicable practice, but the government still owes this House a satisfactory explanation as to the circumstances which led to what the Ottawa Journal aptly described as a new yellow star system in reverse.
Now that the former secretary of state for external affairs has become once again the government House leader, I hope he makes good his promise, as reported in the press on June 29, to stimulate more debates on foreign policy. He might even try to convince the Prime Minister that it is never counter-productive to report back to the House following his journeys abroad. So we hope to hear from him after his trip to Japan.
It is not enough for a minister of external affairs, and for that matter for any minister of the Crown, to appear once in a while before a standing committee and make general statements on matters pertaining to international issues. What is needed is a concerted determination to allow this House to debate, as they come up, issues which might affect Canada and its international stances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: There is no doubt that although we do not have a tradition of bipartisan policy on external affairs, there are many aspects on which both major parties agree and many on which we disagree. It would be healthy for democracy to debate openly our differences and to have an opportunity of offering Canadians a choice.
There are problems which presently raise concern in Canada. The Rhodesian, and generally the African situation, is in the minds of us all. What are the chances of a peaceful solution, and what role, if any, could Canada be called upon to play in this area? Or do we leave it to Dr. Kissinger to tell us what we should do and how much we should pay? When shall we finally be favoured with decisions of this government pertaining to the Arab boycott and its possible effects on the Canadian business community? What exactly will be Canada's role in formulating the new economic order? In view of the growing income disparities between developed and developing countries, has the government decided to reconsider some of its methods of helping poorer countries to achieve a more decent level of prosperity?
Many Canadians who came from eastern Europe still experience difficulties in reaching families and members of their families there or obtaining authorization to bring their relatives into Canada. Without commenting on the role played by the U.S.S.R., I would certainly like to see more frequent discussions of the problem of family reunification in order to improve upon what we can term a still uneasy friendship. I,

October 15, 1976

myself, am looking forward to the opportunity of becoming better acquainted with the problems in east-west relations.
We all witness with anguish the arms build-up in eastern Europe, in the Middle East and elsewhere, with the risk of new military clashes between neighbouring states. We are not yet immune from a nuclear catastrophe, and we want to know what Canada is doing to help accelerate detente and nuclear disarmament. With regard to selling our nuclear technology to developing countries, we are still a long way from a satisfactory level of safeguards and a really effective system of international inspection.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke the other day in reassuring terms of our dedication to the survival of Israel as an independent state, while remaining friendly toward the Arab world. I agree with him; but we would like to know more about his veiled threat of withdrawing from the United Nations peacekeeping operations in Cyprus and possibly elsewhere. Is saving money the main consideration now for this government? Are we going to abandon the traditional policy which endeared Canada to the whole world particularly relating to peacekeeping? Has the government given any consideration to the German and Israeli proposals dealing with terrorism?
As far as our relations with the United States are concerned, they certainly need to be improved. This government remains seemingly undisturbed, as if irritants were normal between friends. It is high time we did our utmost to try to solve outstanding issues before they get worse.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: While standing by our right to act independently as a sovereign nation, we must make sure that any disturbance-even unwarranted in our view-in our relations with the United States is immediately cleared up. We must dispel the clouds as soon as they gather in order to avoid possibly devastating storms in the future. To that end more is needed than chance encounters between ministers or heads of governments. We must entertain a constant flow of communications with the American Congress and administration and keep the American people better informed of our views.
Canada is about to become again a member of the Security Council, and as such we are going to be called upon almost daily to express our opinions on current problems and to cast important and perhaps decisive votes. It is only fair that the government desist from its secretiveness and frankly take parliament and Canadians as a whole into its confidence with regard to its foreign policy.

Mr. Speaker, because of the internal problems caused by the helplessness of the government, and in the face of the deterioration of our image abroad, I do not hesitate at all to second wholeheartedly the motion of censure put forward by the leader of the opposition.
The Address-Mr. R. Guay


Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, it is very gratifying to speak after the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner, it gives me the opportunity to ask him whether his remarks truly reflect Progressive Conservative views rather than his own views. I am aware that at the time of the PC convention he put forward the same views, but his party did not accept them.
It is all very well to make fine speeches, to propose such fine principles in the name of the Progressive Conservative party. I am asking the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe the real purpose of his reference to the official languages. I know he is a Quebecker, but how can he refer to our two official languages when 17 members of his party voted against the Official Languages Act, along with Social Credit members who also voted against the same legislation on the basis that it was not enough. I honestly wonder if the principles referred to by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe are only principles he would like to see implemented. I know the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) will also speak on the subject, and I am convinced the principles stated by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe earlier are the same as those put forward by the hon. member for Moncton, who was not accepted but rejected by the Progressive Conservatives.


Mr.   La Salle@: What about Richardson?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Richardson is still with us. He remained a Liberal for a questions of principle. I could refer to a number of resignations from the Progressive Conservative party. Resignations were among Progressive Conservative members for Quebec, who resigned and later returned to their party. I wonder why the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) rejoined that party. He wore the badge "II y a du frangais dans Pair", which is very nice, but he rejoined the Progressive Conservation party after his colleagues voted against the official languages legislation. After a protracted debate on the Canadian flag it lasted for months and months on end, centering on Canadian unity it is a matter of record who voted against the Canadian flag. Some people simply reject the concept of a symbol for Canadian unity. Well, Mr Speaker, I would like to refer to the resignations from the Progressive Conservative party. There was the hon. Mr. Balcer for instance. What did he say about the Conservative party? And what did the hon. member for Joliette say the first time he resigned from the Progressive Conservative party? He simply indicated there was no room for a Quebecer in the Conservative party.
It has been the same for Mr. Justice Allard, the hon. member for Sherbrooke. He has said the same thing: There is no room. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has just resigned as the official spokesman for external affairs. The hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) has been given no responsibility. He had to make a statement to the Progressive Conservative party. Because he is a Quebecer, he is given no responsibility. The hon. member for Joliette has been given the responsibility to be the official spokesman for a department
1 14

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
which does not even exist. That is the situation. If you want to talk about resignation, let us talk about it, but really I would like to proceed to some more important matters.
I would like the hon. member for Joliette and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe to ask their leader to give his definite opinion on the matter of the air controllers in the province of Quebec, that is on the matter of bilingualism. Why is it that on a certain occasion the leader of the opposition went to Quebec and told the air controllers he was prepared to meet them any time? But it seems that when he came back to Ottawa, the Conservative brain trust, the Tory brain trust told him: You will not meet the air controllers. And he did not meet them!


An hon. Member:: Those are really petty details-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Maybe so, but if the hon. member for Joliette really wants to make a speech, he can do so after I finish mine. If he wants to answer it, he can do so, but I also hope he will answer the questions I just put to him.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to turn to bilingualism. In 1970, during the debate on the establishment of the Ottawa National Arts Centre, I personally introduced an amendment that read as follows:
That in the appointment of members and officers of the Council, due consideration be given to the linguistic duality of Canada and its cultural plurality.


Mr.   La Salle@: I never heard of that.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: For which, I was practically called a racist by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) who was then leader of the opposition. I am quoting his very words:
. . . This is an amendment that is dangerous to Canada and to Canadians. It will divide Canadians on the basis of race.
This quotation appears on page 6252 of Hansard of June 10, 1966 and follows an amendment that I, a Quebecer, had put forward on bilingualism so that the bilingual and multicultural character of Canada might be recognized. Yet the Progressive Conservative Party has never approved any of those proposals which aimed at making this duality an acknowledge fact in Canada.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) made a big speech on the principle of national unity and 1 agree with him in theory. But when you consider facts, when you look around and go to the bottom of things, you cannot help notice the difference between the principles he advocated in his speech and the way they are implemented. Therefore I will now put one question to the only three French-speaking Progressive Conservative members, I will ask them what they are doing within that party.


Mr.   La Salle@: You are asking us?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Before he leaves-for I see he is on his way out-the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe proposes a

motion of confidence to know whether the government has the confidence of Parliament,


Mr.   La Salle@: It does not have it any more.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I, for one, seriously wonder whether his leader has any confidence in him.


Mr.   La Salle@: Of course.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I ask that question very seriously. But we do not have to hold a press conference about it. When you approve someone, you support him or you do not. You do not have to repeat every three months: I trust my leader! I trust my leader and I do not feel the need to repeat it every day.
Mr. Speaker, I will now proceed to some really practical matters of concern to Quebecers. When we talked some moments ago about the problem of air controllers, some people expressed doubts about the position held by some Liberal members from the Quebec area or elsewhere. I have just given an example when I said that the French position must not only be advocated in the air but also on the ground, and also within the Progressive Conservative Party. I believe the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe has quite a job to have the French position accepted within the Progressive Conservative Party.


Mr.   La Salle@: So does the Prime Minister!


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, on last December 13, I received a telegram from a doctor in my constituency saying that the man in charge of the complaint office for Air Canada in the Place Ville-Marie Building in Montreal, Mr. Gotbold, was a unilingual English-speaking employee. So I do not think the problem of French is only in the air. However, I support the two government members who have fought a battle and who are still doing so, namely the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) and the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) who are doing an outstanding job to bring to their senses certain Crown corporations which seem to despise the laws and to make them abide by those laws.
As a Quebecer, I wonder, and I ask also the Quebecers within the Progressive Conservative Party, why we Quebecers have been asking every day for over 100 years the right to speak French in our own province. I do not know what would happen with English-speaking westerners if they had to wonder if they have the right to speak English at home. The problem is crucial. I want this country to remain united as much as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.
Those are, Mr. Speaker, principles and things that can be advocated in a very serene and very positive way. From which side of the House did the protests come? The outcry of indignation came from those (wo Liberal members, because in our party, there is no resignation, there is no giving up, there is no quitting because we disagree; there is room for struggle within our party and this is what the hon. members for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and Matane are doing. I will speak about that later. I also want to criticize the government but I
October 15, 1976

will try to be positive, contrarily to the members of the official opposition to whom I have been listening these last days. Their speeches are negative. After this short digression, I will now speak about a program in which I and the people from my riding are greatly interested, namely the Local Initiatives Program.
1 also had to fight within the department. The Department of Manpower is responsible for LIP and I never saw so many people disagreeing with a program. I take my riding as an example, and I could as well take many others such as Beauce or Lotbiniere. I have never seen such a disagreement. My riding submitted 53 requests amounting to $1,400,000 and got a budget of $195,000 or 14 per cent of the requests.
Even if I were to accept 8 or 10 projects, I would deceive a lot of people. Never before has a program disappointed so many people. The publicity urged people to submit ideas. Maybe the leader of the opposition is the only one who has no ideas. People were told: If you have ideas tell them to the manpower centre; if you are creative, come to the manpower centre. People were often invited through a publicity that I consider perhaps not misleading but at least abusive. When you whet appetites, you have to satisfy them. The government must find the moneys required and, if it does not have them, then I agree that it should do away with LIP and implement a program to create jobs, not for 30 weeks, but on a permanent basis.
I know that, in the Speech from the Throne, and I am very happy about it, there are recommendations to that effect. The minister will make recommendations with a view to creating jobs, to promote creativity, and that means creating permanent employment. With the Opportunities for Youth program, we had exactly the same problem. If the riding of Levis is granted 10 projects, on the assumption that, in the summer, four to ten students will work for each one of them, we will quit going over the same ground all the time. In fact, this is a race. I was visited by those who work on those projects, a delegation of 53 persons; I had 53 telephone calls from malcontents. Not that I am afraid of that but when one has whetted appetites, one has to see to it that they are satisfied.
I shall now speak of another recommendation. I spoke of integrating the students in community projects. I have been struggling for a long time now to obtain that those students who want to work in industry can do so. I myself lived through that experience. I have asked the unions several times to include in their collective agreements a stipulation whereby, even though a student is not a member of the union, the company is authorized to hire him. A given industry could hire a dozen students during the summer time and so enable them to pay for their studies.
Many other topics could be dealt with. One of them will interest several of my fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec, specially in the agricultural ridings. As a member for a Quebec riding, I am particularly concerned about the absence, in the Speech from the Throne, of any mention of the reforms to be brought in the field of agriculture, and the dairy policy. In Quebec, milk producers will be faced with bankrupt-
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
cy in the near future unless the present policy is changed. On the one hand, the producers are penalized for exceeding their quotas; on the other hand, and I am very well informed about this matter, the producers are short of milk if they want to achieve full capacity. That is the ridiculous contradiction the present system produces. We have lost face enough before our fellow-citizens. I hope the government will have understood this. I dare hope that the Cabinet will put forward the proposals formulated by the Quebec caucus which had been supported by the caucus of the other provinces, particularly for the increase in milk quotas, which would partly solve the problem of the penalties imposed on surpluses for those who have been unjustly and unfairly treated.
Mr. Speaker, there is another subject alluded to in the Speech from the Throne: unemployment insurance. As I said to the Progressive Conservative hon. member who was here earlier, I do not want to make a negative speech. As far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned, it is really extraordinary to note the number of cases we have to pass on to our secretaries in riding offices for solution. I know that we are about to amend the act. For the average man, this act is not really clear. It is incomprehensible.
The government should provide people with a summary of the rights and obligations of beneficiaries, that whenever there is a dismissal, a lay off or a termination of employment the employer be compelled to hand a certificate which would have to be produced. I have witnessed very pitiful cases during summer and in more than a year. People are not informed and I think we will have to do something. Indeed it would be a very practical solution. When an employee is fired, the employer hands him his unemployment insurance book with a summary of this law to inform him clearly of his right and obligations.
I felt therefore I had to make such a recommendation to the government and I hope it will act on it in the near future. In any case, whenever the Unemployment Insurance Act comes up for discussion and amendment I shall participate in the debate in a very positive way and make recommendations to the government.
I will now turn to another subject and I will be very short, Mr. Speaker. 1 hope this will be the last time I rise on the issue. In the nearly fourteen years that I have been sitting in this place, I remember having fought battles along with the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand) even before he was elected to this House. I led a battle about coastal shipping and the merchant marine.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that people have been preparing reports, making studies and asking questions for quite some time. I, for one, gave notice of a motion to urge the government to implement the recommendations of the Darling Report on the merchant marine. And I know very well that in a very near future a common front-a formula dear to unions-will gather across Canada to revive the debate on the merchant marine issue.

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. R. Guay
I request the government to appoint somebody for the examination of all those things. I know that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) has already dealt with those issues. I know that the Department of Industry is considering their consequences. I know that the Department of Finance is involved. In fact, it seems to me that no one is responsible. That is what I ask with much insistance. I hope it is for the last time. If we do not want a merchant marine, I want the government to say so to the Canadian people and we will forget about it, period. Let no one tell us there will be further studies will be made. No. And if the government does not know the Darling Report recommendations, I could repeat them.
In an industrial country like Canada, with the longest rivers in the world, we have no merchant marine. We own no ship. We are an exporting country and we have no merchant marine.
Lately I got many telegrams from various shipyards. We no longer have the policy we used to have. The STAP program gave assistance for building ships ordered by foreign countries. Subsidies amount to approximately 17 per cent whereas they previously reached 40 per cent. This program was discontinued. What is the future of our shipyards? In my area, a shipyard has already closed. I remember quite well when it happened because it was during an electoral campaign: 1,000 people were suddenly out of work. Does this government plan to do the same thing with other shipyards? And mine is not the only area where this problem can surface. It is going to affect every shipyard all over the country. And we know for a fact that over 12,000 people-I say 12,000-in Quebec and Ontario alone I think are employed in shipbuilding.
So, Mr. Speaker, the cabinet will have to be more united, better coordinated if the responsibility is to be entrusted to someone who, in accordance with the recommendations of the Darling report, will recommend to us, Canadians, that we have our own merchant marine. The recommendations of the Darling report on coastal shipping were implemented. I remember it quite well. In a year or two, the matter will be closed. Coastal shipping and a merchant marine were always at issue.
We made our point. And I am convinced that the government will listen and take my remarks into consideration. Let them read the report once again and abstain from asking for still another report and further studies. That is what I said at a recent union meeting of shipyard workers. Do not submit to me any more reports to convince me that we need a merchant marine in Canada, because I am convinced. And that is the question I put to the government. I am convinced that a decision must be made. If it looks fully into all the recommendations of the Darling report, the government will have no choice but to set up a body, a Ministry of State, or to appoint a minister to implement the recommendations. We are not asking for an affirmative answer today or that two, three, four, five, six or ten billion dollars be appropriated overnight, but that a schedule be drawn up so that we may know where we stand. That is the question I put to the government because not only is it vital to the survival of shipyards and shipbuilding

in Canada but it is also vital for a country as industrialized as ours, as I said earlier, an exporting country, to have a merchant marine when other small countries have their own. Our prestige would be enhanced on the international level.
The Liberal government was able to understand the needs of our economy in the past, with regard to coastal shipping for instance, and when it created the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in 1968. I want to commend the government because the riding of Levis and the Quebec City area are among those in Canada which have benefited the most from those job-creating grants. The minister will speak about job creating, but I think of that assistance program designed to extend update businesses or set up new ones, and I only regret that not enough funds are provided.
I know that the farmers are going to protest. I already mentioned that but only with regard to the dairy policy. Dairy farmers get $631 or $632 million from the government in the form of loans and grants, which represents close to one quarter billion dollars. However, the DREE estimates barely amount to $500 million.
Therefore, I am convinced that the present minister is doing an exceptional job. He has visited every province. Some industries should not be refused assistance for lack of funds. This is what happens in the case of LIP projects. It happened for the student assistance programs. So, let the programs be publicized, but if needs are to be created, those needs should be met.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter David Baker: Before beginning the speech I wish to make this afternoon, I should like to congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your reappointment this session and to express my congratulations, also, to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) who has joined you and who yesterday for the first time took his place in the chair presiding over the deliberations of this chamber. I can speak for my colleagues in this party and, I am sure, for members of all parties in this House when I say that the appointments to which I have referred are richly deserved and we look forward to working with you as this session continues.
I should also like to say here in the chamber what I have said directly to the mover and seconder of the address in reply, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), that is, to offer them my congratulations for the honour accorded to them and on the manner in which they delivered their
October 15, 1976

speeches. Although those hon. members sit on the other side of the House and we have our disagreements from time to time, I am glad to say that their families who were here to watch from the gallery on that occasion, as well as their constituents who will no doubt read the speeches when they are distributed, have reason to be proud of the way in which this responsibility was discharged.
I should like, also, to join my leader in paying tribute to the Governor General of Canada and his lady. Anyone who has watched the struggle of a loved one to recover from the devastation of a stroke, as I did in the case of my own mother, cannot fail to be moved by that man's persistence and courage in the face of adversity. I think, too, of the support and encouragement which Madam Leger is giving her husband on every occasion, particularly on this occasion, the most public of all, the opening of parliament.
The past months have been eventful months indeed, particularly the months since October 12, 1975, when the Liberal government embraced the controls they had damned in the course of the election campaign. Those months have been a devastating experience for the government-perhaps in the minds of many people that is not too unfortunate-but they have also been a devastating experience for the public generally. In support of this statement 1 am not relying on public opinion polls, although one cannot completely discount them.
Nor do I rely on the opinions of columnists who hon. gentlemen opposite may judge to be unfriendly toward them. Rather, I rely on what I see before my eyes-a government which is lurching from crisis to crisis, important ministers leaving, or being left to occupy either of the extreme ends of the front benches, the space which has been described as the St. Helena or the Elba of the Privy Council. I shall not easily forget the look on the faces of the supporters of the government when they were justifiably flayed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on Wednesday.
What has happened to this administration, Mr. Speaker, is that it has played the power game, and played it for the sake of the game rather than using the rules of the game for the purpose for which the game was created, and that is to govern and lead. It was not always so with this government, but it has become abundantly clear now that that is the level to which it has fallen.
I would not want you to think that the government does not have its apologists. It does have them in abundance, but within the once great Liberal party there are thoughtful people at the grass roots in a constituency like Ottawa-Carleton or St. John's West who are standing back and are shocked by what has happened to the party which brought forth the likes of Laurier and St. Laurent, the latter whom we honoured this morning. They are turning away from the party in despair, and in droves. These apologists grasp at straws to justify this fall from grace. They will tell you that this Gethsemane through which they are passing is some form of martyrdom, when it is really the result of a failure of vision and loss of a sense of
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
purpose and a sense of vitality that a sense of purpose can bring to any government.
I am, quite frankly, alarmed as a Canadian that some of these apologists would adopt the simplistic approach that the only reason for unpopularity is that the country is against bilingualism and the Anti-Inflation Board. To say that in respect of bilingualism is to say that the majority of Canadians are prepared to deny the sense of equity, fairness and justice that is, and was, the purpose of the Official Languages Act. That position, if that is the position of the government which has been expressed by some of its apologists, most notably and recently by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), is hypocritical at very best.
That is not to say that Canadians are not upset by the way the government has chosen to implement the principle in some areas. The public service of Canada has felt the sting of its stupidity, the double-talk, changing statistics, the force-feeding, the overzealous designation of positions, all of which has taken place because the government has been out of touch with reality for a long period of time. They ignored the warnings of their friends, and even the man I defeated was one of those. They ignored the warnings of Keith Spicer, a servant of this House, and they paid half a million dollars to Professor Bibeau to be told that which every public servant knew, that the program, though well-intentioned, was misdirected; and when the chips are down, and that is their equivalent to the Gallup poll statistics, they suddenly flip-flop.
Look at the words in the Speech from the Throne. The government would leave the impression with us, from those words, that it intends to treat the public service with the benign neglect that Mr. Spicer suggested. The throne speech implies that the pace of implementation will slacken-and I use the world "implies" advisedly-while just a few days earlier, in that true confession session in a hotel in Toronto, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) said it could not slacken. I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of October 4, which states:
Mr. Roberts also says a slowdown in the rate at which bilingualism is being implemented in the public service would be a severe blow to national unity.
More double-talk. I have spoken many times in the House and outside about this matter. I represent a large number of public servants. There are certainly other problems in the public service, and I have spoken about them as well.
It is a fact that morale is low in our public service. It should be high, but it is not. The great majority of literally thousands of letters and telephone calls I have received and discussions that I have had with public servants tell me that the public service has accepted the principle of the Official Languages Act which, put simply, is that an English-speaking Canadian in Hamilton and a French-speaking Canadian in Chicoutimi have the right to address and be addressed in one or other of the official languages by their government. The public servant does not need Professor Bibeau to inform him or her that the scope and extent of designation is out of proportion to the need, that the language teaching system is unsound, that the usefulness of training on the job was at best overrated, and

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
that the cost in dollar terms and in human terms demands some change.
1 do not know how many times a government has to be told this, but surely no reasonable person would suggest that to question doubtful implementation procedures is equivalent to a denial of the principle. Here we have the case of the throne speech saying one thing and a minister of the Crown saying another. Is it any wonder there is skepticism? Is it any wonder that anyone who has witnessed the performance of this government in the sensitive area of implementation in the public service could be anything but at least skeptical?
If, as we expected, in the course of the debate there is an enlargement of the so-called assurances in the Speech from the Throne, the public service will not accept them now. That is the position we have come to. They accept them for what they are, and that is words, sir-mere words. That is why the commitment to examine the concerns about implementation given by the Leader of the Opposition the other day is so important in the national capital and in the nation itself.
The plain truth of the matter is that if there is any relationship in the field of language to the problem of national unity, and I think there is some, the problems began not with the passage of the statute, in my judgment, but with the methods used by the government to implement the principle. If there is to be any lessening of the difficulties in terms of national unity-and I respectfully suggest that any government worth its salt would re-examine its position in terms of implementation-well, we will see what this government says but, more important, we will want to see what this government does.
I read on in the speech and noticed that the government had been smitten with a sudden revelation that the place to learn a second language was first in the schools with the young people, rather than those who have advanced to the middle and later years. The government did not need Professor Bibeau to tell it that. It did not need Keith Spicer, either, to tell it that. The parents in the national capital area and the parents in this country as a whole could have told the government that just as well. Even the government's opponents were telling it that.
What has been the government's commitment in the past to this important part of the bilingual policy? To be sure, money is being spent on language training in the schools, but it is pitifully small in terms of the magnitude of the problem. However, it is being spent. But can this government be trusted here? I do not know, and I am sure there is some skepticism among the four boards of education in the national capital area based on the performance of this government. No sooner did it have the boards committed to a very important experimental training program, the results of which would have been in use all over this country-and that was the intention-those boards, having based their commitment on a commitment of funds from the federal government, the federal government denied the boards a source of funds.
This has had a profound effect on language training in the national capital, on the people in that program and on the
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).l
future of language training. If past performance is any guide to us, then it is a shaky foundation upon which to build any faith in this government, even in that area. Again we will have to wait for the performance.
Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) spoke in Toronto of national unity. The real blow to national unity has been this government's attitude that it was always right when events have shown that it is almost always wrong. It assumed that bilingualism was the only vehicle for national unity. Certainly it is an important one, but not to the exclusion of other considerations. The leader of our party mentioned the problem of regional disparity respecting unity. The whole transportation problem facing Canada will affect national unity. Lack of an energy policy will have an effect on national unity. The ease with which the federal government backs out of cost-sharing programs, without so much as a fare thee well, affects national unity. The medicare scheme is a good example of that.
The surprises in the federal taxation, imposed without consultation, on resources in this country have an effect on national unity. The failure of this government to tackle disparity in terms of decentralizing productive industrial capacity will affect national unity. Language is not the only factor in national unity, but because of the preoccupation of this government with language, its tunnel-vision approach to the question of national unity, and our feelings about ourselves it has suffered considerably at its hands.
The other excuse upon which the apologists for this administration rely to explain their fall from grace is the suggestion that Canadians are against the war on inflation. Mr. Speaker, that is as simplistic as it is untrue. Canadians are not against the war on inflation. They are against the deceit-and they were deceived by a government that said one thing when it asked for a mandate and acted in another way when the country gave it that mandate. Canadians have no time for such a fraudulent performance. This is what they are really telling the government by virtue of the opinion polls and by any other indicator which one would like to use. Even the defectors from the government, and there have been a number, are telling them the same thing.
Mr. Speaker, if this government had any political character to begin with, it has now lost it and that character has been replaced by political expendiency and a litany of failure. The most obvious failure, of course, is to stem the stampede of ministers out of the ranks. Or one could choose this government's attitude to scandal, the sheer cosmetic quality of its approaches to the problems facing Canada. I make no comments on the reasons for the resignation of the Minister of National Defence except to say that his constitutional theories, at least as they relate to numbers, are questionable. But his leaving, the time he chose to leave and the circumstances under which he made this announcement, are significant. While his action may be judged by some as premature or for the wrong reasons, the act of leaving is itself an indication of the extent of the rot in this government.
October 15, 1976

Mr. Speaker, 1 spoke a few moments ago about national unity, the importance of it to our country and the importance of it, as well, to our capacity to tackle the things that must be tackled if the legitimate aspirations of the people of Canada are to be met. It is a fact, I think-I believe I can state this safely-that even a government dedicated to disunity could not have done a better job than this government. For some reason or other the present administration has forgotten how our country came about.
It was not forged in revolution, like the United States. It did not cast off any bonds at the beginning. It came together by agreement, or at least by consensus and understanding, because there were some reluctant participants at the outset, as you know, Mr. Speaker.
Since there was consensus in 1867 and before that, a good case was made for creating a nation in the northern half of North America. The fact that it came together by agreement and consultation, compromise and understanding, has made our confederation a very delicate thing indeed. Mr. Speaker, our confederation will continue to exist only so long as those elements of compromise, understanding, agreement and consensus exist in the minds of those who have authority in the various jurisdictions of our country. Even if we would wish it otherwise, the geography of the country, the relative isolation and population in Canada, the fact it is stretched across a rather thin line in terms of the vastness of the land, made a federal state relevant to the Fathers of Confederation, and that relevance continues today.
Federalism, as we know it in Canada, as it was conceived at the outset, is not to be subjected to confrontation, and yet that has been the principle weapon of this government in dealing with the provinces. And much of the distrust of the federal government springs from the use of that element as a tool in federal-provincial relations. I view a federal state as one in which it is possible for a strong central government to work in concert with strong provincial governments. But somehow or other the equation of confederation has gone out of balance. The atmosphere has been poisoned by the emotionalism of the threat of unilateral patriation.
I do not foresee the situation developing very quickly where the provinces will agree on the terms and conditions for amendment of the constitution, the British North America Act. But that is no reason these discussions ought not to go on. It is obvious from all reports that there has been some progress, but I am concerned about the fears expressed by Senator Forsey that unilateral patriation, without an amending formula, will put us in a constitutional straitjacket which could make it difficult for us to meet changing problems in a world where the velocity of change is almost overwhelming.
It goes without saying, as the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wager) said this morning, that this party does not fear the homecoming of the constitution, if one could call it that; far from it. But the government seems intent on moving ahead with or without the consent of the provinces. I would rather the government cooled it. The atmosphere is not right and I have some doubts about this government's ability to
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
change, and the feeling is growing in Canada that there will be no change until the government itself is changed.
There is nothing about our confederation that would not make it subject to the change in attitude that was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Perhaps it is time there was a government in Canada that would not begin its approaches to the question of federal-provincial relations from the premise that the necessary condition of negotiation is conflict. There will be differences of opinion, to be sure, but conflict and mistrust can so poison the atmosphere of negotiation that meaningful negotiations are impossible to undertake.
Mr. Speaker, it is more than merely notable that the man who came to Ottawa to save us from ourselves in 1968, as he says from time to time, has presided over the period of the greatest unrest and conflict in our history. His preoccupation with one policy, language, as the cement of confederation, to the neglect of all other considerations, has turned that cement into a wedge which is endangering our feelings toward one another. I regret that state of affairs in terms of the life of my country.
Mr. Speaker, there is one last thing I want to say. It is this same government that has proven itself so untrustworthy in so many ways that will shortly ask the House to amend its rules and Standing Orders so as to make members the handmaiden of the government; to make this a place for the expedition of government business to the exclusion of its real purpose, that of a forum for the discussion of public affairs.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to remind the hon. member that we both sit on the same committee, under instructions from the House to deal with these matters, not under instructions from the government.


An hon. Member:: I have never heard such nonsense.


Walter David Baker: I share the concern of the hon. member, but I wish he would let me finish my speech; then perhaps we can give him unanimous consent to make a contribution of his own.
The Speech from the Throne spoke of broadcasting the proceedings of parliament and other changes in this place. There is a much more fundamental need, that is, a change in the attitude of this government to the right of Canadians to know. The throne speech made no commitment for a freedom of information act. In fact, it contains an evasion. If the speech indicates anything at all, it is that this obsession with secrecy will continue while a study is pursued. I could approach the possibility of rule changes with much more equanimity if I knew that this government was committed to the concept of a freedom of information act in the terms that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has worked so diligently and so well to achieve.
Charles Lynch has said-I do not often quote Charles Lynch, but I will now; sometimes he is right, and he was right

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. McRae
yesterday in his column-that this government is the most secretive in the western world. I believe he is correct. The Rudnicki case-the case of a public servant wronged by his employer-contains an indication of how far this government is prepared to go in terms of secrecy.
The former minister of labour, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell), spoke of the necessity for instituting the machinery to examine on a long-term basis the estimates of government, not only in terms of future programs but in terms of the achievement of past programs. I suggest that that concept, without a freedom of information act, would be almost meaningless. When I look back to 1968, this same government under this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), came before the people and exhibited a sense of purpose and fairness and held out to the Canadian people a promise of equity, justice, compassion and concern. Today, as I look across the floor, I see that not only has this government become a shambling collection of the once great, at least in the minds of some, but it has debased its mandate. Whatever the result of the confidence vote in this chamber may be, the government, does not have the confidence and trust of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is regrettable that the people of Canada cannot express themselves except in the limited way in which they will next week.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have heard many speeches in the House about the difficulties of this government and the way we face these problems, but very few clear statements on where we should go and what we should do. I feel there is a lack of understanding of the complexities of the times. It is all very well to say that the government should increase or decrease the money supply, or play around with fiscal arrangements, and with simple answers can straighten out all kinds of problems. These things do not work today because these times are not the kind of times we had in the 1960s, and I am waiting for some concrete suggestions from the opposition as to how to deal with today's problems.
I suspect that the opposition is not really cognizant of the kinds of problems that are faced by governments throughout the world today. These are not ordinary times; they are unique times. Let me give two examples of the uniqueness of these times. We have never had the kind of inflation we have today, which is worldwide, and at the same time high unemployment. These things, in classic economic terms do not go together, yet they exist throughout the world and in this country at present, and as a matter of fact we are doing a good deal better than most countries to resolve these conflicting problems. I am sure that most of us grew up with the myth that there are unlimited resources and all we have to do is to get those resources developed. But all of a sudden we have a totally new concept which has come into play in the last four or five years, namely, that there is a limit to our resources, that there are severe limits to our energy resources, for example.

So these are unique times, and we have to think in terms of the problems, not just carping. Let me deal for a moment with inflation. As I said, we have had this type of inflation at least since the early 1970s and it is quite unique. It is global in its implications. It is a fact that certainly all the OECD countries and the western and industrialized countries, as well as the third and fourth worlds, are affected by this inflation. It is something with which we have to come to grips.
We have been accused of deceiving the public in the 1974 election. We did not buy the kind of program that the Tories were peddling, namely a 90-day total freeze. But at the end of the 90 days I suppose the world was going to come to an end because there were no suggestions as to where to go after that. We said there was a contingency. Let us analyse the year 1974. I believe the government has been at fault in one respect, in that we had not gone to the public to justify fully why in 1974 we did not do something which we did in 1975. I think there is a good justification for this.
Let us look at the situation in 1974. We had a period of prolonged demand inflation, inflation caused by a shortage of goods both nationally and globally. It was the kind of period which would be worsened by controls, and these are what the U.S. government applied in 1972. This created unbelievable problems, because the problem was not cost, it was demand. In mid-1974 this started to change. I might say one other thing about the time before mid-1974. Wages were not a major factor in inflation at that time; wages were lagging behind. Between the summer of 1974 and the late summer of 1975 wages began to be a factor in inflation. Costs became a factor in inflation more than before, especially costs within Canada. In the first half of 1975 wage settlements were running at an average of slightly less than 22 per cent, 21.8 per cent to be exact. Beginning to escalate into the inflationary situation was a severe cost-push problem.
That is a very different kind of inflation from the type we had in early 1974, and I think it is important that people begin to realize that. What would the Tories have done in 1974? They would have had a three months freeze, and then presumably everything would have gone away. Of course, it would not have gone away because this is a worldwide problem which has to be handled in conjunction with a whole series of other problems.
Let me talk a little about what we tried to do before we brought in controls, because this government, with the previous finance minister, made a serious effort to bring about voluntary compliance of the trade union movement and the industrial leaders of this country, but they were not successful. In September of 1975 we were faced with a whole series of wage demands which were beginning to become ridiculous, such as 71 per cent in the Post Office and over 40 per cent for Quebec teachers to catch up with the Ontario teachers who were asking for another 40 per cent. There were demands of 50 per cent, 60 per cent and 70 per cent, and these were the things we were facing.
October 15, 1976

What is a government to do? Economists throughout the country were saying that we must have some kind of control period, and so we did. What is the nature of that control period? First, we decided basically not to control prices because that is a very, very difficult thing to do over a long period, and we certainly were not going into a short control period. In my opinion, that would have created only trouble. It would have created a tight scene and then we would have had the kind of distortions which took place in the United States after 1972.
So we decided there had to be a way to control prices indirectly; without that, having an army of people administering the controls, walking into major stores and seeing how many items would have to be controlled, would not work. We assumed that this is a free enterprise system, that there was a market and that where there was good competition there should not be much problem. What did we try to do? We tried to control the two things which are factors in terms of cost. One of them is wages and the other is profits. The Tories say we should not control profits and the members of the NDP say we should not control wages, but nobody tells us what we should do. Nobody makes any suggestions except to say that we should not do this or that.


Walter David Baker: Try resigning.


Paul Edmund McRae: What has happened? I mentioned that in the first half of 1975 the average wage settlement was in the area of 22 per cent, or 21.8 per cent. The second quarter of 1976, which is the last quarter for which we have figures, shows wage increases of around 12 per cent. There is a decrease, there is no question about that. Since controls, profits also have decreased on the average by about 7 per cent to 8 per cent, so those two things have been controlled.
What about prices? Prices have gone, from an average increase in the year before controls of something like 11 per cent, to an average increase of something like 6.5 per cent. Hon. members immediately say that that is because of food and that food is not controlled. It certainly is controlled. It is not controlled at the farm gate, but if 60 per cent of the cost is after the farm gate-and I hear hon. members using these figures-and goes to the producer, the distributor, the packager, the advertiser, and so on, these are certainly costs; and taking food and everything else into consideration we are now down to 6.5 per cent.
While wage increases are now at 11 per cent and 12 per cent, inflation-that is, the cost of living-has come down to 6.5 per cent, and that is basically the total cost of living. So there has been a successful period. Allowing for inflation and for some extra productivity, basically speaking the workingman today is better off than he was a year ago, and the person on a fixed income, such as the senior citizen, is considerably better off than he would have been had we not gone into controls. So I do not understand why the country is so upset.
The Address-Mr. McRae
It seems to me that the control period has worked. But that is not the only thing we have to talk about, because inflation is not the only economic problem facing this country. We have the problem of high unemployment, and this is something we have not solved. We are doing much better in the inflation field than we are in the employment field, but even so this nation has created more jobs per capita than any other country among the OECD countries. Between 1971 and the third quarter of 1975 we produced something over 19 per cent new jobs, so for every four people who were working in 1971 there are now five working in Canada.
The United States only produced 8 per cent more jobs, and that is one of the best figures. Our labour force has grown at a tremendous rate, partially because of the post-war baby boom and partially because of the fact that the number of women in the labour force has grown substantially. I have a figure here with regard to the proportion of women in the labour force between the ages of 25 and 44. In 1953 the figure was 23 per cent and in 1974 it was 47 per cent.
We have too much unemployment in this country, and in the next year we have to do a great deal more in terms of creating jobs both in the private sector and, I believe, in the public sector, because I do not think we will create jobs in the private sector at the rate we need to create them. We will have to do something about our 7 per cent unemployment rate; we will have to bring it down. But just the same, among all the OECD countries Canada has by far the best record in terms of job creation.
If it were just a simple matter of jobs and inflation, perhaps we could solve all our problems locally, and perhaps even the Tories could handle it; they probably could manage. But the scene is not just a simple matter of inflation or creating jobs; the interplay between inflation and the creation of jobs is a problem. If we do the things we really need to do to bring the unemployment rate down to 2 per cent or 3 per cent, we will seriously affect the inflation aspect; and if we let inflation go too far, we will create more unemployment.
We have serious problems in these areas, but I think we must talk about other areas. For instance, we must talk about the world resource scene and particularly the energy scene. I am not speaking in terms of amounts of BTUs lying around but, rather, in terms of the financial aspect. We have about seven years' reserves of crude oil in the western basin. There are very improbable supplies in the north and on the offshore islands. There is nothing to speak of, or nothing which is worth going after. There are growing shortages of gas.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Paul Edmund McRae: You tell me where these supplies are. We are not going to be self-sufficient in the next few years, or perhaps more. There are some supplies in the tar sands, but the costs there are astronomical, and this is what I am here to talk about. I am not talking about the total situation in terms of energy, because there always was energy, but I am talking about the energy which must be put in and the dollars which

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. McRae
must be put in to get the energy out. That is where we are going to be in trouble.
Last spring it was estimated-I heard a much higher estimate recently-that in the next 15 years we will need over $180 billion of capital just to maintain a 3.5 per cent energy growth rate. If we drop below that, of course, we will not need that amount of money. That $180 million, amortized in any reasonable fashion, would mean that we are talking about $3,000 per family unit, roughly what a family now pays for a house per year, in today's dollars. These are some of the problems. Where are we going to get that $180 billion capital plus another $400 billion or $500 billion capital which we need for other things? Just to increase the money supply or to play around with fiscal policy will not provide solutions. This is far more complex than people realize, and I think it is up to members of this House, on the government side and on the opposition side, to consider these problems seriously and not just criticize.
We have some very severe balance of payments problems. Our balance of payments current account is running about $5 billion in the red. There are those who say that foreign capital is a great thing and I agree. It built this country, but it still costs us close to $3 billion per year to service that capital. We are running about $43 billion in the red, in net terms. That is the money we owe to other countries. These are some of the things we have to face.
Then there is another very bad international scene-a very difficult international scene for any government to come to grips with. There has been a tremendous increase in the number and size of global corporations and the amount of liquid assets that are beyond the call of national governments. The United States Senate finance committee calculated that in 1973 these assets were between $150 billion and $260 billion, and that the total assets of global corporations were W2 to 2 times the size of the total liquid assets of national governments and their national banks, and that these liquid assets were able to move very rapidly; they had a great deal more mobility than the assets of national banks or even of groups like the International Monetary Fund.
There was the problem of the whole trend of worldwide inflation being changed because of the mobility of the assets of the global corporations. One can look at the descent of the pound sterling and ask to what extent is the inability of the International Monetary Fund and the inability of the national banks to control the movement of funds responsible.
I point out these facts to show that there are very complex problems that must be dealt with. There are no simple answers, and the answers that might have worked in the sixties do not work today. I ask opposition parties to start dealing with these problems and not just watch the Gallup polls or just criticize without offering solutions.
When we say that controls may be a bad thing, or say that we should get out of controls, we should look at what might happen when they end. We should look not only at the
[Mr. McRac.l
problem of inflation but at all the other factors which are difficult to control. I say these are very complex times, Mr. Speaker. Now is not the time to be negative; it is the time for all of us to start looking for solutions.
I should like to take the last five minutes or so of my time to speak about the role of the Department of National Health and Welfare and to make one or two comments on the Speech from the Throne and what the department will be doing with respect to the provinces. I should like to comment on the initiatives being taken by this government to map out and institute new and innovative financial and administrative arrangements between the federal and the provincial governments in the areas of medical insurance, hospital insurance and post-secondary education.
These programs have developed on the basis of open-ended cost-sharing arrangements whereby the federal government effectively matched the expenditures by provinces. The key word is "open-ended". This was an effective means to encourage the development of these programs and to make them available on a Canada-wide basis. There have been some difficulties, however, as the provinces have had problems restraining program costs in fields where a dollar of expenditure automatically generates 50 cents of additional federal contributions.
As a result of the problems in constraining costs under open-ended cost-sharing, the federal government has had to impose limits on the rate of increase of federal contributions to medical care-as we did with Bill C-68-and to post-secondary education and has served notice that the agreements under hospital insurance will come to an end in 1980. All of these actions have complicated provincial planning for the future as they are uncertain about the future level of federal participation in these programs.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined to the provinces at the June 14-15, 1976, conference of first ministers a broad new approach for providing federal contributions to the major shared-cost programs. Under this proposal the federal government will continue to pay a substantial share of the medical insurance, hospital insurance and post-secondary education program costs. But the federal contribution will be paid in a manner that does not distort provincial priorities, that will encourage the provinces to effect cost constraint in these programs, and will not involve the federal government in open-ended spending commitments. Fundamentally, the established programs' financing arrangement would determine the federal government contribution independent of provincial program expenditures and on a basis that would result in greater equality in the per capita contribution made to the provinces by the federal government.
This movement away from open-ended cost-sharing for these established programs will substantially improve this government's ability to plan its own expenditure. At the same time, the provinces will have much greater flexibility in the use of their own funds and in the planning of their programs. For example, in the health field there will no longer be concern about whether or not a particular health service is shareable.
October 15, 1976

This added flexibility will assist them in providing the most appropriate and cost-efficient system of health services for Canadians.
A much more detailed outline of the principles and structure of the established programs' financing proposal is contained in the Prime Minister's statement presented to the provinces at the meeting referred to earlier. I should like to add several comments that are of particular relevance to the federal government's involvement in the health field.
Under established programs' financing there will continue to be a substantial federal contribution to health program costs and a substantial component of this contribution will be in the form of cash. In addition, and I should like to stress this point, there will continue to be basic health insurance program objectives of the type currently used for medical care embodied in replacement federal health legislation. These objectives are-and I have taken this reference directly from the Prime Minister's statement-comprehensiveness of coverage with regard to services; universality of coverage with regard to people; portability of benefits; accessibility to services uninhibited by excessive user charges, and non-profit administration by a public agency. It is intended that these basic program objectives will be retained within a more flexible and less administratively detailed federal-provincial financial arrangement than currently exists.
Second, I should like to comment on the timing for the full involvement of the health programs under established programs' financing. The current agreements for hospital insurance between the two orders of government are not scheduled to terminate until 1980. If the provinces wish to retain these agreements until that time, the health programs will not be fully brought under established programs' financing until this government's obligations under the hospital insurance agreements have been fulfilled. There is no danger of our going out of it until the date when the programs come to an end. It was clear, because of the variety of termination dates for the major shared-cost programs, that there would have to be a gradual introduction of the new financial and administrative arrangements.
Finally, with respect to the health field, it should be noted that this government will continue to pursue policies which attack some of the underlying causes of ill health in Canada. We will continue to encourage Canadians to adopt a lifestyle that maintains their good health. Operation Lifestyle, and information to discourage the excessive use of alcohol, are examples of steps that this government is taking to promote the retention of good health by Canadians.
In summary, it is the intent of this government to map out and begin to institute during this session a new financial and administrative arrangement for medical insurance, hospital insurance and post-secondary education. The established programs' financing proposal will both facilitate cost constraint and will provide the provinces with the necessary flexibility to provide appropriate but cost-efficient health and post-secondary education programs.
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
I should like to conclude my remarks by reiterating our concern about open-ended cost programs, about government expenditures, about the health of Canadians, about preventive medicine, about preventive health care, which we think is extremely important, and to mention some of the proposed programs such as the anti-alcohol program.
I should also like to ask all members of the House, regardless of their party, to be much more thoughtful when looking at Canada's economic future, to be much more thoughtful in terms of the very basic problems this country has to face and, to be more thoughtful in terms of understanding the limits to which any government of this country can go; given this kind of understanding of, for instance, the great shortage of capital that is going to face us in the next 15 years, I ask hon. members to move ahead with a real effort to explain to the people of Canada the complexities of these times. We should explain that we are not dealing with the relatively simple times of the sixties, but with complex problems of the seventies which will not be solved without a great deal of assistance from all concerned and more understanding on the part of the Canadian people.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with my colleagues in expressing congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). They deserve a compliment for their courage in supporting a document as empty as the Speech from the Throne.
I listened with great interest to the previous speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. McRae). Having listened to his economic theories, I am of opinion that he might have written that part of the throne speech which examined the alternatives and came down clearly between two stools, in a surprising show of clairvoyance on behalf of the government.
I compliment those who made it to the cabinet for the first time. The appointees from British Columbia unfortunately seem not to have made it to the first rung of the ladder; they are half way up to the first rung. The duties of the new Minister of State responsible for amateur sport (Mrs. Cam-pagnolo) seem to be somewhat divided. One part consists of being a hired pistol for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde); the other of being a campaigner in British Columbia. It is known as being underemployed, considering the ability the hon. member has shown in her previous position as parliamentary secretary.
Before I talk about my usual subject, defence, I want to mention something concerning health and welfare which the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of State responsible for fitness and amateur sport both left out of their speeches. The omission was glaring. I am referring to the reciprocity of pensions.
Last April 14, six months and one day ago, the Minister of National Health and Welfare saw fit to rise in his place and,

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
in a speech filled with his usual, fulsome self-praise, stated that he wished to announce the government's intention to submit to parliament in the coming months legislation amending the Old Age Security Act. According to the minister, parliament would be asked to adopt measures, to build into our program the possibility for the inclusion of rights in international reciprocal arrangements with other countries such as Italy, the United States, and the United Kingdom, so that our residents who have earned social security rights in other countries can receive them in Canada. Last Wednesday, as reported at page 19 of Hansard, the minister, answering the question of my colleague from Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), said that the bill to negotiate reciprocity of pensions between Canada and several other countries, including the United Kingdom, is being drafted. He said:
... I hope I will be able to table it in the House for first reading in the next few months.
Six months ago he hoped to prepare the bill in the next few months; now, six months later, he hopes to be ready for first reading in the next few months. Even more alarming was the minister's answer to the supplementary question of the hon. member for Hamilton West. He said:
This project was discussed with my colleagues, if I remember well, at the last federal-provincial conference held in June, and no objection was made to the project either at the June conference or afterwards. Consequently, I think that we can undertake with confidence a study of this project.
That is what the minister said, as reported at page 19 of Hansard. What on earth was he talking about? Six months ago he said he would bring in a bill in a few months. Six months later he is still to bring in the same bill in a few months. Then he said that he thinks "we can undertake with confidence a study of this project."
In his fulsome speech of April 14 the minister said that this provision was going to affect, I think, half a million Canadians. Now he is ignoring those half a million Canadians and putting them on the shelf to cool, while he studies the project. Among those affected are tens of thousands of Canadians who are existing in distressed circumstances on British and other European pensions. Remember, the sole source of income for many of those elderly citizens is their British pension. In the last two months the pound has dropped drastically. This has meant a direct cash cutback for them on each month's cheque. Conditions for them are impossible. They have waited patiently for the past three months for parliament to reconvene.
I assumed, as any reasonable person well might, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, having had the months of the summer in which to prepare a bill, would, as his first action, present it for first reading. That has not been the case. I hope the minister will think this over and try to relieve as quickly as possible the distress of those who have become innocent victims of his procrastination.
As we know, another cabinet minister has resigned. I am speaking of the former minister of national defence. I was concerned in case the departure of the minister meant the end of the financing arrangements he had been able to wrest from a reluctant cabinet for increasing the capital budget of the

Department of National Defence. I was pleased to note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), when answering my question two days ago, affirmed that these increases would not be cut back, but would continue. We will look forward to seeing the estimates of the Department of National Defence come down either in December or January.
Today we are without a minister of national defence, although I understand there is an acting minister who is not in the House today. Presumably the parliamentary secretary could, to a limited extent, answer questions on behalf of the minister. As lamentable as this situation is, it is by no means inconsistent with the conduct of the country's defence policy. Lack of foresight, the absence of any concern for the long-run consequences of their actions, indeed a general unwillingness to discuss or even think about the future of the forces in any terms except platitudes-all these approaches have characterized the Liberals' national defence "non-policies".
To deduce what the government intends to do with the forces we thus have little to go on, save what we can extrapolate from past actions. Let us turn then to look at the sorry events of the past decade and examine them for any consistency of approach in the decisions on defence. The past decade has been one of marked change in government. There has been a veritable explosion in its growth; by any measure the money collected by the government, the size of the civil service, government expenditures as a percentage of GNP-government as a whole has become large, almost beyond recognition.
There has, however, been one salient exception to this tendency toward expansion; this same decade has seen the contraction, undermining and, indeed, virtual destruction of a major part of the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces. While the Trudeau administration has been responsible for this vast expansion of federal spending, its considered policy seems to have been to run down the forces and their equipment by quietly denying them the resources necessary for their continued existence as effective fighting forces.
The process which caused this contraction is no secret. The defence budget was held close to a constant figure during a period of ever-increasing inflation; the consequence was a defence budget which shrank in absolute terms. The result was a drastic reduction in manpower, from 110,000 in 1966 to 78,000 in 1976. What is not so well known is the way in which the government's short-run opportunism caused the Department of National Defence to misallocate its long-term resources. Not being privy to the government's long-term plans, DND tried to protect its manpower at the expense of weapons procurement even when much of its equipment was clearly approaching the end of its useful life.
Now we can look at the cabinet's handiwork and see what a sorry waste of resources DND was forced into by this hesitant and disastrous policy of bringing the forces down to their present level, without ever having the political courage or simple honesty to tell the Canadian armed forces and the country back in 1966 that the total strength would be drasti-
October 15, 1976

cally reduced by 1976. If the truth had been told then, so many defence dollars spent on the long rearguard action to conserve manpower and bases could have been switched into the capital budget; thus obsolescent equipment could have been replaced at the proper time.
The purchase of equipment could have been spread over the last decade, equipment which would now be in service providing new teeth for the maintenance of our national sovereignty and of our commitments to our allies. Instead we are facing the prospect of having to pay a huge bill for replacing virtually all of our major weapon systems now, over the space of just a few fiscal years.
Even if the government denies that it was its deliberate intention to starve DND of its ability to invest in weapons for the future, it must agree that it was foolish and failed to provide for the future by a proper investment policy. Any businessman or manager worth his job could have told it that with 63 per cent of the annual defence budget going to pay and allowances, 26 per cent to maintenance and operations, and only 11 per cent to capital expenditures, as it did in Canada in 1972, there would be trouble. The Liberals' short term political expediency has indeed cost the forces dearly.
Yet 1972 was the year after "the defence review", a review produced with the usual fanfare of a Trudeau media event, and published in the form of a white paper, "Defence in the Seventies." We can see now what this performance was really all about. It was a phenomenon which Trudeau-watchers should know so well by now, the mere facade of a policy, launched amid a blitz of glossy PR work, of "meaningful" briefings, a supposed re-ordering of priorities, and carefully leaked anecdotes about Prime Ministerial decisiveness.
Well, as we all know, that is all we get. The review itself is the only action that takes place. After the maximum publicity has been reaped, the Prime Minister and his team-that inner group whose numbers, like inflation, have soared during the last decade-take off for pastures new, leaving the ministerial "fall guy" to the gradual realization that this is it. The officials and the minister have the dubious privilege of picking up the pieces, salvaging what is left of their commitments, and measuring the gaps between them and their inadequate resources.
So "Defence in the Seventies" was a public relations front, a fa9ade behind which the Trudeau cabinet could cut DND's budget in real terms and emasculate it as an effective force.
Quite suddenly last year the policy appeared to have been changed. The then minister was suddenly heard everywhere in the land promising new equipment and the money to buy it. However, it is also very noticeable that no other minister, let alone the Prime Minister, has been heard to say anything in public in support of the commitment to re-equip the armed forces. Why is this so? The answer is that the Liberal cabinet may have promised new weapons, but its members' hearts are not in it. Let me suggest that this is because they do not really feel that DND should have the money. They have not suddenly become converts to a proper defence policy for Canada. On the contrary, one has to look in some surprising places for the real
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
reasons for their sudden interest in defence, and these reasons are hardly calculated to fill the country with confidence that the Liberal government is fulfilling its obligations to provide for the security of this country.
We should all ask ourselves why the Prime Minister has suddenly become interested in NATO, interested beyond the ritual mouthing of support which he has previously given his allies. The only past actions of his concerning NATO which come to mind are the decisions to cut the Canadian manpower contribution by half, and not to replace the aging Centurion tank.
Yet recently we have a new found enthusiasm for tanks, and we have all witnessed the tragic comedy caused by the previous minister of national defence's precipitous haste to announce a contract for the LRPA. So precipitous was the haste to announce the first LRPA contract that cabinet did not even give it the attention one might expect from any group of responsible adults about to spend a billion dollars. But then what was another billion to a cabinet which asked so few questions about a company like Lockheed that its members signed an agreement without even bothering to read the briefing notes prepared for them by their own officials?
Why should the NATO commitments suddenly appeal to the Prime Minister? The answer is not any perception of an increased Soviet threat; that right hon. gentleman appears not to be even dimly aware of the upgrading of Soviet tactical land, sea and air forces. Anyway, he barely bothers to conceal his contempt for such military matters. He certainly feels it beneath his dignity to make a speech about them.
The latest comment I have heard from his lips was that, when speaking of the former minister of national defence retaining his portfolio, he had bought Jim his new toys and he should stay on and play as minister of national defence.
No, the Prime Minister is interested in NATO because he was left in no doubt that, if he wanted his "contractual link" with the European Economic Community, a precondition of a favourable deal was to end his shameful neglect of the equipment needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. A sad state of affairs has surely come to pass when foreign governments care more for Canada's Armed Forces than does the Trudeau cabinet.
The LRPA deal has been signed. The contract is now being put into effect. I have very few comments to make on that. I wish the company well. I hope they survive to the end of the contract. Canadians should hold their breath for the next four or five years until we get the aircraft for which we are going to pay so dearly.
It is interesting to note that when the then minister of national defence failed to get cabinet approval in May, it was given over to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) to close the deal. He did this with the usual fanfare and, with his usual business acumen, was able to see that a plane priced at $953 million in December could be bought at a different price because it had a lot less on it and he would only have to pay an extra $60 million for it. Having watched that same
126

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
gentleman buy oil at $1 a gallon and not be able to sell it for 15 cents a gallon, one should not be surprised.
The new long-range patrol aircraft is an inferior plane compared to the one for which the then minister of national defence attempted to get approval. It has less instrument landing capability. The November plane could land in conditions of 100-foot ceiling and one-quarter mile visibility. The new plane, which costs $60 million more, needs double that minimum.
Second, the bomb-bay canisters are no longer going to be part of the contract. They provide, in their words, a unique sovereignty, surveillance, research and civilian sensing capability. This has now gone by the board.
The data annotation system on the new plane is of inferior quality compared to the one on what we might now call the Richardson aircraft. The electronic emission detection system on the new plane is not up to that on the old one. The system on the new plane is "capable of growth to a more advanced system".
Finally, and perhaps most different, is the data interpretation and analysis centres. There were to be two, one at Greenwood, and one at Comox. Now there will be one at Greenwood. The one at Comox is not to be of the same quality or standard as the one at Greenwood. It is to be a D1AC with a reduce capability. This capability is yet to be defined. This means we know what we are going to pay, but we do not know what we are going to get. By the time we pay for the canisters, the upgrading of the Comox facility and anything else we decide to restore to its former capability, the bill will be far beyond the currently stated price.
I wish now to say a few words about tanks. A couple of years ago the then minister of national defence and the Prime Minister discovered tanks were no longer needed and they were going out of the tank business. But following their conversion by the Chancellor of Germany they decided it would not be too bad an idea to re-equip the Canadian forces with tanks. I would remind hon. members that they had totally spurned an opposition initiative and suggestion in committee about a year ago that they should consider renting tanks while deciding what tanks to order. They suddenly changed their minds and decided that this was a good idea and they are now arranging to rent German tanks for up to two years. I welcome this idea. Indeed, I suggested it.
I now further suggest that before getting into a contract to buy Leopard I tanks, they should bear in mind that at least 19 prototypes of Leopard II have been constructed and the new version is about to come on the market. It will be superior in many respects to the Leopard I. What worries me is that we are now proposing to buy the Leopard I just at a time when it is the last off the line, in other words, the last of a series. Almost instantly we shall be using a new obsolescent tank.
One of the important factors is that the Leopard II will be equipped with a 120mm gun. The Leopard I carries a 105mm gun. The Warsaw Pact countries are currently operating a

tank which is impervious to attack by a 105mm gun and for this reason, if for no other, I would ask the new minister to check into the possibility of buying the Leopard II instead of the Leopard I, or at least the possibility of having the 120mm weapon retro-fitted into the Leopard I.
A similar lack of foresight is involved in another new commitment, one which any responsible cabinet would have seen coming for the last two or three years at least. This is the extension of our economic zone to 200 miles offshore. As from the New Year these responsibilities will fall on some department or departments. The government is silent as to which will be assuming responsibility for the role of co-ordinating offshore operations. This being the case, the Canadian taxpayer must assume that, as usual, either the government doesn't know or is as muscle-bound as ever with committees, task forces, inter-departmental studies and so on, all of which are producing mounds of paper, but there is not one responsible politician who can get something going in time to be ready for the declaration of sovereignty. There is absolutely no sign of any extra funds forthcoming to meet the equipment, manpower, or operating costs which will be necessary to fulfil this new commitment.
Since the various agencies of government do not have the funds to enable them to carry out proper fisheries patrols in the much smaller area of sea currently claimed, we shall shortly be witnessing yet another example of a tired, worn out cabinet failing to reach any decision except that most common Liberal decision, the non-decision or decision by default.
Recently the minister and senior officers of the forces have taken to claiming that a shipbuilding program does exist. We have heard mention of a 20-year program; we have heard mention of 20 ships in 20 years. A general officer touring in Germany recently published an article in Kanadaire the service newspaper there, to claim that there was a shipbuilding program. Having heard these stories, I put a question on the order paper on July 6, question No. 5,479. It is reported in Hansard at page 15076 as follows:
1.	Has the Department of National Defence set up a planning section or any other type of unit, section or project office to carry out planning and procurement of the 20 new ships announced by the minister and, if so, how many (a) servicemen (b) civilians are so employed?
2.	What is the amount of money allocated for this purpose for the fiscal year 1976-77?
In his reply the former minister of national defence said:
No. Although no specific announcement about procurement of 20 new ships has been made, planning studies for ship replacement continue to be carried out by departmental staff as part of their regular duties.
He went on to say that parts (a) and (b) were not applicable, and that the answer to the second part of the question
was "Nil". So much for Liberal promises about re-equipping our fleet.
To sum up, after a decade of neglect and cuts in defence spending we now find ourselves in a situation where we must race to catch up for the lost years and lost equipment dollars. Due to the negligence of successive defence ministers in the Trudeau era we must suddenly spend a disproportionate

October 15, 1976

amount from the federal budget on defence during the next few fiscal years. If the first effort, the LRPA debacle, is anything to go by, the House cannot allow the government to proceed any further with major procurement decisions affecting our defence policy for the next 20 years for this is how long the new weapons will have to last without a much fuller examination of its policy. Not only must we be told many more details concerning any future contracts but we must also make sure we buy the right items of equipment for the right price in the proper order of priority. Clearly the ministers who have been involved in such matters in the past proved incapable of handling them.
In the past several months there has been a continuing review during which the military and civilian officers of the defence department have sought to work out these questions. However, only the cabinet is privy to the information which is supplied from these sources. In the name of security and official secrecy the taxpayers, especially their elected representatives in this House, are denied such information.
At hearings of the Defence Committee which examines the estimates this problem was revealed at its most acute. Senior officials of the department were prevented from outlining even the broadest picture of future costs and priorities following the doctrine that once a policy had been submitted to cabinet for consideration they were not free to discuss it with members of parliament. On the other hand, if a subject had not yet reached the stage at which a firm proposal had been made for cabinet consideration, the officials refused, as they put it, to "speculate" except in a most general-and therefore pretty useless-way. One might be forgiven for believing that this practice was designed to deny information to the House. In any case the result is that the options for future defence arrangements which have been given to the cabinet have been denied to the public.
One consequence of this, of course, is that the military and others whose views the cabinet ignores tend to leak their plans to the press, partly no doubt because of the government's own use of this channel of communication. What we need is a new quorum or method of formalizing a proper debate on defence without endangering security.
A good example is the study which was conducted with regard to the closing of bases. This study was first mentioned last winter. Word spread that the government was considering the closing of several bases in the interests of rationalization. Question after question was asked in the House, and invariably the minister of national defence stonewalled, saying that the survey was under study by the cabinet and he was therefore not free to discuss the matter. We continued to press for answers, and then a strange press leak in July or August indicated that the study was no longer a current issue-no bases were to be closed. The whole thing was to be forgotten. This was followed, two days later, by a denial from the department. The matter was still under consideration by the cabinet-don't hold your breath waiting for the final answer. This leaves a terrible amount of uncertainty in the country.
The Address-Mr. Brewin
Such cities as Edmonton, Calgary and London all have major bases; none of them know whether their base is the one to be chopped. This uncertainty is even worse than the final act of closing a base. I would ask the minister either to announce a policy and tell us what bases are to be closed, or to tell us frankly that there is no intention to close any bases.
One other thing I should like to mention. The re-equipment policy has been moving very slowly ahead. I would like to put it clearly on the record that the Conservative party believes that up to the present the Department of National Defence has not made a clear case with respect to the replacement of CF-101 Voodoo fighters. We are in favour of all other aspects of the re-equipment program.
My party supports, and incidentally has been doing so for rather longer than the present government, the need for new tanks, armoured personnel carriers, the replacement of the CF-104 Star Fighter in the ground support role, the long-range patrol aircraft and, not least, a new naval shipbuilding program. Those are things supported by myself and my party, and I want that clearly understood.
Finally I should like to say I had the pleasure this summer of visiting our peacekeeping forces on Cyprus and in the Middle East. All Canadians can be extremely proud of the very fine job they are doing out there under very difficult circumstances. They are tremendous troops and are capably led. I am sure General Clay Beattie is considered by Cypriots on both side of the demarcation line as being really the peacemaker and the peacekeeper on Cyprus. Anyone who would wish to discourage peacekeeping should compare the state that Cyprus is in with the state Lebanon is in. Lebanon does not have a peacekeeping force but Cyprus does.
While in Cyprus I had the privilege of being the guest of the PPCLI, a very fine regiment indeed-none better in the world, I submit. I wish to express my thanks for the courtesy and treatment I received from Lieutenant Colonel Gollner and his very fine battalion.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, it is not infrequently my fate to address the House on Friday afternoon. I should like to say to those who are present that I am reminded of the minister who, on a rainy day, said to the rather sparse congregation that he had the quality if not the quantity of his congregation with him. I think I can say that to the hon. members of the House who are with us still.


An hon. Member:: Particularly looking forward.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the House in its wisdom has provided that the Speech from the Throne gives an opportunity for discussing any problems affecting the welfare of Canada. I therefore make no apology for directing my speech to the sphere of international affairs. However important our domestic problems are, and I know they are important, they are no more important to the future security and welfare of Canadi-
80001-9]/2

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. Brewin
ans than the global inter-dependence which is an increasing fact of life.
It is no accident that questions such as survival in a nuclear age, food, health, population, the rights of women, and the problems of the environment have all been subjects for international conferences under the auspices of the United Nations, and at all of these conferences the view emerged that international action was required if solutions were to be found. One can add to this list the subject of inflation which is, after all, not purely a national phenomenon.
The first item in the international situation I should like to deal with is the immense mal-distribution of the resources of the world, both material and personal. It is estimated that the world is spending a figure of over $300 billion a year on arms. The world bank was asked to make an estimate of what it would cost to make the basic investments required to deal with certain fundamental obstacles, and it came up with the following figure: food and nutrition, $42 billion; education, $25 billion; rural and urban water supply, $28 billion; urban housing, $16 billion; urban transport, $8 billion; population and health programs, $6 billion, amounting in all to roughly $125 billion over ten years, or about $12.5 billion a year. I would ask you to compare those figures with the 10-year figure for arms expenditure which is expected to be at least $2,500 billion in the next ten years.
Proposals have been made to remedy this gross and insane misspending of resources. The Pope proposed at the World Food Conference a diversion of 10 per cent of arms expenditures to development aid. The Soviet Union, which is one of the main players in the lunatic game of over-kill and first strike capability, has also proposed a 10 per cent cut in arms, the savings to be transferred to development aid. Barbara Ward in her book "The Home of Man" repeats the proposal. It is my suggestion that Canada take up this proposal seriously and undertake to make its contribution of a 10 per cent cut in arms expenditures to be transferred to development and to meeting the basic needs of mankind, and to persuade other nations to do the same.
I referred to the Soviet proposal, which was responded to with a resounding silence. One is perhaps entitled to be skeptical about the bona fide intentions of a country devoted to arms expenditures such as the USSR. However, if it is a bluff the bluff should be called.
The former minister of national defence was obviously elated when he apparently persuaded the Cabinet to agree that military expenditures should not only keep up with the cost of living but should increase by 12 per cent a year. I suggest that his resignation gives an opportunity for reconsideration. There is no more inflationary an expenditure than spending on arms. It is not necessary in order to provide Canada's needs for defence, defence of her sovereignty, and to give priority to peacekeeping consistent with Canada's aims and objectives, to spend the amount of money that is being spent. I am well aware that there will be people in the House, as there are in the country, who will say that this proposal has no popular appeal. I think they are quite right. We have been conditioned

to think of defence expenditure as sacrosanct. When one considers what could be done with the rearrangement of expenditures as suggested, namely, the proposal made of cutting 10 per cent of arms expenditure and applying it to development, it is in fact, counsel of sanity in a world that might otherwise drift toward self-destruction.
A second priority in Canada's international policy should be practical support for the new economic order. Canada is indeed committed to making the new economic order a reality and this commitment was referred to, albeit in rather vague terms, in the Speech from the Throne. I suggest that the importance of this cannot be exaggerated. World instability has resulted from gross inequalities between developed and developing countries. Developing countries entered on a path of confrontation demanding trade concessions and a change of structures in the world's economic system. They are now testing the developed world to see if it is ready to choose the path of co-operation and social justice.
In this connection I should like to pay tribute to the former secretary of state for external affairs. He was co-chairman at the North-South Conference in Paris at which positive solutions were being sought. I remind the House that a committee of this House in the last session studied thoroughly the matter of developing a new economic order and gave its support in practical terms to the liberalization of trade and greater stability of prices for goods sold by developing countries. To this end it proposed that a common fund should be set up for the purpose of creating buffer stocks and stabilizing prices. At the recent UNCTAD conference at Nairobi the Canadian government finally came up with a cautious approval of this project.
I hope the new Secretary for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), whom I congratulate on his appointment, will as soon as possible tell the House in detail what is proposed by the government on the whole question of the new economic order, the common fund, and commodity prices, and of developments at the North-South Economic Co-operative Conference. These questions cannot be solved by rhetoric alone. We have had plenty of that. They require action.
A third subject which I wish to discuss is the proliferation of nuclear weapons manufactured out of plutonium which can be produced in reactors sold by Canada. This was discussed in the last session, and the Conservative and New Democratic opposition parties voted against the sale of reactors under the existing circumstances. The case against these sales grows stronger and stronger. The leader of this party the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), proposed that the whole question of the production of nuclear energy be the subject of an inquiry by experts in the field, to be made public to the people of Canada, and that until such an inquiry had reported there be a moratorium on the sale of nuclear reactors or other material capable of being turned into nuclear bombs.
Recently a royal commission in Great Britain reported on this subject. They urged the necessity for wide public under-
October 15, 1976

standing and the need for public debate. They proposed that a major commitment to fission power should be postponed as long as possible, and that a commitment to large nuclear programs should wait until there has been wide public understanding of the implications of a plutonium economy.
In particular they urged that a high level body be established in Great Britain to provide advice on energy and to enable more research to be put into alternative solutions. In connection with the so-called plutonium economy they drew specific attention to the dangers of plutonium being used by terrorists to blackmail society and the small amounts required for the making of nuclear bombs. I join my leader and many others throughout Canada who have urged a moratorium on the sale of reactors for distribution as potential sources of extracting plutonium until a thorough inquiry has been made. Prestigious voices in the United States have supported this proposal for a moratorium, including David Lilienthal, former chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority and an expert in the whole field of energy.
I myself have recently had an experience which demonstrates the need for caution. One of the countries to which we are proposing to sell one or two reactors is the Argentine. I and two of my colleagues, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), and the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), recently returned from a trip to the Argentine. There could be little doubt about the instability of that country.
A military dictatorship has deprived Argentinians of their human rights; trade unions are virtually non-existent; the church and other institutions are under attack; many individuals are detained without trial; roughly 1,000 have totally disappeared and their families are unable to obtain any information about them. Shootings and assassinations are a daily event. The authorities in the Argentine do not deny that this state of disorder exists. They blame it on leftist guerillas. There seems to be widespread agreement among others that, in addition to left-wing guerillas, the "death squad" consists of right-wing elements who are determined to repress not only left-wing ideas but any democratic institutions which might be a source of opposition.
The government appears to be either unwilling or unable to control these terrorist gangs. While there is a vigorous campaign by the government to deal with left-wing guerillas no similar effort is made to restrain the right wing elements responsible, at the present time, for most of the disappearances and killings which have taken place. This has created an unstable society and one in which if the terrorists could secure plutonium and manufacture nuclear bombs, these could be used both within and outside the Argentine as a weapon of blackmail. As I said, the government authorities did not deny the breaches of human rights but justified this on the basis that a state of war existed. The Argentine has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation agreement, and although Canada has arranged for certain safeguards as a condition of sale, the safeguards are just as good as the recipients choose to make them.
The Address-Mr. Brewin
We cannot enforce these safeguards. There are no effective sanctions. If governments or groups within the Argentine decide to disregard them, the threat of the misuse of nuclear weapons might spread among the nations of the world, and this is a threat to the survival of all of us. Canada should think again on this subject.
The central issue in the world today consists of developments in Africa. We must continue to hope for and assist in any way possible the granting of majority rule in Zimbabwe, but that is only part of the problem. There remains the continuing illegal occupation of Namibia, formerly German Southwest Africa, by South Africa. This situation flies in the teeth of the judgment of the world as expressed in United Nations resolutions. It will have to come to an end and should be ended by negotiations giving full independence to the majority, who consist of black Africans.
Another problem is the continuing curse of apartheid in South Africa itself. This evil system cannot continue indefinitely. There is one immediate development with which I wish to deal, and that is the effort of South Africa to obtain recognition from Canada and other countries for the so-called Republic of Transkei. This proposal is a patent fraud. Transkei is to be declared independent and made the national home of all Xhosa-speaking Africans. The Transkei's present population of about 1.7 million in a crowded, poor, and sparse country would increase to around 3 million.


An hon. Member:: It is a beautiful country.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It may be very beautiful but it is a very poor place in which to live and earn enough to eat, and with the added population there would be malnutrition and starvation. The Transkei cannot possibly support the added population which is supposed to go there. This is based on the artificial division of tribes or nations and requires the new citizens of Transkei to surrender their South African citizenship and all the privileges that go with it. Indeed the situation is even worse than this. Those capable of being employed in South African industry will remain in South Africa with a minimum of human rights while their families are transferred to the new Transkei. The South African government let it be known that arrangements will be made for black Africans to visit their relatives several hundred miles away once a year.
This is a wholesale denial of the basic rights of families to be united. The World Council of Churches which studied this matter condemned the manoeuvre of the South African government in creating the independent Transkei and called on its member churches to oppose the Bantustan policy, to withhold recognition of the Transkei as an independent state, and to withhold diplomatic relations with the Transkei that would imply recognition. I now ask the government to make clear in this House that Canada has no intention of granting such recognition. The south African government intends to declare the Transkei independent on October 26. I think our government should make up its mind by then and clearly declare what is its policy and decision on this matter.

I was dismayed to hear the member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) read his twaddle. I cannot understand why an experienced politician of his age cannot make a speech without having to read notes prepared by researchers from the Progressive Conservative Party.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Mr. Ouellet:: And what is more 1 have the feeling they made him say things that he did not mean.


An hon. Member:: That's it!


André Ouellet: On hearing him speak, you have the impression that he feels very uncomfortable, very restricted within the Progressive Conservative Party and there is nothing new about that. All well meaning French-speaking Canadians from Quebec who have worked for the Progressive Conservative Party at the federal level have had to admit some day or the other that they were so restrained within that party that they had the feeling they were choking. I am thinking of the hon. Leon Balcer in particular. I am also thinking of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. LaSalle) who had to leave at a certain time and came back for God knows why. Regularly Quebecers have felt choked up inside the Progressive Conservative Party. But when it comes to principles that party is always agreeable on the issues of bilingualism and the national capital, and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) alluded to it earlier today.
When it comes to principles it is always fine but when it comes to implementing the basic principles to keep this country united the Progressive Conservative Party has always been reluctant. It was only able to criticize to policy of the government. It could only say: Well, we agree in principle. But when it comes to implementing those principles, nothing goes. The approach is bad, or the government is wrong in its way of implementing bilingualism in Canada.
So again I ask the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe who spoke earlier today what are the solutions his party would put forward to better implement bilingualism in Canada. He did not make a single suggestion in his speech this afternoon, nor for that matter did the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who, of course, is not satisfied to see the federal capital expand on both sides of the Ottawa River, to see all those beautiful federal buildings finally up on the Hull side, truly making the national capital not only a capital standing on the Ottawa side but properly extending on both sides of the river.
I think that is the basic difference between these two major Canadian parties; the Liberal party always had the respect, the qualities, the representatives of the two founding nations of this country. This party, the Liberal party, was never afraid to give French-speaking people a chance to have access to the high offices of this country. And still very recently the Progressive Conservative Party had a unique opportunity to give a capable man a chance to become the leader of that party and to aspire to the high office of Prime Minister of Canada. But he was denied that chance, he was denied that possibility, going down by 33 votes, and I understand that the
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe should feel bitterness following that decision. But that is an undeniable reflection of the unbendable, unacceptable and unspeakable attitude of the Progressive Conservative Party which never agreed in the past and, until proven otherwise, will never agree in the future to give Quebecers, French Canadians, a chance to find fulfillment, first in their party, and then in all Canada.
Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal during this throne speech debate, I wish to refer to three measures that I should like to see implemented during this session. First, I want the injustice done to many industrial milk producers in Canada to be corrected as soon as possible. Second, in agreement with the provinces, I should like the federal government to patriate the Canadian constitution as soon as possible. Third, I wish it were possible between responsible parliamentarians to amend our rules of parliamentary proceedings which are obsolete in many ways and provide us with ancient tools to work with in these modern times.
First, with regard to the farm policy, the national dairy program as we know it has serious deficiencies. In many circles, the federal government is held responsible for the disastrous financial situation of a number of industrial milk producers in Canada. First, those affected are those who had their quotas cut down by some 20 per cent without any overproduction and also those who were encouraged to overproduce after being promised quotas that they never obtained. It is true that in 1975, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) had asked the milk producers to increase their production. But, mind you, at the time the Minister of Agriculture was speaking of a 5 per cent production increase. Yet, production increased by 17 per cent. Who is responsible? I say that it is primarily the milk supply management committee which is made up of producers, of representatives of the provincial governments and the Canadian Dairy Commission. It is a committee of 23 members including 11 producers (members of the various Canadian dairy federations), 9 provincial representatives and 3 commissioners of the Canadian Dairy Commission.
Now, the Canadian milk supply management committee, which is responsible for production control, did not reduce the marketing quotas before April 1, 1976, even though they largely exceeded the Canadian demand. Now, this year, this committee reduced the quotas to the level of the Canadian demand, which automatically reduced materially in some cases the income of several milk producers. Can the federal government be held responsible for this situation? Before blaming it for everything, let us consider what happened in the past few years. Under the federal dairy policy, the target price of industrial milk was increased every year. In April 1973, it was $6.45 a hundredweight, then it went up to $8.50 in April 1974, to $11.02 in April 1975, and it stands at $11.45 since April 1976. This is a marked improvement for milk producers.
Furthermore, if we refer to the 1972-73 dairy year, we find that the federal subsidy was then $1.25 a hundredweight. In April 1973, it went up to $1.45 and later to $2.01. In 1974-75

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. Ouellet
it was increased twice: first to $2.30 and then to $2.56, and in the present dairy year, it went up to $2.66 a hundredweight.
Once again, there has been a clear effort on the part of the federal government to help milk producers. But, more important, I am pleased to say that when I was a minister in the Trudeau government, I was associated with the decision that the Trudeau government announced in April 1975 through the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan): a long term dairy policy would particularly provide for an indexation formula of the price of milk. As it happened it was in keeping with that formula that the price of indutrial milk has been fixed this year at $ 11.45 from $ 11.02 last year.
These are examples that show that the federal government does take into account the interests of Canadian milk producers and that it does understand their problems. 1 think that the present difficulties on the international markets are due particularly to weather conditions that were extremely favourable to milk production in 1975 and which resulted in excess production and also in lower consumption of dairy products in Canada, following the increase in costs.
Those are roughly the main reasons behind the problems of some milk producers. I am quite concerned by this situation which I think is very serious especially for a group of young producers whose average age is 30 and who, not more than five years ago, have established agricultural industries; they were asked to reduce their production by several hundred thousands of pounds of milk, and most of them have respected the quotas which were supposed to bring them some form of security. Most of these young people were trained in technological institutes and regional agricultural institutions; some have taken the courses given under the auspices of the agriculture minister of the province of Quebec. These young people have entered the field of industrialized agriculture, they have planned five-year or more than five-year programs and they have entered into important financial contracts now, the cutbacks announced during these recent months nearly smother them and create nearly irreparable damages.
One fears that if this condition is not amended as quickly as possible by the authorities responsible for the dairy policy, at the federal and provincial levels and by the dairy boards, some 30 per cent of the producers of industrial milk will have to disappear within two years, which would be extremely serious and would jeopardize the stability of an industry of import not only to Quebec but to the whole of Canada.
Therefore, we will have to take our responsibilities at the federal level although we are not directly and primarily involved in this situation and, as I have said before, it is no use playing politics with this issue and denounce the federal government as the main culprit. Provincial authorities and dairy boards must recognize their shortcomings and more particularly those who represent the milk producers on the various agricultural boards and agencies. The fact is that a number of these representatives, Mr. Speaker, were representing whole milk producers, which form an industry which is far richer far sounder and much better organized and which emphasized, in terms of quotas and subsidies, the benefits and interests of
[Mr. Ouellet.)
whole milk producers, and did so unfortunately at the expense of industrial milk producers.
I believe that, in the interest of our dairy industry as a whole, we will have to give guarantees to all producers as well as the assurance that the past benefits they gained will be maintained. And by this 1 mean to say that I believe it to be vital for the federal government to take the appropriate action to give back to some dairy producers the quotas that they lost in the last few months and to reinstate them in the position that they held with respect to their production level of 197475. I believe it is urgent that the government should set back the production quotas to the production level of 1974-75 by means of subsidies to all producers, who would then be treated fairly, and also that he should urgently redistribute subsidized production quotas to those dairy producers who have invested tremendous amounts of money with the promise of additional quotas or to those who, without having any overproduction, either because of fire or cattle disease, have seen their production fall considerably below their recommended and approved quota and who have had part of their quota removed even though they had fallen short.
Here are the suggestions that I should like to make. I believe that in the interest of the Canadian dairy industry, we should give our milk producers assurances of survival, dignity of life in the farming community. I believe that the future of Canadian consumers does make it essential for farm producers to be well protected and for their income to be guaranteed, otherwise dairy production will go down and we shall have to rely on imports to feed the people of Canada. And I am convinced that we would then pay more for our dairy products than at the present time.
Secondly, I would like to speak briefly to the constitutional issue and the repatriation of the Constitution. 1 am doing so today on this very special occasion when the Canadian government has paid tribute to a great Canadian, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and unveiled a monument in his honour in front of the Supreme Court of Canada building. You all know that in 1949, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, then prime minister of Canada, asked the Canadian Parliament to adopt a petition through which it obtained from British Parliament the right to amend the Canadian Constitution except in certain more controversial areas, such as the rights and powers of provinces, the jurisdiction with respect to education, the official duality of languages, the length of Parliaments. This was called at the time, and indeed, it is still called the partial repatriation of the Constitution. I would like to quote this excerpt from a book written by a former federal minister, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, and 1 quote:
-the title of the book is "My Years with Louis St. Laurent" and I quote from page 113 as follows:
St. Laurent proposed that ... the Canadian parliament should seek from the British parliament an amendment to the British North America Act to do three things: I. to entrench the rights or privileges with respect to schools and the use of the English or the French language granted to any class of persons by the
October 15, 1976

constitution; 2. to give the parliament of Canada exclusive jurisdiction to amend the constitution, except with respect to the minority rights regarding schools and languages and except in relation to provincial jurisdiction or provincial rights or privileges; 3. to give the parliament of Canada jurisdiction as well to make amendments relating to the matters which were not within its exclusive jurisdiction, but to provide that no such amendment would come into effect unless and until it was enacted as law by the legislatures of all the provinces.

As everyone knows, the first two proposals have been approved by the Canadian Parliament, and those first two objectives sought by Mr. St. Laurent have been approved and have now been enacted.
But the last objective he had in mind at the time has not been achieved. It is somewhat unfortunate, because it is clear that part of our constitution has not been patriated. The formula put forward at the time by Mr. St. Laurent entailed serious hazards and dangers, for there would have been a general outcry. Further on in his book, on page 121, Mr. Pickersgill states:

If that had happened, Canada would have been spared, since 1949, the continuing humiliation of having to ask the parliament of another country to amend our fundamental law. St. Laurent's proposal that no amendment affecting provincial rights or provincial jurisdiction could be made without the approval of all provincial legislatures was perhaps too rigid; but in fact, since 1907 the British parliament has not been asked to make such an amendment without approval of all provincial authorities nor is it likely to be.
Mr. Pickersgill ended the chapter on this subject by saying:
In the end, St. Laurent's formula of 1949 may prove to be the solution. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, here are some reflections on Canada's current situation. We are a nation with its constitution in another country. If we amend, that is if we patriate the constitution without an amendment formula, we will remain the only nation, not with an expatriated constitution, but with an unamendable constitution. Clearly, what is needed, both from the federal government and the provincial representatives, is goodwill to attain that vital goal, a truly Canadian constitution, a constitution that will be for us another great symbol of unity.
There was much talk about the Canadian flag. It was said that the flag was a divisive issue. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, however, had the courage to give this nation a truly Canadian flag, despite protests from a few Progressive Conservatives and a few bigots. In my view, this Canadian flag is a token of unity in this country, and I believe the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau will shortly demonstrate the same kind of courage as Mr. Pearson did, I believe he will give Canadians a truly Canadian constitution despite the protest from some Progressive Conservatives and some bigots. In this way, we will have a constitution we can proudly call our own, for the well-being of all Canadians.
And this much I can state: as a Quebecer, I have absolutely no fear of a Canadian constitution. I am certainly not afraid that such a constitution reduce in any way the rights and provileges already enjoyed by Quebecers. As for the utterance by certain Quebec quarters that the province of Quebec should
The Address-Mr. Coates
have more powers, 1 am not opposed to granting certain extra powers. But I insist on one condition: if ever Quebec is given extra powers, I want to be sure that the rights and privileges of Quebec MP's are not reduced. Because the Quebec MP's would then lose their true raison d'etre in Canada's Parliament, and we would soon enter into an associated state or special state situation, with second rate and second class Quebec MP's. That I want to prevent.
I will close my remarks, Mr. Speaker, on a third matter: parliamentary reform. We are speaking on this subject on a Friday afternoon. I find this inconceivable, since a vast majority of members of parliament who live in the remote corners of this country have to travel regularly every week-end to go and see their constituents in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Alberta and Prince Edward Island.
I think it is very important that we modify our parliamentary procedure in order to sit longer hours certain days of the week. The House should sit four days instead of five days a week. I am sure that there are a lot of ways in which we might improve the parliamentary procedure. After having studied the House procedure, a committee has made a series of recommendations. Our colleagues of the Quebec and Ontario provincial legislatures have attended committee meetings or a Liberal caucus and have made a series of very timely recommendations which, I hope, will be taken into consideration as soon as possible by Parliament.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, nothing gives me greater pleasure than to speak after the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and refute some of the things he said. I am thinking especially of what he said about the language issue and the Progressive Conservative party, which will form the next government of this country after the next general election.


An hon. Member:: That will be a black day.


Robert Carman Coates: It will not be anything as black as the present day. Day in and day out as a nation we suffer the consequences of being governed by this government. It will stay in power until 1978, when it will be forced to call an election.
The hon. member for Papineau asks, what's wrong with the language issue? I will tell you one of the things wrong with it. The hon. member for Papineau and others like him, when the Official Languages Act was first mooted, travelled around the hon. member's province. Those who did not agree with him and his concept of bilingualism in Canada were called racists and bigots, and he included members of this House. That's what's wrong with bilingualism.


Mr. Dinsdale:: That is why the country is divided.


Robert Carman Coates: If you speak your mind and say what the people you represent think, you are labelled a bigot and racist. Mr. Speaker, most members elected to this House are not racists or
134

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. Coates
bigots. If they were, they would not be here. Most members seeking election are good Canadians who want to make Canada a better place for themselves, their children and their children's children. We must take the emotionalism out of the language issue, an emotionalism which makes people like the hon. member for Papineau and those of his mind say that if you disagree with the government's concept of bilingualism you are a racist and bigot.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: Let's face it; in the years since the Official Languages Act was passed we have learned that the government's concept of bilingualism is not workable and not acceptable to Canadians. The best evidence of that is that the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) recently resigned from his portfolio as minister of national defence. If the hon. member had to resign his portfolio as minister of national defence because he is concerned about what will happen in this country with regard to the Official Languages Act and bilingualism, I say there is something mighty wrong with the act and the government's concept of it.
The hon. member for Papineau also said that the Conservative party is a narrow party which is suffocating people.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Now it is the only national party.


Robert Carman Coates: If you want to see a party which suffocates people you need look no further than the Liberal party. Many are leaving the Liberal party because they feel suffocated by it. The man who was runner up to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the last Liberal leadership convention, the late Robert Winters, felt there was no room for him in the Liberal party. After running second to the Prime Minister in the leadership race he felt that he could not be a candidate for the party in another election. Soon after the Prime Minister took office the then minister of transport, who was also deputy prime minister, left the party. He resigned his portfolio, left the party, and became a Progressive Conservative. Why? He felt suffocated in the Liberal party.
There is to be a by-election on Monday in Ottawa-Carleton. Why is it necessary to call a by-election? The reason is this: the previous minister of finance, the heir apparent to the Prime Minister, found there was no room for him in a Liberal party which suffocated him. He could stand it no longer, got out of politics and took up another occupation as a lawyer in Toronto. The hon. member for Papineau talked of suffocation. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is no suffocation in the Conservative party. Let me give you an example of what I mean.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) spoke here earlier today on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party. He is a very willing and able member. As far as Quebec Liberal members are concerned, he is a devastating member. He put forward a Canadian concept which Canadians can agree with and live with. It will be implemented just as soon as a general election is held and this party becomes the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: There is no suffocation in the Conservative party. I say to a great many disenchanted Liberal members of parliament, come on over and join us.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: You will find there is no suffocation here. You will be able to speak your mind, you can say what you think. You have the ability to make a better Canada, not only for us, but our children and their children. I invite you to come over.
I believe there are members opposite who would like to join this party. We need you. Canada needs you. We do not need a party which talks about bigots and racists and not about economic matters that concern Canadians. Canadians do not like the road we are going down. They want to get on the right road, and the right road is the road with Joe Clark.


Some hon. Members:: Joe who?


Robert Carman Coates: You will find out next Monday night when for the first time in 74 years the constituency of Ottawa-Carleton returns a Progressive Conservative member of parliament. The very fine lady who will be representing that constituency will be sitting on this side of the Chamber. Canadians are not happy with the government. As a result, Jean Piggott will overturn a 10,000 Liberal majority and come here to show how disenchanted people are with the Liberals.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Even Walter doesn't believe that one.


Walter David Baker: Yes, he does.


Robert Carman Coates: I was impressed with the statements made today by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the language issue. They made unemotional, sensible, realistic approaches to that policy, a policy Canadians will get when the Progressive Conservative party forms the government of Canada after the next general election.
There were times when I was unhappy with the Commissioner of Official Languages, Keith Spicer. However, I must say that he has shown realism in his reports with regard to producing an approach to bilingualism that will work. The sooner that approach is implemented, the better it will be for all Canadians. The sooner we get that issue out of the way, the sooner we can deal with other important and difficult problems.
Unemployment is increasing in Canada at a mile a minute. If we continue the way we are going now, one million people will be unemployed in this country by the end of the year. This condition will worsen with escalating energy costs. We have to sit down and work together. We must get the language issue out of the way so that people are not first concerned about an emotional issue, but about the bread and butter issues.
I wish to speak briefly on my part of .this country, Atlantic Canada. In 1968, the Prime Minister inspired the people of Atlantic Canada. He convinced them that he had their best interests at heart. He talked about regional economic disparity


and put in place the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Millions of dollars were committed to that department in order to try to meet the hopes and aspirations of those in Atlantic Canada.
As I look at the unemployment statistics today and compare our area with the rest of Canada, even with the millions of dollars that were committed and with all the good intentions of the government, it has not worked out as well as hoped.
I do not fault the government for its good intentions, which I believe it has. I have always been willing to work with the government in trying to meet the hopes and aspirations of those in my area. I am going to suggest to the government how we might overcome some of the problems we are facing and some of the reasons why DREE is not working as well as it should.
I have no disagreement with the Prime Minister appointing Ministers of State. That is a realistic concept. A cabinet should be stratified because there are a great many difficult problems at different levels. Thirty people cannot come to an agreement as quickly as five or six. Therefore a stratified cabinet is the proper solution.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) are both here. They are deeply involved. I suggest it would be a wise decision to have a Minister of State appointed who would have one responsibility. That minister would look at every program designated to overcome regional disparity in Atlantic Canada. Following an indepth examination of those programs, he would then examine all government programs to see whether they are damaging the concept of the regional programs. Let me give an example.
The user-pay concept in transportation will destroy Atlantic Canada. There are no two ways about it. Transportation must be a development tool in Atlantic Canada if we are to overcome the disparity we face. The user-pay concept has never before been applied, and should not be applied now. Transportation has been and continues to be a curse to Atlantic Canada because we do not have the right kind of development policy.
The user-pay concept is not applied to the St. Lawrence Seaway which does not receive enough revenue from the tolls to pay the interest on its indebtedness. If that were to be put into effect on the Seaway, we might as well seal it off, as well as the whole St. Lawrence River, because there would not be a ship in the Great Lakes.
We must forget about the user-pay concept in transportation and have a realistic policy of development. We should use the railways for the development of both eastern and western Canada so that we can come closer to an equality of trade right across this nation. That is just one example.
Now consider energy rates. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are facing, and will continue to face, energy rates which are higher than in any other part of Canada. This is because
80001-10'/2
The Address-Mr. Coates
those provinces are almost totally committed to the use of offshore oil for the production of the energy they require. Unless they are given some form of short-term subsidy we shall find a noose has been tied around the necks of industries which were established in their present locations only after the expenditure of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. Mr. Speaker, it is absurd to use taxpayers' dollars to establish an industry and then allow energy costs to escalate to a point at which those same industries are put into bankruptcy, which is exactly what will happen unless the federal government recognizes that short-term subsidies are the only assurance of the continuing viability of a great many industries in Atlantic Canada.
I could give other examples of cases where federal programs have destroyed the regional programs established earlier to overcome one or other aspect of regional disparity. Something has to be done about this situation, and the best way of doing it is to make one minister responsible for the overseeing of all these programs. Part of his job would be to call public attention to cases where there is a conflict between the national and the regional program and to stimulate public discussion as to the manner in which such conflicts could be resolved. In effect, he would allow a regional program to operate, in the first place, and continue to do the job it was supposed to do. This can be done, Mr. Speaker, as long as we take the people of the area into our confidence, as long as "made in Ottawa" programs which are later found to be unworkable in the maritimes are not pressed upon the people of the region. In so many cases one finds that they are unworkable because no one in the maritimes was consulted as to whether they were likely to work or not, or because people in Ottawa have no conception of what they are up against in the Atlantic area.
My leader has indicated that if the party to which I belong were in power today we would introduce a short term subsidy program for the benefit of the people of Atlantic Canada so that they would not be called upon to face the horrendous energy costs presently being charged, costs which are likely to rise even higher in the months ahead. Let me give hon. members an example of what is involved. There are people owning electrically-heated homes in Atlantic Canada who are paying more for their power than for their mortgages.


Robert Muir: Some of them are losing their homes.


Robert Carman Coates: Many are losing their homes. Moreover those homes are unsaleable because nobody in Nova Scotia wants to buy an electrically-heated house today, so the owner is saddled with a house which he cannot sell and which he cannot afford to keep. Yet there was a period in which those home-owners were duped by advertising agencies associated with the power companies into buying electrically-heated homes under the impression that it was cheaper to heat them that way than by any other means. Well, they have found out by now that there is nothing cheap about those homes. Many of them are built in such a way that they can be heated only by electricity; it is not practical to convert them to oil heating or gas by putting in a furnace. Something should be done about this serious burden

October 15, 1976
The Address-Mr. Coates
which many people in my own province of Nova Scotia are being asked to carry today.
I am concerned about the government's attitude toward the development of Fundy tidal power. As the Minister of Manpower moves up the echelon of cabinet positions and gets closer to the top I hope he will see that greater impetus is given to the drive to utilize Fundy tidal power. The Minister of Finance was always a realistic and sympathetic proponent of Fundy tidal power, and I hope that with ministers like the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower we can move a lot faster toward the day when we call tenders and begin to harness Fundy tidal power. When I watch those tides coming in and going out, reaching a height of 54 feet on occasions, it does not seem realistic to me that all this latent power should not be used to the advantage of this country especially since the engineering expertise is available to us whenever it is required.
In Nova Scotia we are at a particular disadvantage since we are committed to the most expensive energy-producing fuel which exists today, namely, oil. At the same time there is coal galore in our province. When it took office, the Regan government in Nova Scotia embarked on a policy of closing every coal mine which could possibly be closed. Today, it is thinking about opening coal mines. What a sad state of affairs! It may well be that the coal which would be used to produce power in Nova Scotia would not be any cheaper than the oil which is producing it today, but I must say this: If the power were being produced from coal, at least the billions spent on producing it would be staying in Nova Scotia and not going to Venezuela or some other foreign country.
I hope the federal government will wake up the Regan government and induce it to move into coal and coal mines a lot faster than it is doing now. I am not thinking only of coal mines. We might well take an example from South Africa where, by making use of the gasification process, they not only produce gas but also produce petroleum for use in their automobiles. If it can be done in South Africa, it can be done here provided we have the desire and the determination. That is what we are lacking today. We lack the leadership, the desire and the determination to overcome the adversity which faces some parts of Canada. The government needs to wake up, or else some new people are needed in the government, people with a desire to produce the programs the people want and need. An election and a change of government would do the country an awful lot of good.
Before I conclude I should like to make one comment on external affairs. It relates to the Taiwan affair. I was extremely disappointed over the government's attitude toward that small democratic nation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Carman Coates: It is nice to hear some people laugh, but I would suggest to you that democracy lives and thrives in Taiwan while the antithesis of democracy exists on mainland China. There is no freedom there for anyone at any time. I
suggest to hon. members who have not been to Taiwan and have not studied the democratic system which exists there that they should read something about it, and perhaps they would not be so critical.
Ad hon. Member: How many parties do they have?


Robert Carman Coates: They have a lot more than they do on the mainland. They do not have marshalls and palace guards and things of that nature who have no respect for the freedom of the people or their lives, and that is the situation on the mainland where 800 million people are being controlled under the yoke of tyranny and totalitarianism. If that is what this government wants, that is fine, but I want to stick with democratic nations and peoples who are our friends, and have been our friends through war and peace.
The sooner this or another government wakes up to the fact that our best partners are those democratic nations of this world the better off and the happier all Canadians will be. If the government wants to know why its state is so low at this point in time I suggest it is because of situations that have developed in this country since 1974, such as the Taiwan affair, which destroyed and will continue to destroy the credibility of the government.
The final thing I wish to suggest is that we have another oasis of freedom in the Middle East in Israel. I hope the government will continue to assist that small nation in developing in the way it has, and to see that its boundaries are defensible and secure so its people can enjoy freedom of life, peace, and security. I am not critical about the government's policy as far as Israel is concerned, but I would refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe regarding the passport situation. This involved people travelling to Arab countries with stamps in their passports indicating they were non-Jews. That is a despicable thing to have happen to anyone in this country. I cannot understand how any government agency would be allowed to put such a policy into effect. Canadians are entitled to an explanation of how that happened, and an assurance that the people involved are no longer associated with external affairs. Canadians would then be a great deal happier about the situation.
My time has just about expired. Before I sit down I should once again like to urge the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to assist in developing some kind of monitoring agency to see that regional programs in Atlantic Canada are made workable and effective in overcoming the regional disparity there. I hope they will make sure that national programs do not thwart the intentions of regional policies.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With only three or four minutes left until five o'clock it has been suggested that we call it five o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 4.56 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
October 15, 1976


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are
honouring today the memory of a man who, in spite of staggering odds, served his country exceptionally well.
Nothing seemed to incline the lawyer Louis St. Laurent to politics and even less to mack him out for the highest office in government. Yet, at an age where others are already considering retirement, he acceeded to supreme power and pursued one of the most remarkable political careers in our history.

The unpredictability, the impassioned debate and the frustrations that mark political life could not have been attractive to this man of order and reason, of measured, regular habits. But when he entered the political arena the war was raging and a formidable crisis threatened the country.
It was only out of duty that Louis St. Laurent took the first step which would lead him so far, involve him for so long and demand so much of his energy and himself. It was out of duty that he responded the first time to Mackenzie King's call to succeed Ernest Lapointe as Minister of Justice and leader of French Canada. Later, again out of duty, he accepted the External Affairs portfolio that his leader pressed upon him.
And finally, out of duty once more, he yielded to the wishes of Mackenzie King who saw him as his successor, and he became Prime Minister of Canada.
Thus, each of the major stages in his political career began in the austere and pure light of duty. The same moral purpose guided and directed all his actions, whether dealing with his French-speaking compatriots or the country as a whole.
[ Translation]
He had a deep love for Canada and never questioned the concept of our Canadian identity, which explains his almost religious concern for Canadian unity. In that respect, he did not hesitate to jeopardize his prestige, his popularity and his political capital. And the people whom he trusted, proved him right. His courage and his devotion to duty were a lesson and a salvation for the whole country. Such broad and rigorous views guided his actions on the international level. His name remains linked to some achievements which safeguard the western world to this day and contribute to world peace.
A true Canadian, an exemplary citizen, a first-rate politician, Louis St. Laurent won world-wide recognition and acclaim. May this monument which I have the honour to unveil, as well as the square and spacious grounds which will bear his name, perpetuate forever the memory of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent as well as the example of his remarkable virtues.

October 15, 1976


APPENDIX &quot;B&quot;
John (Moody) Roberts: Your Excellencies, Mr. Prime Minister, Your Eminence, members of the St. Laurent family, honoured guests.
It is indeed a great pleasure and honour for me as Secretary of State to welcome you to this unveiling ceremomy, graced by the presence of:
Leurs Excellences Le Gouverneur General et Madame Leger
Le Premier Ministre et Madame Trudeau Chief Justice Bora Laskin
The Right Honourable Roland Michener and Mrs. Michener
The Right Honourable John Diefenbaker L'honorable Renaude Lapointe The Honourable James Jerome and Mrs. Jerome Son Excellence M. Philippe Cantave et Mme Cantave Mrs. Lester B. Pearson
Mayor Lorry Greenberg and Mrs. Greenberg Le Ma:.e de Quebec et Madame Lamontagne Le Maire de Compton et Madame Beaudoin Le depute et Madame Gerard Duquet
We are very happy today to have amongst us members of the St. Laurent family represented on the platform by:
Monsieur et Madame Renault St-Laurent
Monsieur et Madame Jean-Paul St-Laurent
Monsieur et Madame G. Lafferty
Madame Madeleine St-Laurent et Madame Therese Cartier
Such an occasion would not be possible without the talent of the sculptor Mr. Elik Imredy of Vancouver who has joined us here today with his wife.
Today, we honour the memory of Louis S. St. Laurent, former Prime Minister of Canada. It is my great pleasure to ask The Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada to deliver the eulogy and to unveil the statue.
Mr. Prime Minister . ..

Monday, October 18, 1976