1976-10-18

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, involving transportation. On April 6 of this year, the Minister of Transport appeared before the relevant standing committee and promised a new Air Canada Act, a new transportation act, a new ports policy and a re-examination of the St. Lawrence seaway. A year before that, the former minister of transport announced there would be a regional third level air policy and on March 14, 1972 his predecessor promised sweeping transportation changes involving the CNR, Air Canada and the Railway Act amendments. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That because of the unprecedented delay in implementing these various obvious and important changes, the present Minister of Transport make a statement on motions at the first opportunity explaining to the House the reasons for this procrastination and giving the precise date when Air Canada officials who have not appeared before the relevant committee of this House during the past three years-at that time the 1972 annual report of Air Canada was discussed-will appear.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the fact that today is the Prime Minister's birthday-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I would like to present a motion under Standing Order 43. Since three years
from today the Prime Minister will be at an age when a certain proposal of mine might be of interest to him, especially if by that time he is unemployed,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House urges the government to proceed immediately to provide pensions at 60 for all those who are out of the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) on CBC television last week in relation to Canada's economic future in which he referred to the economist John Kenneth Galbraith as a "gadfly" whose economic propositions are "too shallow", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That this House direct the Secretary of State for External Affairs to extend apologies to Dr. Galbraith for the minister's extravagant cheap shots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion can only be debated with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 18, 1976
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but in his absence I will direct my question to the former minister. It deals with the status of the Canadian beef industry.
In view of the obvious reluctance or, indeed, failure or refusal of the Minister of Agriculture to implement a tempo-, rary embargo on Australian and New Zealand beef and veal imports-but rather, the government has opted for import permit controls-will the minister assure the House, and particularly the Canadian beef industry, that beef imports from those sources will cease or at least be reduced substantially? This is a very important question because comparing boatload-ings from September to September from that source to Canada they appear to be up some 61 per cent. Can the minister comment on that situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Before the minister does comment, it should be made clear that he would be doing so as the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and not as the former minister.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that the question is a very important one, and because it is and because it involves a number of different countries, including those to which the hon. member made reference, I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to go into it in detail, other than to say that all the aspects of the question are being examined both by the Minister of Agriculture and other concerned ministers. I hope that there will be some clarification within a very short time.


John Wise: I wonder if the former minister would be kind enough to respond to my supplementary question. Can the minister confirm or deny that recent changes in the method of issuing import permits have actually made it easier for the importation of beef? This action must be viewed as an indication that even greater imports will result.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: On the specifics of the question, certainly the intention was not to allow more beef in, as the hon. member has suggested, but to restrict imports. However, as I say, I believe the total picture will become clearer in the next few days as all of the necessary information with regard to shipments in transit and various related questions becomes known.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question should normally go to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence perhaps it should be directed to the acting minister or his parliamentary secretary.


An hon. Member:: Nobody is there.


An hon. Member:: Here is the minister now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I have a question for the late Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: My question is also with regard to imports of meat from Australia and New Zealand and with particular reference to the minister's response to my question in this House on Friday in which he said very clearly, and I quote: "As a result of government action no beef or veal will be allowed into Canada after Sunday night, October 17, unless by permit".
In view of the very real possibility that the use of this individual permit device could result in increased imports from Australia and New Zealand, will the minister now clearly indicate if he intends to use this permit device to restrict imports from Australia and New Zealand into Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we certainly cannot be a dumping ground for beef from any country which has been denied the opportunity to ship beef into the United States. We have to make sure that we take similar action so that any beef which comes in, as of midnight last night, would have to have a permit. The quotas are being worked out and will be announced shortly, if there are to be quotas for beef, for instance, from New Zealand and Australia. I understand that the quotas the United States has placed on Canada, if they have not been announced as of today, will be announced later in a more firm type of statement than that which was made last week. Our officials met with United States officials last week to try to work out a proper program between Canada and the United States. It will be on beef and veal; ours will be on beef and veal. Live cattle will move between the two countries freely because they are not affected by the import quotas the United States has placed on our beef.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that these imports from down under continue to have access to our Canadian markets at price differentials well in excess of the "six cent under" agreement and in view of the fact that our 1976 imports from down under will amount to 10 pounds to 11 pounds per capita, which is about 10 per cent of our total consumption, does the minister not feel it is about time he showed the Canadian cattle industry that he is con-

cerned and able to act on behalf of this industry as the secretary for agriculture in the United States is apparently able to do?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should remember that last year 1 did act on behalf of the beef producers of Canada and did establish import quotas from the United States and import quotas from Australia and New Zealand. If you remember, there was strong representation for me to lift those. I did lift them last December. We did have a supply-management program that we were trying to run for Canada and now the secretary of agriculture for the United States has seen fit to try to run a supply-management program in his own country.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the minister tell the House whether the unemployment forecast for 1976 made by the Conference Board of Canada, which is 7 per cent, or that of the Toronto Dominion Bank at 7.6 per cent is accurate and if neither would he provide the House with the government's forecast?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to study them in more detail. I think, as the Prime Minister said on one occasion, that what we need is more one-handed economists. We get one economist saying that, on the one hand, we have this and another economist saying, on the other hand, we have that: 1 do not like to play with figures. I am more interested in getting those Canadians who want to work, back to work.


UNEMPLOYMENT-REASON FOR FAILURE OF GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE ESTIMATE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from the answer that the minister has been in cabinet for some time. I should like to shift now to the Prime Minister. Since the white paper entitled "The Way Ahead" estimates a high level of unemployment throughout the rest of the 1970s, could the Prime Minister tell the House why the government in that white paper did not inform the people of its own estimates in percentage terms for unemployment in the 1970s? Related to that, would the Prime Minister confirm an outside estimate that we are currently losing $6 billion to $7 billion in output because of the current levels of unemployment?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the discussion paper to which the hon. member refers does indicate that there are pressures on the unemployment situation due to the fact that the economy will be growing more slowly and that the labour force will continue to increase at
Oral Questions
least until the early 1980s. For these two reasons we have made an estimate that the unemployment problem would be serious, and it is this that we wish to point out to all Canadians. I think the matter of exact percentages is beyond our power to state. We make estimates but I would not want the New Democratic Party to concentrate on the figures; I would prefer if it concentrated on the problems generally mentioned in the paper, and use whatever influence it might have on the various sectors of the economy to co-operate with the government in seeking a remedy to them.


John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The government was not at all reticent about putting forth estimates on its anticipation of the levels of inflation in the past year, so I cannot understand its newfound reluctance to do so for unemployment. I should therefore like to ask the Prime Minister, if he expects the people of Canada to take his government seriously in terms of its commitment to deal with unemployment, why will the government not follow the example of the United States, Great Britain and other governments in the western world and tell the people directly what they anticipate unemployment levels to be in percentage terms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the whole basis of the question is ill-informed and unfounded. When the hon. member says we have given figures for inflation I ask him, where has he seen such figures? We have indicated the dangers of inflation and set guidelines in the controls program as to where we want the level of inflation to be; but we have not been making precise prognostications about either inflation or unemployment. We believe they are both serious problems.


John Edward Broadbent: Give us your target for unemployment, then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we say unemployment will be dangerously high. That should be of sufficient concern to the hon. member that he would not want to have exact figures. Whatever figure I give him he will say is too high, and if he does not, he should.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is out of the House, delivering mail.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: 1 regret that he is not present in the House this morning, because I wanted to congratulate him on assuming his responsibilities. I wish him well in his attempts to establish une entente cordiale with the officials of CUPW. In his absence perhaps the Prime Minister or someone concerned about this vital subject will reply. In view of the vital importance of a reliable postal service to national unity and econom-

Oral Questions
ic well-being, particularly to small businessmen whom the government supported strongly in the recent Speech from the Throne, can the government indicate what steps it is taking to resolve the current confrontation with union officials and continue an efficiently operating postal service?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member states a desirable objective. I am sure it is the objective toward which the minister is working.


THREATENED STRIKE-REASON FOR BREAKING OFF NEGOTIATIONS-PARTICIPATION OF TREASURY BOARD OFFICIALS IN EFFORTS TO SETTLE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of the President of the Treasury Board in these negotiations, and since one of the problems with the postal service is the divided responsibility in negotiations, can the President of the Treasury Board say if he is involved in current negotiations and, in particular, what steps he or his officials are taking to assure that the talks which have now been cancelled on the basis of the unacceptable demand of union officials, as a press release puts it, will resume? How is that problem being resolved? What unacceptable demand has been made?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I and my officials have been closely involved. There has been an extremely co-operative effort involving myself, the Postmaster General, officials of the post office and Treasury Board. Indeed, a series of encouraging and productive discussions has taken place during the last few days, including the weekend. We felt some progress was being made. I think that feeling was shared by the Post Office union people. The demand that broke off the talks was that all sanctions and disciplinary action planned against the people who took part in the illegal work stoppage a week or two ago should be cancelled. That was not a matter about which we were prepared to bargain.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand from the remarks of the Prime Minister and the President of the Treasury Board that the talks have been resumed and negotiations are going on in the interest of a peaceful settlement, without a return to rotating strikes?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, talks had been resumed but broke off yesterday after the request made by the president of CUPW along the lines I just indicated. They have not been resumed since yesterday, although Post Office officials and Treasury Board people are prepared to return to the discussions at any time.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whom I would like to congratulate on his new portfolio. Can the minister assure the House that he does not intend to ask the government to advance $150 million to $200 million of taxpayers' money to Canadair as front money for the Lear jet proposition?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we took no decision yet concerning this proposition which seems extremely interesting and which does not require direct financial intervention by the government. We are now considering it and as soon as we have some information on this matter we will give it to the House.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: If the cabinet is soft-headed enough to approve this funding, can the minister assure the House that he will, first, bring forward supplementary estimates for debate to cover the provision of the funds, and, second, will he now table the Lee Poor consultative report which was commissioned by the government and which is understood to be firmly against this whole deal?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that we were committed; I said that we were now considering the proposition and that I did not believe that direct financial intervention by the government was required for the moment. As regards the report mentioned by the hon. member, I will get some information. In any event, we will seriously consider all alternatives before taking any decision.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I would like to congratulate him on following his distinguished father, a former Minister of Finance, into the federal cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: My question is this. Is it the intention of the government to introduce immediately standards of rust-proofing to be met in the manufacture of all cars and other vehicles sold in Canada, so that in future the purchasers of these vehicles will not be subjected to the fraud which has been the case in recent years when people have bought vehicles in good
October 18, 1976

faith only to see them go to pieces in a very short period of time?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point of the remarks of the hon. member. As to the question he raises, I cannot agree that there is the sort of misleading attitude on the part of Canadian manufacturers that he suggests. The question of rust is one which has been very much in the news lately.


Mr. Paproski:: Especially in the Liberal party.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: The safety branch of the Department of Transport has been actively engaged in reviewing accidents resulting from cars that are defective. As well, my department is constantly reviewing the matter of misleading advertising. The North American market for vehicles is so closely integrated that 1 think it important for the hon. member to realize we must take a broader view of this question than simply the one he suggests.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that, judging by the minister's answer, he is obviously not going to deal with matters in the same straightforward manner that his father used to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: I simply say to the minister that 1 can demonstrate to him very clearly by an actual example that if rustproofing is properly applied, cars do not rust and thereby become destroyed. In this case, will the minister get on with the job, cut down on the delays the government always seems to encounter in meeting matters of this importance, and get after the problem as though he were a businessman rather than a bureaucrat?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I recognize that the hon. member's history in this House ranges back almost to the Fathers of Confederation. He is able to compare answers to all sorts of questions but the fact is that in giving a straightforward answer we cannot determine by virtue simply of the evidence presented in this House what happens to cars when salt is used on the roads without taking a fair attitude to the cost involved in completely rustproofing automobiles. What 1 am trying to say, in as direct a fashion as I can is that we have taken action through my predecessor and been of great assistance to people concerned over a rust problem which involved Ford cars. We are holding additional discussions, and I can assure the hon. member all the automobile companies are anxious to co-operate with us. I feel certain he can rest assured we are watching this situation very carefully.
Oral Questions ANTI-INFLATION BOARD


SUGGESTION BOARD PUBLICIZE NAMES OF COMPANIES FOUND TO HAVE EXCESS REVENUE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Will he take immediate steps to ensure that the Anti-Inflation Board will begin without further delay not only naming all those companies found to have excess revenue, and the amount of such revenue, but also that the board will inform Canadian consumers of the names of products whose prices have been rolled back by those companies in order to get rid of excess revenue? I include in this all roll-backs which have already taken place and about which the consumer and the public at large have not yet been informed.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: I would remind the hon. gentleman that in this regard the board is governed by a statute which was passed by this parliament. Subject to the provisions of the law, the chairman of the board has initiatives under way which we expect will result in publicity of the kind the hon. member has in mind.


PUBLISHING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: My question is to the Secretary of State; I wish him well in his new post. Bearing in mind the belief by Canadian broadcasters and the CRTC that only a combination of Bill C-58, which is now law, and random deletion from cable TV of commercials placed in the United States will ensure that Canadian advertizing revenues stay in Canada, can the minister explain how accepting the U.S. government's request to end commercial deletion in return for ending their objection to the provisions of C-58 will support the government's policy to assist Canadian broadcasters?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the kind welcome extended to me by the hon. member. The question he poses is a hypothetical one and as such I do not think it should be answered at this time.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I hope the minister can give an assurance now that this request, one which we heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs talk about the other day, will not be acceded to. Is the government confident there is no loophole in the Act, specifically in section 19, which permits advertizing tax reduction on repeated one-year contracts with U.S. border television stations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the distinct impression that the question seeks a legal opinion from the minister.

October 18, 1976
Oral Questions HARBOURS


ALLEGED REDUCTION IN TIME FOR IMPLEMENTING NEW POLICY-DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: A question for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Has the lead time for implementing a new harbours policy been cut from some 15 months to six months? When will the necessary legislative authority be sought from parliament?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: We hope to introduce legislation at an early date. Until then, use is being made of the lead time in the sense that steps toward implementation, as far as this is possible ahead of the legislation, are being taken. I would point out that there is likely to be a fairly long period before all the steps necessary to rearrange the accounting and other responsibilities can be completed.


Mr. Fairweather:: Why is the plan under way before legislative authority has been received? Surely, the minister would agree that this amounts to contempt of parliament.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. I say this because the things which are now being done are being done under authority which presently exists. There is nothing in the law which prevents us from moving, for instance, toward the establishment of local executive committees to assist port management. While these committees may look like forerunners of the port authorities contemplated in the legislation and while they may begin to do their work and in this way begin the implementation of the policy, I do not think we need to await the legislation in order to make those moves which are possible under existing legislation. We shall need the legislation because many things which will fit together well in the whole operation require legislative change.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and it arises out of a question asked on Friday by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys in connection with the strike of 275 Canadian Press journalists. Can he tell us whether as a result of the consideration given by his department as to the reasons for this strike the government does not agree that the claims of these journalists are both reasonable and responsible and that something must be done by his department to bring an end to a situation which has become intolerable to these employees and to active journalists?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I conclude from the remarks of the right hon. gentleman that we have his support in our efforts to get this unfortunate strike settled. We are doing everything we possibly can to settle it. For me to comment on the merits would not be particularly helpful in

obtaining settlement, although I may have something to say about that personally at a later time.


John George Diefenbaker: It is later than you think!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Why cannot the minister answer that very simple question-why his department, in dealing with this problem and in meeting with the executive of the publishers and the representatives of labour, has not stated definitely that the claims of the employees are reasonable and responsible? Why is the minister so uncertain, so willing to discuss a matter some time in the future, bearing in mind that the time for action is now, after almost a year's delay during which a contract has not been arrived at?


John Carr Munro: I appreciate the heroics the right hon. gentleman is getting into now-


John George Diefenbaker: I want the truth, not evasion!


John Carr Munro: It may very well be that we have expressed our views. It may very well be that we have the strength of our convictions, too, but as most people in this House know, when one is trying to mediate a settlement it is not in the best interests of the employees and their families to go in for heroics.


John George Diefenbaker: That accusation by the minister deserves an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John George Diefenbaker: Speaking of heroics, there is such a thing as cowardice.


STATISTICS CANADA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it is further to my questions of October 14 involving Statistics Canada. Is the minister now entirely satisfied that there have been in recent years no breaches of confidentiality with reference to any data pertaining to community development or planning and that such data, not available to the general public, has never been improperly transmitted or sold to persons or companies whose position would be improved by its acquisition?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have no information to the effect that documents which were to be kept confidential by the commission were released to the public. I am to meet the chairman,
October 18, 1976

Mr. Kirkham, this afternoon and shall inquire into the matter and, if indicated, shall report to the House as soon as possible.


NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES DISCIPLINED FOR ALLEGED BREACHES OF CONFIDENTIALITY-POSSIBILITY OF BENEFITS FROM SUCH BREACHES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I wish to thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker. Would he inquire when he meets with Dr. Kirkham how many Statistics Canada employees have been disciplined in one way or another because of commercial or extra-curricular activities which were in breach of conflict of interest guidelines and whether there have been any organizations made up of Statistics Canada employees or close relatives formed directly or indirectly for the purpose of dealing with consultants or other persons interested in obtaining the type of information which would benefit them and which is not available to the general public?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows me: if there are people who act that way, that is who use their positions and the confidential reports they receive for personal benefit, they will have to find a job elsewhere.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Acting Minister of National Defence and it follows the lengthy questioning of the former minister of defence with regard to the changes in the infrastructure and in the relocation of the Armed Forces of Canada. Is the minister in a position to tell us at what point are those considerations? Is the plan before cabinet or is it back in the department? Would he say something to put an end to the great number of speculative stories which have caused a great deal of unrest in the armed services as a result of the possible changes.


Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the problem is before me and 1 am dealing with it now. I hope that an announcement will be made in the very near future.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I have some elucidation as to what the minister means by "the very near future", other than simply "sooner than later"?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Sooner than later, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions SEARCH AND RESCUE


DATE OF REPORT OF TASK FORCE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In April the minister promised that the report of the departmental task force on search and rescue would be reporting to him by midsummer. My question is: Has the task force reported to the minister and what action has the minister taken on the recommendation of that task force? I can assure the minister that this is a most urgent matter.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the task force did report and the government has been giving full consideration to all the issues raised in it. The fiscal decisions that are required are taking place these days and the results in terms of announcements, improved equipment and location of equipment, will be following soon.


DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR OPERATION-DELIVERY OF EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO PATROL 200-MILE LIMIT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister did promise earlier that he would be tabling the report. When will he be tabling the report, and will the minister give us some information as to who will be co-ordinating the efforts of air search and rescue, whether it will be the Coast Guard or the Department of National Defence? How soon can we expect the extra hardware that will be required if the 200-mile limit goes into effect on January 1 ?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that may all be part of the same announcement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In regard to reports concerning his meeting in Washington with Mr. Kissinger, it was reported that there was room for compromise. I should like to ask the minister whether that is with regard to cable commercial deletions, and where is the compromise? There either is deletion or there is not deletion. Was there a firm proposal from Secretary Kissinger or was there a firm proposal advanced by the minister? What is the status of the situation and what communication was there with the Minister of Communications before this statement was made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the reference was exclusively to the commercial deletion aspect of the package. There were three or four separate proposals, not made to me directly

October 18, 1976
Oral Questions
but made previously during the meeting of officials prior to my meeting with the secretary, and I undertook to bring those back. It did seem to me in our discussions that there was room for looking at these alternatives or these options. They are being examined in Ottawa today and there will be a further meeting of the officials subsequent to that examination, but I do not know quite when. I did say that it would be within two weeks.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his answer, but in these discussions is the chairman of the CRTC or officials of the CRTC involved; and who is going to make the announcement, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Communications, or the chairman of the CRTC?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has identified one of the complications in this issue. My own view is that the CRTC is an autonomous, governing body in this matter, and therefore has clearly been involved in the discussions, so should have a large input into whatever resolution is found. Whether or not, because it does involve international relations, the government should also take a position, perhaps in concert with the CRTC or otherwise, is in fact one of the difficulties we are now trying to work out. As for who will make the announcement, I have no knowledge at the moment how that is likely to be done, but thinking about it immediately I would suspect it would be the CRTC.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar on a supplementary.


GARRISON DIVERSION-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. KISSINGER
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in relation to his trip to Washington during which he discussed various subjects with Elenry Kissinger. I should like to ask the minister whether or not the topic of the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota came up in his talks with the Secretary of State; and if it did, would the minister inform the House as to the outcome of those discussions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it did not come up in any detailed way because it was one of those subjects that had been discussed in great detail by officials and, of course, by the IJC, so for that reason there was no necessity for us to spend a good deal of time on it during the meeting on Friday. However, I did repeat Canada's concerns on the matter and the secretary undertook to bear those in mind as developments proceed.


GARRISON DIVERSION-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES- NEED FOR STRONGER GOVERNMENT ACTION
Jack Burnett Murta: A further supplementary to the minister, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister what his department intends to do over the situation that has

developed whereby the International Joint Commission's report will be some seven to eight months late. Construction of the dam is going ahead almost as scheduled without any appreciable slowdown in construction. Certainly there is a great amount of fear in Manitoba-and there should be fear within the minister's department-that the diplomatic overtures he has been making have not been good enough and that a more positive approach will have to be taken with the President of the United States and also with Henry Kissinger himself.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can only tell the hon. member at this time that I will be meeting with the IJC some time this week. I am perfectly well aware of the circumstances that he has outlined. I am not any the less concerned about them than he is, but I feel at the moment that the negotiations are best dealt with in the manner in which we are proceeding without any further declaration on our part.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Just to keep the record straight I think all hon. members would want to know that those questions were not really supplementary to the others. However, the hon. member for Lisgar was due to get the floor anyway.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since the federal government has not acted on his stabilization program for the cow-calf producers in this country and the western provinces have had to act, is it the minister's intention to announce a program based on full cost of production, or does he intend just to go around the country making speeches about how difficult the matter is?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, by law we have to announce a price for finished beef by the end of the year. We will announce a stabilization program for finished beef by the end of the year.


STABILIZATION PROGRAM FOR COW-CALF PRODUCERS- REQUEST FOR PLEBISCITE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister listen to the pleas of the small cattle producers of this country and hold a plebiscite on a national marketing plan, since he supports marketing boards, or will the minister in this case continue to be dictated to by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Canadian Cattlemen's Association would have some reservations about believing what the hon. member says to be the fact, that I am dictated to by them. If I did

everything that they said, first of all I would do nothing for the beef farmers, if I were to follow the advice they gave several months ago; and if I followed their advice now, I would do many different things for the beef producers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I would like the minister to answer my question and to cut out all the bull. Will he or will he not listen to the pleas of the small producer and hold a plebiscite on a national marketing plan.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that although some provinces force certain kinds of marketing legislation boards on the producers, this minister and this government is not going to force anything on them. If they want that type of thing there is an avenue that they can follow. If this House feels so strongly about it, there is national farm marketing legislation for the beef producers if they want it. All this House has to do is to act on their behalf.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the right hon. Prime Minister indicate what steps he has taken to provide for representation from Manitoba in the cabinet?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs of which I have given him notice. It involves a young girl by the name of Sharon Lynn Bethune who has been held in a Mexican jail for over eight months and not been charged as yet. Would the minister tell us what steps this government has taken to make sure that this young lady is released and sent back to Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I genuinely apologize to the hon. member. If he did give me notice, it does not appear in my notes for today. If he would not mind, I should like to reserve my answer until tomorrow.
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's repeated reference to supply-management programs as being the solution to Canada's beef industry problems, is it the minister's wish to develop a supply-management program for Canada's beef industry, and would the minister be kind enough to answer simply yes or no.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the beef industry needs a supply-management program. It is obvious these producers cannot deal in the world free market under the present conditions and exist. The United States of America saw fit to try to impose supply-management programs on other countries, over 15 of them, which supply that country with beef. So if you think the beef producers can exist without that kind of program, explain it.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again to the Minister of Agriculture. Am I to understand from the answer he just gave that the minister is stating he wishes to introduce a supply-management program for the beef industry?


Eugene Whelan: Not unless the beef producers of Canada want it.


BEEF-LEVEL OF UNITED STATES QUOTA FOR CANADIAN PRODUCT
Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the global quotas placed by President Ford on beef imports into the United States and the minister's indication last week that he hoped the quotas placed on Canada would not reduce our exports to the United States below the 90 million pound level indicated by Canada, I wonder if the minister can indicate what success the Canadian representations had in Washington last week, and if he knows whether our exports to the United States will be reduced below the 90 million pounds.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Government of the United States of America has not made an official announcement on what our quota is going to be. We do not know. We think it will be announced later today. I can say I think I am not optimistic that it will be 90 million pounds.

October 18, 1976
Oral Questions ENERGY


APPLICATION OF NOVA SCOTIA POWER COMMISSION FOR RATE INCREASES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question arising from a response from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to one of our colleagues from Atlantic Canada last week having to do with the energy situation. The Board of Public Utilities of the province of Nova Scotia commenced hearings today on the application of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation for what can be described only as exorbitant and intolerable rate increases. Can the minister indicate to the House whether or not his departmental officials are in fact monitoring those hearings and, if not, would the minister give consideration to having officials at least sit in and hear the evidence as it comes forth this week on this matter?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we will make it our business to monitor those hearings.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENT TO REQUIRE BOARD TO PUBLICIZE RULINGS MADE AGAINST COMPANIES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is further to the question asked by the hon. member for Windsor West in which he was drawing the minister's attention to the habit of non-disclosure in respect of price rulings coming from the AIB. As there is increasing resentment among Canadians that these rulings are being kept confidential, I am wondering whether the minister would indicate if he intends to amend the AntiInflation Act so that there is no question in the future that these disclosures will be required, not only the rulings but also the impact on the companies or persons concerned.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite prepared to consider such an amendment, which of course would disclose the position of some companies in a competitive situation but not others. I hope the various companies to whom the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board will be directing his inquiries might bear that in mind; that is, that there is a feeling in the House represented by the official opposition, and indeed on this side of the House, that this information should be made public, so it might be advisable to do it by consent rather than by parliamentary requirement.


DATE OF TERMINATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this question again is directed to the Minister of Finance. Referring to the suggestion that Bill C-73 may in fact be amended, would the minister go further and indicate if he intends to
[Mr. Whelan.)
make any other amendments to the present Anti-Inflation Act and, in particular, will he take up the undertaking given the House last Wednesday by the Prime Minister that the termination of that act will be definitively set at December 31, 1978, not representing so far as our side is concerned that we want it to run that long but we would at least like to see some definite termination to the act.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it may well be that I will be coming forward during the course of the session with an amendment with regard to an association bargaining situation and there may indeed be other situations where for the better operation of the anti-inflation program amendments will be required. In respect of the termination date, I think I should refer the hon. gentleman back to the statute again and the termination provisions which would of course require parliamentary approval before it could be extended beyond the specified termination date.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the action of the Canadian Pacific Railway in withdrawing hopper car service from all branch lines in Saskatchewan, and I believe as well in the province of Alberta, and in view of the fact that this withdrawal has caused a loss, particularly for those producers who deliver barley in carload lots and has the effect of reducing the volume of grain on the CPR lines as opposed to the CNR lines which are utilizing hopper cars, can the minister advise what steps he has taken to ensure that the CPR will re-instate hopper car service on its branch lines.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of any general withdrawal. There may be specific cases where weight problems lead to a change, but I will certainly look into the situation to determine what are the apparent reasons behind any withdrawal.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In light of the very thorough and harsh customs clearance 155 members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry were subjected to in Winnipeg last week after having already been precleared by customs overseas, has the minister had an opportunity to investigate this matter and, if she has not, will she do so. Also I should like to remind the
October 18, 1976

minister that the families and friends of the servicemen had been waiting for their return for six months and were subjected to a two-hour wait at the depot also.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members know that the inspection of our national defence aircraft in Lahr is generally carried out by Department of National Revenue customs officers posted in Germany. It was the case for the aircraft concerned. However, according to the practice in my department, we made a countercheck of this aircraft. We had to reexamine all the hand luggage of the 155 travellers, which took four hours. This was done for the security of the travellers and for compliance with the laws of the Canadian government, something which the hon. member cannot be opposed to. Moreover, two closer checks of two travellers were required because of fairly serious problems.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I have one supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the routine practice of customs to put members of the Canadian Armed Forces through such vigorous customs checks after having been pre-cleared and, in the case of the Winnipeg incident, was there any contraband found that would justify the search?


Monique Bégin: Two switchblades, I gather, Mr. Speaker, are sufficient to justify the search.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. It being understood that Dr. Noel Hall has submitted his report on railway pensions to the minister, a report which I believe is now being translated, can the minister say when he will be tabling this important document?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. We have it now. It is fairly voluminous, so the translation is taking quite a long time, but after the long wait it will be ready in a couple of weeks.
The Address-Mr. Milne



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2), I ask leave to table a copy of the correspondence between the former minister of national defence and myself. This correspondence has been asked for by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I sent my letter last Friday; unfortunately it has not yet been translated but, with the leave of the House, I am going to table both copies in English.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages a document entitled "Basic Facts about Pensions in the Public Service of Canada".


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 15, 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. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne to speak about some issues which I believe to be of national importance and some which are of importance in my riding of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe.
First, I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government on the Speech from the Throne. I thought it was a speech that referred to the many issues and concerns which constituents in my riding raised with me during the summer recess. I applaud the intention of the government to bring in legislation to deal with these concerns.
First and foremost, of course, is the concern about national unity. I was particularly pleased to see it set out not only as the first priority in the Speech from the Throne but also to see that the program will be maintained in its present form and extend-

The Address-Mr. Milne
ed even further. I am raising a question which surely many people are worried about, that is: Where has all our understanding on this question gone? Canada has been known all over the world ever since its beginning for its tolerance and for the way in which various groups in Canada have been able to get along together. I am alarmed, as I am sure is every member of the House and surely all responsible Canadians, at the harsh attitude being adopted by so many people at this time.
There are two or three points which I should like to raise at this time. I really do not understand-and I would like to be enlightened on this-why everyone seems to feel that it is only the federal government which has the responsibility for maintaining national unity and, in particular, why the Prime Minister should be the only person in Canada concerned about national unity and having responsibility for doing something about it. Surely, this is an issue that is the concern of everyone elected to the House, to the provincial legislatures or to municipal school boards-indeed, the concern of every Canadian.
I want to support very strongly the statement in the Speech from the Throne that institutional bilingualism will be continued with some sensitivity to its administration, that problems connected with it will be considered and that perhaps a different approach will be taken to the administration of the program. I think it is a natural progression of the original policy for us to speak at this time to provincial governments, provincial premiers and provincial ministers of education about introducing this program to the educational systems over which the provinces have jurisdiction. Judging from a widespread expression of opinion on this matter by many people, I believe it is generally agreed that this is how this problem should be handled. I hope people are not saying that this matter should be put off for another period of time so that we will not have to deal with it. I hope that all parents, school boards and departments of education see this clearly as a major responsibility and take it seriously, and that this policy will be implemented as quickly and effectively as possible. I really believe there will be two important results from this. First of all, graduates of the school systems will have a much better knowledge of both official languages than is the case at present, and, what is even more important, they will have a better understanding and a greater tolerance of their fellow Canadians than they do now.
I think that this country cannot stand much more of the type of conflict that has been experienced in the past year or so. Really, the Anglophones and Francophones will have to approach this issue with a fundamentally different attitude and a much better understanding of each other's position on this. One of the real problems is the acceptance of change, an understanding of the dynamics of change and how it comes about. An example of this lack of understanding was the recent air traffic controllers' controversy in which extremists on both sides did nothing to solve the problem but in fact made it worse. This matter has been referred to many times in detail. This time I want to touch on it briefly. I could not understand
[Mr. Milne.)
the position of the Anglophones who are opposed to even having a feasibility study done in this matter, no more than I could understand the most vocal people on the other side who thought this should be a question of policy without any prior study being carried out of the feasibility of such a policy or any prior undertaking to explain to the rest of Canada why it is so important.
In raising this issue I wish to say that I represent many Air Canada employees and I believe that the best way of solving this issue is to undertake a study to look at the whole matter from a logical point of view, airport by airport, and to examine such matters as density and mix of traffic, sophistication of control tower equipment, as well as many other such issues, and based on this study to come up with a policy decision.
During the last summer I spoke to many of my constituents on the matter of bilingualism and I am concerned about how poorly the Official Languages Act is understood. Many people raised this issue in the context of "shoving French down my throat", but when the policy was explained to the same people they agreed that it was entirely reasonable. It seems to me that one of the fundamental things that the government, that we as supporters of the government, and that all members of the House should do, because this policy was supported by each and every party, is to go out in the country and reassure the people regarding the Official Languages Act and explain it to them. I believe that once it is explained to them, acceptance of it will be widespread. I believe that the problem at present is the misconception of the policy. Surely, we have the responsibility to explain the Act and the policy.
I would be pleased if the government would also take a look at the implementation of the bilingualism program in the Crown corporations. I have been told that there is not much opportunity for language training in either of the official languages for employees of Crown corporations who wish to learn the other language to advance their careers. One of the concerns they have relates to the method of selecting people. People who do not have the capability in a second language have no opportunity to gain a standing in the other language. That is a situation which bears consideration, and I hope that in terms of the administration of the Official Languages Act the government will do so.
Any partnership, whether it is a business relationship or whatever, is really based on three things. It is based on understanding of the other person's point of view; it most certainly has to be based on an adjustment to that other person's point of view; and most important, it must be based on a very high level of communication. If anything should happen in Canada, there should be a greatly increased understanding of the hopes, aspirations and rights of other people, some adjustment in everyone's point of view to accommodate those things and certainly a good deal of communication between various language groups to make sure that the concerns of both sides are well understood.

During the summer the Olympic Games took place and the Queen was here to open them. During her stay she spoke at a banquet, and I thought that she stated the situation with regard to the language problem better than I had heard it stated before. I should like to review three simple statements she made which I thought were very important, and I quote from her remarks of July 24 as follows:
There can be mutual enrichment only if each group has a secure and vital cultural life of its own to share with the other. It is important, therefore, for both French speaking and English speaking Canadians to maintain the integrity of their own language and culture.
How Canada resolves her political and constitutional differences is her own affair, but how she resolves her linguistic and cultural problems matters to thoughtful people everywhere.
The world, all too familiar with the tragic price of conflict between peoples of different race, language, religion and culture, can look to Canada for a better example and for a renewal of the human spirit. It can look to her for a practical demonstration of how two strong communities can live together in peace, drawing from each other's strengths, respecting each other's differences.
That is why your words, Prime Minister, about the growing mutual awareness, curiosity and respect among French speaking and English speaking Canadians, bear a message of great hope for both Canada and the world at large.
Her Majesty's remarks were well received by all Canadians who heard them, and those who did not have the opportunity to hear them should review her remarks because what she was saying was that resolving this problem is one of the fundamental things which has to be done if we are to survive as a strong and united country.
I would like to comment briefly on one particular aspect of the economy, but first I want to congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). I think Canada is fortunate to have a minister of his capability. He is one of the more courageous Canadians, one of the fairest and one of the most consistent. All the way through this difficult period in the economy he has demonstrated the type of leadership which is important to Canada and which will correct some of the economic problems we have. His actions have not always been the most popular, and he has not always taken the easiest stances, but 1 think they have been the correct ones.
I have been a strong supporter of the guidelines. However, I have one concern. I hope that if there is to be further revision of the program, it will be in the area of rewarding productivity or highlighting it as one of the major forces in the economy.
Many people have spoken and have used many facts and figures to support their view of the situation we face with regard to exports as well as the ability to compete inside Canada with people exporting to Canada. We have some real problems, and many of them could be solved by attaching more importance to productivity. The word "productivity" does not seem to have captured the interest or attention of organized labour or management. As I listen to various groups talk about it, management seems to be saying only that we should have a lower wage scale in Canada, and labour seems to be saying that it should have a larger share of the national economy. It seems to me that the aims of both could be realized by seriously striving for greater productivity. That is what is needed for us to remain strong in the years ahead in
The Address-Mr. Milne
terms of having a viable manufacturing sector, particularly that part of it which is related to our export market.
The Speech from the Throne announced an intention to set up a collective bargaining information centre. I hope it will deal not just with compensation, the relationship of various groups and the broad economic conditions under which we operate but that it will also address itself sincerely to the question of productivity. Surely, emphasizing productivity in Canada at the present time is very important, and such things as workers' councils should be taken seriously because many people working in plants have some very good ideas as to how productivity could be improved.
There is another aspect which is equally important. No matter where we go we hear the statement that no one wants to work anymore. Quite often the people who are making that statement are having expense account lunches or drinks. If that statement is true, it is certainly true on the side of management as well as on the side of labour. This country needs to go back to a very aggressive marketing stance and a very aggressive industrial design position. We have had a few years of extraordinarily good times, and both labour and management have benefitted tremendously. Now, we have to realize that times are not as easy, and we have to go back to some of the fundamentals which enable companies to achieve success; that is, through high productivity, through good industrial design and through extremely strenuous efforts in marketing. This is particularly true in Canada where we depend so much on export markets for the well-being of our economy.
Compared with countries such as Japan, France, and strangely enough, Britain, our productivity is lagging. I understand that our productivity increase last year was in the order of 2 per cent compared with 6 per cent in Japan, 5 per cent in France and 3 per cent in Britain. We really must do something about that. I do not quite know why the measuring of productivity, which has been encouraged and used for many years in many European countries, has not really caught on in North America, and particularly in Canada. I suppose it has been a factor in the auto industry for a few years, but apart from that, it has not been a major consideration in collective bargaining. I hope in the future that both management and labour will see some of the perils which are down the road, because of the high return for labour and the lack of a superlative effort in marketing. I hope they will see where that will lead us. We should pause and look at productivity and effective bargaining. Perhaps the benefits of increased productivity could be shared between employees and employer and not, as in the past, go only to the employer.
I should like to make a few comments on agriculture, Mr. Speaker. I have said a number of times in this House that one of the fundamental objectives of this government should be that we be essentially self-sufficient in food. It may seem strange that I raise this issue at a time when we have a surplus of milk powder and are not short of beef cattle or other commodities, but there are one or two things that I should like

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Milne
to raise in a general way. The minister might like to give some thought to them.
I am concerned about our future inventory of farmers, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the average age of our farmers is over 55 years. There has been a tremendous increase in productivity in the last five or six years as the old concept of small family farms gave way to larger family farms which use larger equipment than has ever been used in eastern Canada. Fewer farmers are doing more farming, but how long can that be sustained unless young people become farmers? Through provisions of the capital gains tax this government was able to be of tremendous assistance to farmers in that they could keep a farm in production without attracting capital gains tax after the death of the owner.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Who introduced capital gains tax in the first instance?


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a fair taxation measure and I should like to discuss its application to incorporated farms.
Through extension programs many provincial governments counselled farmers to incorporate and now, having done so, they find themselves on the wrong side of the proposition when it comes to capital gains tax at the time of the death of the owner. The difficulty is that most incorporated farms have associated with them some type of processing facility or trucking business, for example; generally speaking, such an operation is more than just an ordinary farm. I would argue the case that the land portion of an incorporated farm should have the same provision in the Income Tax Act applied to it as a non-incorporated farm when it comes to the capital gains tax.
I do not argue that the associated business of the farm should escape capital gains tax; if that were so it would be logical for the small business to ask for the same extension.
I think if our national objective is to have an inventory of farmers and to keep ourselves self-sufficient in food, we should consider exempting the land portion of the incorporated farm from capital gains tax. The value of land, particularly in Ontario and I suppose the same situation exists around large metropolitan areas in other provinces, has always been high. It used to be, however, that while land on the periphery of metropolitan and urban areas was very costly, about 150 miles or 200 miles away land was substantially cheaper. A farmer could sell property near a large urban area and re-establish himself or his family in agriculture some distance away. That has changed and land some distance from urban areas has increased in price.
I think this is another case which should cause us to look again at the capital gains tax and consider whether money realized from the sale of land, which is reinvested in land for agricultural purposes at some other location but for the same farm family, could not also escape this tax. Sometimes when a farmer sells land near an urban area on which he may have a long term mortgage, by the time he has purchased another farm and has renovated it so that it is comparable to with the one he sold, he ends up with a substantial debt. Many farm
[Mr. Milne.)
families decide it is just not worth while and, as a result, the children do not stay in farming. I am not sure we can afford this loss, Mr. Speaker.
There are two other aspects of agriculture that I should like to mention at this time. The first is marketing boards. I am sure there are not many members in this House who support organized marketing more strongly than I do. I spent a number of years in rural extension work and I saw many poultry farmers go from boom to bust, back and forth. I saw many farmers lose their farms to feed companies because of the real relationship of what was being produced to what the market could bear. I strongly supported the concept of marketing boards because I thought at that time, as I am sure most people did, that it was right and proper that they should be producer boards. But in some areas, I think we should look carefully at the marketing board concept and make sure the board is representative of the entire industry.
The proposed national chicken marketing agency for broiler chickens would protect the producer as well as the integrated supplier in terms of feed, hatchery and processing. A loss in one segment could be offset by profits in other segments, but I would argue the case for the independent processor who seems to be left out of the plan. At the present time it seems he is the only one who is taking any real risk and he has no protection whatsoever. I can see the danger that he might disappear from chicken broiler farming, and I should like to be on record as being in favour of processors as well as producers having a role in the marketing concept.
During question period today the inquiries were predominantly related to the beef industry and meat coming into this country. There are two distinct trends evident in our society today. When you drive around the cities, the growth of the fast food outlet, and the tremendous increase in the number of steak houses is evident. I do not know why our beef industry does not gear itself to produce more for this market. I have been told that most of these steak houses want imported beef because of consistent quality and taste, and that the fast food outlets want it because we do not produce enough of the type used. Surely, the Canadian Cattlemen's Association could analyse the market trends and supply the type of meat preferred. Rather than the beef industry continuing to produce cattle of the type it has in the past while the consumer market is moving away from it, surely the producers should be looking at the trend more closely.
Mr. Speaker, may I raise another point of concern? The people in my riding are most concerned about Toronto International Airport which borders the riding. Hardly a week goes by without some controversy arising about the airport. The question is asked, shall the airport remain as it is; should another runway be built, or should a second airport in the Toronto area be built? In 1968, the government decided that instead of building a fourth runway at Toronto International Airport, it would build a second airport in the Toronto area. I submit that the building of a fourth runway should not be
October 18, 1976

considered at this time, a suggestion strongly supported by all elected municipal councillors in the area, representatives in the provincial legislature, including the Premier of Ontario, and the four federal members representing constituencies surrounding the airport. We all want to know, what is to happen? What is to be the future of the second airport in the Toronto area?
I understand that the Ministry of Transport considered carefully several suitable sites and, having narrowed the choice to half a dozen, consulted the Ontario government as to which of those would be most suitable in the light of the growth the Ontario government forecast for Ontario. In the end Pickering was chosen. The government announced that it would proceed with Pickering airport. The intention was not to build the airport and then look for business; rather it was intended to build new facilities in accordance with demand. Unfortunately, the Ontario government later withdrew its support for the construction of Pickering airport. Now, all members from the Toronto area are concerned about the adequacy of Toronto's airport facilities in the future. Ten years from now will they be adequate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I hope the provincial government will quickly come to realize that, unless some decision is taken with regard to the second airport, in the years ahead it will be difficult to provide adequate air service in the Toronto area. I appeal to that government to keep the option of Pickering open. I am not sure if that airport has been accepted as a viable alternative for the future. I simply say that the question of air facilities in Toronto should occupy the attention of the federal and provincial governments and that some definite decision should be taken. Such decision will be most important for the economic vitality of the Toronto area.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to speak in the throne speech debate I feel is most important, in light of the performance of this government during the past few years and, more particularly, the amazing disregard shown in the Speech from the Throne for some of the basic problems facing the country today. I enter this debate at a time when economic and social depression afflicts many people in specific areas and, indeed, whole regions of this country. This is a time of economic instability when the people of those areas need protection and assistance more than ever. At a time when the government should be highly visible and active in guaranteeing those needs, we are faced with an abdication of leadership by this government. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the recently delivered Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald
The commitment of this government to regional development which, in my view, has always been more rhetorical than real, has disappeared almost entirely as a result of the total absence of leadership we see today. Neglect, insensitivity and inconsistency with regard to regional disparity haunts almost every move of the economic and social performance of this government.
In words that are now bitterly prophetic, the former leader of my party, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), warned of dangers ahead in the fight against disparity. Speaking on second reading of the bill which created in 1969 the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, more than seven years ago, he said that it might, in effect, allow other ministers to say "Let Jean do it" and not accept any particular responsibility for or even wash their hands of, the whole problem of regional disparity. I know it will bring him little joy to note that his words, to my mind, have come true with a vengeance. On occasions far too numerous to mention many members, not only on my side of the House, have reminded successive ministers of the department, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, that the task of dealing effectively with regional disparities in this country will not be achieved solely by programs coming under the responsibility of a minister of regional economic expansion. I submit that the names of the ministers who have been given that responsibility in this government read like a roll call of those guilty of dishonour, neglect, missed opportunities, shocking insensitivity, ignorance and even indifference toward the chronic needs of our disadvantaged regions.
I believe almost every minister has important responsibilities which affect either the bias in our structure which perpetuates underdevelopment or the opportunities for some regions to break free of their dependence and become once again self-sustaining members in the Canadian community. I propose today to review, for hon. members of this House, the work of various ministries, from the standpoint of the way in which their performance has undermined and made almost meaningless the work done by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under various ministers and numerous officials.
When I speak of an inconsistency of approach, perhaps I should say that no minister reflects this inconsistency better than does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). There is little doubt in the minds of our poorer communities, east, west and centre, who should head the list. The minister has made it obvious to us, with his user-pay policy, that in no way is he prepared to support or even understand the concept of regional economic development. I am not sure whether in adopting the user-pay concept, the Minister of Transport is haunted by the ghost of the MacPherson commission report of the 1960s, the ideas of Hon. J. W. Pickersgill, who established the terms of reference of the new Canadian Transport Commission and then proceeded to become head of that commission, or by the ideas of the present head of the commission. Be that as it may, I believe that, in a basic way, the minister fails to understand how essential transportation policy is to this country's unity. It has been absolutely shocking to hear what the Minister of

The Address-Mr. David MacDonald Transport has said both inside and outside the Elouse about the responsibilities of his portfolio. If the minister had been in the position to exercise his user-pay policy during the tenure of this country's first government, the minister's own constituency would still be nothing more than a colony of prairie dogs. Fortunately, Sir John A. Macdonald did not adopt a policy of user-apay with respect to the railroads, railroads which the minister well knows have been basically important to the opening up and development of his own home area.


Mr. Goodale:: You are distorting his position, David.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I should be delighted to hear the Minister of Transport speak about the way in which transport policy favours regional development initiatives. I say this as it was incredible to me that, not many months ago, the minister saw fit to make, as part of his package of restraints, 53 per cent of his restraint cutbacks at the expense of Atlantic Canada alone. Let the parliamentary secretary explain that as an aspect in support of regional development. When I think that in the past year we have had rail freight increases between Atlantic Canada and Ontario in the order of 85 per cent, I wonder how this minister or parliamentary secretary can in any way justify the statement that they are contributing to the alleviation of regional disparities, trying to bring the country together in a more united and equitable fashion.
I have only a relatively brief period of time to catalogue all the sins of omission and commission of the Minister of Transport because there are a number of other ministries that obviously must be traced as well. I will deal with as many as I have time for in the brief period available. I want to raise one 1 am sure is of interest to the hon. member opposite. I refer to the responsibilities and the performance of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). The minister's pricing policy for fuel wiped out more family savings in a single winter in Atlantic Canada than the depression and prohibition combined. His contingency plan, in the face of maritimers selling their homes because they could not afford to heat them, consisted of attacking provincial administrations. A newsletter from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council of a few months ago pointed to high energy prices as an obvious possible cause for continuing disparity.
It is a difficult point to argue when you know, for example, that a commercial firm in Charlottetown last winter paid twice as much for its energy, electricity, as its counterpart in Ontario. It is difficult as well to argue when a consumer in Toronto is paying 4.8 per cent of his income for energy costs compared to a homeowner in my province who paid 12 per cent of his income for energy last winter.
The minister persists in his myopic claim that the high prices are necessary to energy conservation, although consumption in Atlantic Canada is as low as two thirds of the national average. Somehow he is determined to make that disadvantaged region pay dearly for wasteful habits that are not of its own making. The lack of awareness and insensitivity

of this minister is frightening. There was not a single mention of the Atlantic energy problem in the Speech from the Throne. As recently as last Friday, my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), raised with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources what response will be coming from the federal government with regard 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. The minister replied, and I quote:
I have nothing new to add on this question. The matter is under continuing study at the present time.
That is the level of interest and action on the part of this minister. It is not untypical of a number of his colleagues as well. There are questions and issues that must be resolved. Some were raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), who in speaking in this debate on Friday mentioned the need for action with regard to the continuing possibility and potential of Fundy tidal power. There was no mention of assistance to provinces trying to convert away from their reliance on petroleum for energy. The government of my province placed proposals before this government months ago, but still no reply. There was no mention of any initiatives to equalize the costs of electrical power for business and industry across Canada. There was nothing which might show some glimmer of understanding on the part of the minister that energy costs must not be permitted to widen the disparity gap even further. I will leave the Minister of Energy there, even though there is much more that could and should be said.
With the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), we move from an area of insensitivity to obvious flippancy. In February of this year, the Minister of Finance was asked what effective measures he was prepared to implement in response to the growing disparity in unemployment rates between the various regions. His answer to this House was that he had at least decided not to take the suggestion offered by someone that DREE be cancelled. What a farce. What insensitivity. Earlier this year, during the energy crunch faced by many disadvantaged regions, we asked the minister what differential in energy rates he was prepared to allow before taking remedial steps. Not only had he not given the matter consideration, he had no intention of doing so. When we consider some of the agencies under this minister's jurisdiction, such as the Federal Business Development Bank which has a lower loan loss write-off than even the chartered banks, we wonder what little difference it can possibly make with regard to the alleviation of regional disparities.
The minister has at least been honest about his attitude toward the poorer regions, insensitive as that may be. He was the one who went on record to admit, frankly and brutally, that his government was not going to do anything to help the areas of chronic depression during a time of government restraint. Indeed, he made remarks to suggest that it would almost be inappropriate to take into account the regional

variations that exist within this country with respect to the government's overall restraint program.
I could and should say more about the Minister of Finance, but I want to move to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The Minister of Agriculture was given a very significant message from, of all places, the other place. In a report from the Senate on the situation in Kent County, New Brunswick, the minister should have received a message, loud and clear. I had hoped he would be here to hear this message in case he did not hear it earlier.
The Senate report describes the stifling practices of the Department of Agriculture which attempt to force areas such as Kent County into the mold of national policies which are neither designed for, appropriate to or wanted by its citizens. The report exposes the "big or bust" bias which runs through the programs of Agriculture Canada, singling out the Farm Credit Corporation and the unfortunately or misappropriately named Small Farm Development Program for their discrimination against the small-scale farmer. It reports, and I find this almost hard to believe, the callous refusal of one of the officials of Agriculture Canada to grant a loan with the words that, and I quote:
Kent County is not profitable, there is no future there.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of State (Fisheries) (Mr. LeBlanc) have an opportunity to discuss that report. I would be delighted to be a silent listener in that tete-a-tete. There is also the impact of this minister's supply-management programs to consider, and there was some discussion of that in the question period today, whose quotas lock the Atlantic region into a permanent status of net food importers.
The Senate study I just mentioned is backed up on this point by a report of the Economic Council of Canada on regional unemployment which points out how the need to bring in foodstuffs costs the region 11,000 jobs. What maritime agriculture needs, says the Senate report, and this is obvious to many people, is development, and not stabilization. Even though he is not here at this time, I trust that the Minister of Agriculture will have an opportunity to learn again these basic truths.
I leave the minister there with his homework to do and I turn my attention to the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). We find a new minister there but, again, whether it is a new minister or an old minister we are dealing with the same old gang which took the view in December of last year as well as in the previous period of restraint five or six years ago, that the government could not reallocate moneys within the various programs and departments to ease the load on provinces which were suffering from high, chronic unemployment, because it was not something the government had either the imagination or the will to do. Frankly, with supporters like this, one wonders why the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) even bothers to stay at the job.
I want to mention the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) because I do not want him to feel
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald neglected. I am sure he is aware of the attention drawn by Dr. Raynauld of the Economic Council of Canada to the large productivity gap which exists between workers in various regions of our country. Yet to my knowledge the hon. gentleman's department continues to give priority to productivity incentives for the high technology industries, not the labourintensive needs of the poorer communities.
I would expect as well in his department a high priority in the trade division to finding markets based on the potential of those communities and I would have hoped-falsely I suspect-that prior to the GATT negotiations a special review would have been undertaken of those tariffs of ours and of foreign countries which would have a direct bearing on regional development. I regret, however, to say I have seen no evidence of either. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, even his colleague who formerly occupied that office and who had also been Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, fails to see regional economic expansion as part of his responsibility. This shows, I guess, the kind of watertight compartment in which regional development has finally been placed.
When we think of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), we recall what has been said about developing a population policy to encourage young people, the active and dynamic elements of our society. Is this policy to be related to a long-term program designed to alleviate regional disparity? Not a word about this aspect. How can the Speech from the Throne promise an immigration policy sensitive to regional needs when the minister's own predecessor admitted to me in correspondence last summer that there were no studies and, apparently, little concern with respect to the effect of immigration on local or regional economies.
There are so many other ministers, Mr. Speaker, that obviously there would not be the opportunity to spend a modicum of time discussing their shortfalls with respect to supporting the so-called basic commitment of the government to reducing regional disparity. When we think of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan), we wonder what input is taken into account in relation to public works expenditures as they affect regional development. I ask the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) how much of the funding under his responsibility has aided research and development relative to the needs of small-scale technology in certain regions of this country or whether this aspect was even considered, much less given priority? I ask the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) whether the awarding of contracts has been related to the specific needs or potential of various areas in this country? There is a long catalogue of insensitivity, lack of awareness and neglect which involves every minister of the government. It is obvious no attempt has been made to exercise responsibility along the lines of the theme announced in successive Speeches from the Throne and in the course of speeches made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself.
Before I deal with the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!

October 18. 1976
The Address-Mr. David MacDonald


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Before I leave all the other ministers, let me say that in no way do I wish to excuse successive ministers of regional economic expansion or absolve the department from responsibility for the lack of commitment to regional equality. Under a minister who seems half-hearted at best about his task, afraid to speak out-


An hon. Member:: Who are you talking about now?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -and a department which seems mainly concerned about protecting its own empire, I am not surprised that other departments have felt neither the urge nor the pressure to tackle disparity. The department has obviously failed to take the lead in co-ordinating the activities of other federal departments though the first minister himself stated on a number of occasions that such co-ordination was vital to the success of DREE.
Then again, there has obviously been lack of co-ordination with respect to the attitude of the department toward the various priorities established by the provinces. According to a study produced this year, there are today more than 200 different federal and provincial incentive programs for industry. Surely, one might expect DREE to take the lead in bringing some measure of rationality to these policies in place of the confusion and contradiction which presently exists according to the study I have mentioned. I wonder, too, why successive ministers have been negligent in building a commitment to regional development right across the country among rich and poor areas alike. I say this because in the absence of grass roots support the minister will never get the close co-operation from his colleagues which is vital to success.
I have no time to deal specifically, now, with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion; I know that some of my hon. friends wish to do so. However, I do wish to say to the minister-and I am glad he is present to hear these words- that his failure to indicate the prospect of any amendment of the Regional Development Incentives Act in the Speech from the Throne cannot pass unnoticed. As hon. members will recall, I asked him last week to explain this ominous silence. His answer to me that his officials were beginning to consider this particular matter showed, in my estimation, a shocking disregard for one of the basic programs under his jurisdiction.
What I have in mind, now, are not radical or major changes. Nevertheless, suggestions for changes have been made and need to be implemented. They have come from a variety of sources including the hon. gentleman's own Atlantic Development Council which has recommended streamlined procedures, post-incentive assistance, monitoring and other arrangements which might allow the government to take an equity position in certain new ventures. Economists, too, have studied the program and pointed out some of its defects, such as the capital bias of the grants system. I know the minister is aware of these comments. He did not take office last week, or a month ago, or six months ago. He has been hearing constructive comments and amendments almost from the time RDIA was put into effect, and that was to be expected. What is not expected is that the minister and his officials should adopt

such a cavalier approach in face of the amendments which are obviously required if the program is to be successful. I believe the Atlantic Council when it said in its report that the RDIA program "does not appear to have any readily discernible effect upon the relative growth performance of the manufacturing sector in the Atlantic provinces." In these circumstances I would have expected more urgency in the minister's behaviour.


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I had dwelt at some length on the failure of a series of ministers within this administration to support the over-all concept of the alleviation of regional disparities in this country. Perhaps members on all sides wonder why I have spent almost all my time in this speech dealing with this particular aspect. I have done so, quite frankly, because I took the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at his word. I took him at his word when in 1968 he promised a Marshall plan for the maritimes. He told us that the perpetuation of regional inequality meant, to quote him, "that the unity of this country is almost as surely destroyed as it would be by the French-English confrontation". It is he who, in his almost complete failure to match rhetoric with action, has denied this government and the country the leadership, the sense of urgency, that would have required each single department and agency of his government to make regional development central to its responsibility and concern. It is true that regional disparity has been with us for some time. But from the time the Prime Minister assumed the leadership in 1968 he has on repeated occasions made that kind of commitment. I should like to quote from an article that he wrote in 1969 which appeared in the Atlantic Advocate. He said:
That is why I have begun by trying to make clear the central place that regional development occupies in the whole thinking about the future of Canada-
No commitment could be clearer than that. In light of the commitments that have been made by the Prime Minister and referred to from time to time in speeches from the throne since he has occupied that office, it is inconceivable that there would not be a total commitment on the part of all departments. Yet obviously this has not been so.
I think we must learn at least two or three lessons from the experience that we have been through during the last seven years. Genuine and effective regional development cannot be compartmentalized. If this government has proved anything since it assumed office-if I may refer to my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Stanfield)-it is that "Let John do it" will not work. Neither will it work when we say "Let Marcel do it" or, for that matter, any other minister who might occupy responsibility for that department. I think Canadians have realized
October 18, 1976

during the performance of this government that there must be a total approach to a realistic alleviation of regional disparities. I think it is clear that one cannot go somewhere unless one knows where he is going. What does that mean? Let me quote from a report of a few years back, 1971, of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council in their Fifth Annual Review of the Atlantic Economy. In their conclusions and recommendations they said:
What is needed from DREE are specific goals and targets, benchmarks by which it may judge, and be judged, on its performance.
APEC was not the only body calling in the early years or since for some clearly defined set of goals, perhaps both long-term and short-term. It was not the only body which suggested it would not be good enough just to have some generally good intentions without a strategy to achieve those goals. Clearly, from the outset in 1969 until the present date we have not had that.
Third, I think it is quite obvious that regional policies and programs will be merely patchwork and inconsistent without an over-all national policy and framework. Perhaps the main reason we have not had an effective regional development experience in this country is there has been lack of an over-all framework of goals in terms of a national policy. The difference, quite clearly, in the approach of this government and the approach we are taking is summed up in the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he spoke in Charlottetown a little over three weeks ago and said:
The problem is that regional disparity is an issue on the fringes of government policy-making, instead of being a preoccupation at the centre of government policy-making, where it should be and where it will be in a Progressive Conservative government. Regional disparity is not a DREE problem, as Mr. Trudeau would have it. It is a national problem. Concern for regional problems must permeate national energy policy... must underlie national transport policy ... must inform the whole field of the federal-provincial relations, and must be a prime consideration in the formulation of the fiscal and economic policy of the government.
This is the intent; this is the spirit; this is the direction in which we must move if we are ever to deal with what the Prime Minister has referred to as one of the twin problems that threatens Canadian unity and, indeed, Canadian confederation.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, may I open by joining others in this House in offering my congratulations to the new and young members of the House who moved and seconded 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). Also, along with other hon. members I wish to mention our deep regret at the passing of our colleague, a marvellous woman with great dedication, sincerity and a very considerable degree of strength and firmness, all wrapped up in a great deal of charm. Of course, I refer to Madam Morin, our esteemed colleague from Louis-Hebert who left us recently and left a great deal of sadness behind her.
The Address-Mr. Andras
In entering this debate, may I say that it has not been my custom or style to emulate the bombast with which the opposition invariably fills Hansard on such occasions, so I think I shall allow the gibbering wit and witless jibes with which the opposition members approached the Speech from the Throne to stand for what they represent, an empty response to a comprehensive government program designed to strengthen national unity, enhance equality of opportunity and redefine the role of government in consultation and co-operation with the private sector so that we can as a society and as a nation better fulfil the present and future needs of our people.
As we say in the other official language, "gouverner c'est prevoir". The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) last week told us-or taxed us, indeed-with opportunism because we rejected what I can only call his myopic perceptions of the current problems of the country because we are determined to continue our search for durable solutions to the pervasive and complex problems, whether they be inflation, labour unrest, linguistic tensions or, as referred to by my hon. friend from Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), the problems of regional disparities. Certainly, the Leader of the Opposition is dazzled, I guess, by his own ambitions in that he proclaimed this very weekend that the government had lost the will to govern, presumably because we intend to propose to the House at this session an exhaustive series of co-ordinated measures to improve the social framework for public and private initiative, to raise the productivity performance of all the economic agents with which we have to deal, and to enable all individual Canadians to achieve higher levels of self-fulfilment.


An hon. Member:: Anything would be an improvement.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has shown his true colours, and when the ultimate poll is in, I think in a couple of years, his remarks will be seen for what they are, a dull and pretty stark etching of what I can only describe as inveterate pessimism.
The functions of Treasury Board as a central agency are so varied and so pervasive that I could speak and expound on virtually all or every aspect of the Speech from the Throne. But as I have just said, the debate on the address provides members with the unique opportunity to show their true colours, and in order to show mine for what they truly are, I will confine myself and my comments, after some preliminary remarks, to an aspect of public service management which recently has caused some apprehension in the country, namely, the pensions of federal public servants and then I want to move on to an issue of grave national concern, which is the government's official languages policy.
The overriding preoccupation of Treasury Board, of course, throughout this session will be to ensure that the expenditures of the federal government do not exceed the growth trend of the gross national product and that substantial, visible and perceptible progress is made toward improving the efficiency, the effectiveness and sensitivity of the public service. I intend to be absolutely brutal with regard to wasteful spending
158

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Andras
practices and, indeed, very tough on the monetary control of overhead expenditures.
1 know this may not please some public servants. For instance, they will now have to account for such things as the taxi slips they use in the course of their work. But they must understand that they are accountable to the public for every dollar they legitimately spend on such activities and, indeed, that effective monitoring is necessary to discipline the very few who in the past were not averse to taking a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers. I mention taxis, not because I expect great savings from the new procedure but because this is a highly visible example of the type of administrative overhead cost which we are determined to bring under tighter control.
On program expenditures, the government intends to pursue the efforts begun during the first phase of the restraint program to curb the growth of outlays and improve their cost-effectiveness, while maintaining and even improving the quality of public goods and services provided to Canadians. One of the great architects of this century, Mies van de Rohe, used to say "Less is more" when some customer objected to his ruthless suppression of unnecessary embellishments from contemporary designs. That, I think, is what I will adopt as my motto at the Treasury Board. But I want to say I am very convinced that public expenditures can be restrained in a socially progressive way and without paralysing program innovations and expansions.
That conviction, too, will be one of the guiding principles of the Treasury Board in its attempt to find and stick to the middle road charted by the Speech from the Throne and, of course, to assist other departments and agencies in relying more on the private sector to achieve their social and economic objectives. To those ends, the Treasury Board will continue to extend its fullest co-operation to the Auditor General. Indeed, legislation will soon be introduced to clarify the duties and responsibilities of that officer of parliament and to provide him with better means of fulfilling his very important functions.
I will have more to say later in the session on the government's determination to bring down the rate of growth of the public service from 1 Vi per cent to less than 1 per cent in the next fiscal year, and similarly to contain the growth of the senior executive complement.
As stated in the throne speech, the government also intends to improve the working conditions and the collective bargaining system in the public service, notably to try to reduce the adversary nature of that process and to ensure an equitable relationship between compensation levels in the public as compared to the private sector. I do not intend to allow the public service to become the scapegoat. At the same time, I expect public servants to be aware at all times that they serve the government and that the government is accountable to the Canadian taxpayers for the work that they do, for the compensation that they get and for the conditions of employment they enjoy.

The Treasury Board will continue to be a good employer and public servants who pull their weight will be adequately rewarded. Others who do not will find that the federal government is going to become a less comfortable environment. The Treasury Board will continue to honour all commitments made in the collective bargaining framework, but certainly it will insist that public service bargaining agents also honour their commitments.
These general policies in the management of the public service will apply to an area which, as I said earlier, has generated a considerable amount of public attention, and indeed criticism over the past year, namely, the pension arrangements that have been established for federal public servants. The government has taken these concerns most seriously, and it requested about a year ago that the Treasury Board secretariat undertake a general review of the public service pension plan, first to ascertain the facts, and at a later stage to determine what adjustments, if any, should be considered. The first stage of this review has been completed and I tabled a document this morning in the House which outlined the preliminary conclusions and many of the facts on which these preliminary conclusions are based.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A very good document.


Robert Knight Andras: On this occasion I will not attempt to summarize the document which has been made available to all in the House and to the general public. I would like to point out, however, that much of the recent discussion of the public service pension plan has ignored a major factor, perhaps the key factor, in trying to explain why public servants are receiving what we will admit are above average retirement benefits, that is, that the public servants themselves make above average contributions to their pension plan. In other words, public servants have themselves decided that generally they are willing to defer a higher proportion of their current income than other groups of employees in Canada. They will get more later, but they pay more now.
1 want to make it quite clear that the document I tabled does not express the definitive view of the government on public service pensions, because that program, like others, is kept under continuing review. A number of developments will give us an opportunity to reassess its provisions in the near future. I am referring in particular to the comprehensive review of the pension policy which will be conducted jointly by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Finance.
1 turn now to another key element in the Speech from the Throne, namely, the government's official languages policy. By way of introduction to that subject, allow me to say that I deeply regret the untimely departure from the cabinet of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) for whom 1 have considerable personal regard and whom I have known for a long time. I regret even more some of the reasons he put forward to explain his resignation from the cabinet.

October 18, 1976

I do not intend to comment on the government's often stated intention to achieve formal constitutional independence, the modalities of which have not yet been defined and can only be defined after detailed consultations with the provinces. All I can say is that there is no plot, no secret plan, no conspiracy afoot to bring the constitution home. The government has not operated that way, and indeed if it ever did 1 would no longer be a part of it.
Moreover, this government will never lock into the constitution the specifics, the details of any federal policy or program as opposed to the fundamental principles of law, for the simple reason that those kinds of specific details, policies and programs must be subject to continuous adjustment and improvement. But I do wish to state categorically that in my view this country will not survive if federal policies are designed, or perceived as being designed, to placate or to contain any particular region, province or group until such time as it achieves what some people have decreed as its proper place within the Canadian federation. That applies as much to Quebec on language rights as to the western provinces on resource policies, to Ontario on industrial issues or to the Atlantic provinces on regional development.
The conviction that Canada is more than the sum of its constituent parts, that the national interest is more than the lowest common denominator between the interests of various regions, is crucial to the continued existence of this country. As stated in the Speech from the Throne, that need not and should not lead to rigid uniformity, but it does require that all federal policies be designed to reflect and promote the interests of all Canadians wherever they happen to live. That has been, and will continue to be, the case for the official languages policy.
I also wish to state categorically that commitment to linguistic equality, like commitment to equality before the law, equality of opportunity and other democratic rights, cannot be meted out to the citizenry in great or small doses depending on whim and fancy. The ways and means to ensure these rights which are enjoyed to the fullest extent by all citizens should, of course, be under continuing review and should be continually improved. Laws can be changed, policies adjusted and programs overhauled, but equality is either recognized and proclaimed or it does not exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Seven years ago in this House parliament did recognize and did proclaim equality of the two official languages of Canada. That historic act was promulgated with the support of all political parties represented in the House. The validity of the act was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada. It is the view of the government that there cannot, and should not be, any backtracking from the fundamental provisions of that legislation. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated a couple of years ago, in 1974, the determination of the government to make linguistic equality an irreversible fact of Canadian life by the end of this decade, and I endorse that goal without any reservation whatsoever. In my view we
The Address-Mr. Andras
simply cannot afford the "wait and see" approach which has been suggested-I am sure with the best intentions-by the hon. member for Winnipeg South.
While listening to the speech made last Wednesday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I was relieved to note that he apparently shares the views of the government on this question, and 1 can only hope that his position is supported by all members of his caucus. However, I must take issue with his charge that the current uneasiness in the country about the official languages policy and program is attributable only to errors made in the course of their implementation, particularly in the federal public service. I suggest that the discontent and doubts recently expressed by many Canadians also reflect our inability as politicians to explain to these Canadians the true intent and nature of our languages policy and to demonstrate to them its essential fairness and reasonableness. I further suggest that in this respect English-speaking members on both sides of this House must take their full share of the blame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: I do not want to be misunderstood on this issue. I am not trying to pass the buck. Errors have been made, and that must be admitted. They have to be acknowledged, and they are going to be corrected. But given the experimental nature of many of the programs devised to implement the Official Languages Act and the parliamentary resolution of 1973, I think it was probably inevitable that specific aspects of these programs might prove to be less effective three or five years after their introduction than was originally expected, and certainly a contrary situation would have been surprising. Even the best thought-out government programs must periodically be adjusted to take into account the lessons of experience, the change in circumstances or advances in human knowledge. As the former minister of manpower and immigration, hon. members may recognize that I speak on that subject with some experience and authority.
It also must be pointed out that in our efforts to convert the public service of Canada into a functionally bilingual institution, without hampering its effectiveness and without prejudicing the career entitlements of public servants already on strength, we could not rely on the experience of other countries since it was, by and large, a task of unprecedented magnitude which had to be tailored, and still must be tailored, to specific Canadian requirements.
Both my predecessor and I have indicated in very recent months that a comprehensive review of all linguistic policies and programs is under way, and the government has pledged in the Speech from the Throne that those programs which have been successful will be continued, while those which have not will be modified. I can already assure the House, for example, that language training programs will be improved, that the linguistic requirements of positions will be reidentified, and that language standards will be revised. As a personal note, I might say that I am as intrigued, as I think my
80001-1 iVi

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Andras
predecessor was, by the concept of receptive bilingualism as opposed to active or complete proficiency in both official languages, because it may often correspond more accurately to the practical requirements of functional bilingualism in the public service.
The House will be informed in the course of this session of the government's decisions on specific issues in this area. However, in view of their often stated interest in and their criticism of the implementation of the Official Languages Act,
I advise opposition members that in many areas we have not completed our review and I welcome and invite them to give us their ideas before we come to definite conclusions. Indeed, those kinds of suggestions will be more than welcome. However, no matter how much we adjust and readjust our program, we will not succeed in building a durable national consensus on official languages unless we manage to convince all Canadians-particularly, nowadays, English-speaking Canadians-that federal policies in this field do derive from fundamental principles of justice, equality and tolerance which should apply everywhere, in western Canada as well as in Quebec and in Ontario as well as in the Atlantic region. In that respect, the mere possibility of failure has frightening implications and for that reason I suggest that the task at hand should mobilize the elected representatives of all parties from all regions of Canada.
In recent months I have come to the conclusion that both parliament and the government have very much underestimated the need for facts and for public information on official languages policies, most particularly in English Canada. I do not think Canadians are more bigoted or intolerant-in fact, they are probably less so-than people anywhere else in the world. The mosaic of our nation indicates that to me. However, I do feel that because our French-speaking population- six million people, more than the combined population of the prairie provinces, most of whom are unilingual-is so heavily concentrated in the province of Quebec, it has been very difficult, as it was for me when I first came out of the west to parliament eleven years ago, for a great number of people to perceive the need for this policy, for the simple reason that they live in regions of the country where there are few French-speaking Canadians.
I think, also, that many people, particularly outside Quebec-and I think this is where we have fallen down-have not been made aware of the true and limited implications of the official languages policy for them because those implications are minimal. I think those people have too often been left with the impression that the policy grants special privileges to the French language and somehow diminishes the proper and necessary status of the English language in the federal government, and of course that really is nonsense.
However, the fact is that we have tended to take public opinion for granted on this issue. More often than not-and in Canada I believe it is necessary to correct this now-I think we have failed to recognize the normal anxieties of Englishspeaking Canadians. After all, they are not superhuman. We have neglected to repeat often enough and patiently enough
[Mr. Andras.1
the converse of what our French-speaking colleagues have been saying to their constituents for years. They have been saying, first, that the Official Languages Act entrenches the right of English-speaking Canadians to deal with the federal government in English, to work for federal departments and agencies in that language and to learn the other official language only if they wish to do so.
Second, they have been saying that the official languages policy has effectively recognized the distinct personality and the different needs of each region, so that in the four western provinces, for example, over 98 per cent of the federal public service positions require only knowledge of English from their incumbents for the simple reason that the need for a bilingual capacity in federal offices located there is minimal.
Third, through the whole the public service today only about 20 per cent of the positions are identified as bilingual, and 87 per cent of these are located in areas of the country where there is an obvious need for them. I am talking about the national capital region, metropolitan Montreal, northern and eastern Ontario and northern and eastern New Brunswick.
Fourth, the conditional appointment and language training programs for bilingual positions, which is the most expensive and the most often criticized aspect of our policies, were specifically designed to enable all Canadians from all parts of Canada to compete for jobs identified as bilingual even if the applicants were unilingual; and so on.
We have not got that kind of story across. We believed that the facts would speak for themselves, but unfortunately they have not. The fact that many Canadians still think that the government is trying to ram French down their throats is indicative of our failure to communicate these facts to the public because, I repeat, the Official Languages Act was adopted precisely to achieve and preserve freedom of choice for all Canadians with respect to our official languages.
Despite the fact that I am unilingual, for instance, and that my political roots are in Ontario, that I was brought up in western Canada and that I have lived in most regions of English Canada, these facts make me confident that the current disenchantment of English-speaking Canadians with respect to bilingualism can be dissipated. I certainly intend to give top priority to public information on that subject as part of my responsibilities. I am unilingual, and although I regret that very much, I do not have great hang-ups about it. I can honestly say that I have not suffered because of it since I came to Ottawa 11 years ago.
I think that is the way it should be, although I am very well aware that for some federal public servants, most of them French Canadians but more recently a certain number of Anglophones, unilingualism has been a handicap. I cannot claim to have a great facility for languages, but I can tell the House that I have tried, and still try, to acquire a receptive capacity in the French language. I know I shall never be able to make a resounding speech in Quebec like the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Or Joe Clark.


Robert Knight Andras: Or Joe Clark. 1 think we have to face the prospect that some ministers will always be unilingual, at least upon their appointment, and particularly those chosen from amongst anglophone members of parliament. I think the important thing is the politician's commitment to linguistic equality, not his linguistic proficiency. 1 can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there is no doubt about my commitment nor the strength of it. The commitment is the important thing, and I think that applies to all Canadians. The really important thing is to understand and support the provisions of the Official Languages Act, not just the ability to speak both French and English, however desirable that may be. Still, perhaps because of the fact that I have not been able to acquire at a later stage-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Steve Eugene Paproski: As they say in Ukrainian, d'accord.


Robert Knight Andras: May I convey through you, Mr. Speaker, my gratitude to the House. This leads me to look at the "youth option" recommended by the Commissioner of Official Languages and which, in the Speech from the Throne, the government has accepted in principle. I believe there is a lot of evidence that although they have some reservations about some of our linguistic programs, Canadians are particularly anxious that their children have the best possible chance of understanding their compatriots in the other language. Accordingly, we as a government are going to discuss with the provinces arrangements to increase the effectiveness of official languages training in the country's school systems.
My personal experience makes me particularly sympathetic to the difficulties faced by unilingual public servants-and I am talking about unilingual public servants of both languages. In undertaking my new responsibilities, I certainly intend to see that these difficulties are very carefully examined and that programs and procedures are reviewed in order to minimize them and, wherever possible, eliminate them.
At the same time, I am taking steps to ensure that my unilingualism in the Treasury Board does not cause a reversal of the very considerable progress made under my predecessors to make French an effective working language within the Treasury Board secretariat. About 20 per cent or 30 per cent of the secretariat's internal working papers are currently drafted in French, and I intend to maintain the proportion. I think it is incumbent upon Treasury Board to be a leading agency in this area. It is my ambition to show how a unilingual minister can adjust to functional bilingualism in the public service of Canada. I am winding down to the conclusion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately recent events require that I conclude on a more sombre note.
The Address-Mr. Andras
Passion has run high and tensions are mounting; pronouncements have ranged from the outlandish to the extravagant. Only last week I saw on the front page of Le Devoir an article by the editor in chief who is obviously dismayed about these outbursts on official languages and French-English relations. While he came down on the right side, his comments gave rise to the headline which asked whether Canada wanted to separate from Quebec. The notion entertained by some people that we should go through a replay of the battle of the Plains of Abraham over the Official Languages Act is an extremely dangerous delusion.
Our language development policy has nothing to do-and God forbid that it should-with the imperial rivalries between French and English of centuries ago. It stems from the concern for human rights and social justice which is surely a Canadian thing. It is a vital element of Canadian democracy. It is a necessary condition, and I say it is a practical requirement for effective and harmonious political association between two linguistic communities which simply cannot afford, in this day and age, to be "warring within the bosom of a single state", to paraphrase Lord Durham's famous report. Consequently, linguistic equality is one of the cornerstones of Canadian national unity.
To allow intercommunal conflict to develop over the language issue, as is currently threatened, would be a tragic case of self-destruction for this country. English Canadians could not win that battle. French Canadians could not be brought to defeat on the contemporary battleground occupied by the separatist movement in Quebec. Canadians of other ethnic origins-the third group, as we sometimes call them-could not escape unscathed from such a conflict, because at the very root of it is intolerance. Intolerance would be the dominant passion, and I suggest that Canadians of other ethnic origins are particularly vulernable to intolerance. All would lose, and what would be lost would be Canada itself, the country our forebears built up and left to us in trust, a country which I think it is our moral and constitutional obligation to pass on to our children, strengthened and united.
I do not want to be of the generation that would allow fractious and disruptive forces to undermine the life of this country. I do not ever want to hear my children or two grandchildren say or even have them think in terms of, "You knew it was coming; you knew why, and you failed to prevent it." Those sentiments should apply to everyone in this House. It has for many years been my overriding concern, as it ought to be the concern of all here, that because of inaction or irresponsible action we should deserve to have such an indictment levelled at us by those who placed their trust in us: I was going to say "placed their trust in the government," but I really mean parliament.
That is why the Speech from the Throne announced a series of co-ordinated measures to strengthen national unity, expand individual freedom and enhance quality of opportunity. That is why the government is pledged to promoting better under-

The Address-Mr. Roche
standing between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. Personal conviction, as much as political commitment and ministerial responsibility, compel me to dedicate myself to the promotion of that understanding and to the building of a national consensus on official languages.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to mention that the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) will be making his final speech in this House at about 8.30 this evening. The hon. member has served Canada well in his distinguished military career, followed by his great career in the House of Commons where he has served since 1951. On behalf of all members I wish him well as he begins a new political career in the service of his province and country. May the good Lord look after him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak of Canada's role in the crisis of the United Nations. Judging by the throne speech, which devoted only four paragraphs to international affairs, not many Canadians appear to be interested in events beyond our borders. This myopic view of the government short-changes the Canadian public who have a right to much better leadership in pursuing a policy of enlightened internationalism.
We have a new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and I wish him well. It should not detract from the sincerity of my good wishes to him personally to express my wonder at how the nations of the world are to be expected to take Canada seriously when external affairs ministers are shifted because the government needs someone to find the way through the House of Commons. Is Canada's role internationally so unimportant, is the external affairs portfolio so simple that ministers can be switched in a political game of musical chairs?
The former external affairs minister was beginning to make his mark-especially as co-chairman of the north-south conference on international economic co-operation-after a two-year settling-in process, and I respected him. But how can we respect a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who forces his external affairs minister to vacate his office for, of all posts, the House leadership, thus upsetting the continuity of foreign policy. I cannot imagine Lester Pearson ever doing such a thing.
Of course we must go on not only developing but implementing a policy of realism in our relations with the global community. As we examine our fundamental policy of pursuing peace, I want to emphasize that through the United Nations Canada can make a major contribution to world order and peace in the last quarter of this century. There is a desperate need for fresh leadership at the UN and the moment is ripe. Canada has a new ambassador at the UN, in the skilled William Barton, and we are about to take a seat again on the security council.
The UN itself is changing. Certainly, the major task of the UN is still the maintenance of peace, "to save succeeding

generations from the scourge of war," as the founders of the UN expressed it. But the development of conditions of peace is now seen to require a wide range of activity: an equitable economic order, population control, an end to racial discrimination, a new law of the sea, a code of conduct for transnational corporations, protection of the environment, the development of human settlements. Global problems of the development of food, energy and jobs now dominate the UN agenda. A new Reader's Digest Gallup world public opinion poll reveals that the rich-poor disparity is now the dominant political fact on the planet. As Secretary General Kurt Waldheim puts it:
We have come to see that the security of this world is linked to an equitable sharing of wealth, not just as an objective for the distant future but as a matter of urgency.
The UN is making progress in solving the deeply human problems of world development. But at this very moment countless people are about to give up on the United Nations. That is why I said at the outset that there is a crisis of the United Nations. It is being subverted by those who are more strongly motivated by racial hatred than by the peaceful development of mankind. Anti-Jewish hatred nearly wrecked the Habitat conference in Vancouver last June. The very existence of UNESCO is threatened by the adamant refusal of the Arab-Communist bloc to allow Israel to join it. Prominent scientists and academics have called for an end to anti-Israel discrimination or face the possible collapse of UNESCO.
All people at the UN must find ways to stop the spread of racism in the conferences and resolutions that give the UN its image. Racism will destroy the credibility of the United Nations as an instrument of peace. Already that credibility is being questioned as never before. How can the UN be a moral force to stop the escalation of violation of human rights around the world if it is corroded by hatred from within?
As a politician strongly in support of more Canadian involvement in the UN, I am concerned about the growing public reaction against the UN on many fronts. It is attacked because it cannot stop local wars now going on. It cannot even agree on a formula to act against international terrorism; it is paralysed in advancing disarmament and cannot stop the spread of deadly nuclear fuel reprocessing plants. The General Assembly has become a bear-pit in which newly liberated third world nations trample on the old, industrialized nations. The good will of the west in advancing economic development is undermined by the politics of hate.
The media, feasting on confrontation, have put across the message of the UN as a force to be tolerated rather than a force to be supported. The combination of stupidities within the UN and the media's concentration on its failures rather than successes has resulted in the lowest public confidence in the UN's 31-year history. How is it that every Canadian knows about the infamous anti-Zionist resolution passed at the UN and hardly a handful know what the new international economic order is all about?
I count it a good day if I have persuaded a voter not to demand a cutback in Canada's support of the UN rather than
October 18, 1976

persuading him to support increased commitments. Canada pays 3 per cent of the UN budget. It has become all'too easy to vent our frustrations over future shock by scorning the UN as incomprehensible and irrelevant-as if it were easy to find agreement among 144 nations.
Although there are times when any thinking person must despair at the abuses and misuses of the United Nations, we must not lose light of the great achievements of the UN. Sometimes I hear the accusation, "Name me one good thing the UN has ever done." I can name many. The UN helps the homeless. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has helped 200,000 displaced persons resettle in Africa, and 216,000 in Asia. The UN bridges the illiteracy gap. The United Nations' Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization has trained more than 64,000 teachers and educational planners in low income countries. The UN fights famine. By providing technical assistance and research, the Food and Agricultural Organization is promoting modern agricultural techniques, better plant strains, better irrigation and soil management, better food processing, storage and distribution.
The UN brings milk to the world's children. The United Nations' children's fund has helped to set up 220 milk processing plants in 45 countries for cheap and sanitary distribution of this important source of protein. The UN helps provide clean water. Nearly 90 per cent of rural populations in developing countries drink tainted water-a leading cause of sickness and death. The United Nations' environment program has mounted a drive with other international agencies to deliver safe, potable water. UNEP also keeps track of pollutants in the oceans, the atmosphere and on earth to provide scientists with an accurate picture of our planet's health. The United Nations helps people help themselves. Last year the United Nations development program sent more than 9,800 experts to work on 7,600 projects in 144 countries and territories.
These are only the highlights in a long catalogue of United Nations' accomplishments that we too often overlook. Most people think of the United Nations as only the general assembly and the security council. But a vital part of the United Nations, where more than 90 per cent of its budget goes, is this world wide system of specialized agencies and programs. We cannot properly assess the United Nations' role and potential in building global strategies for peace by looking only at the skirmishes in the spotlight. The United Nations must be related to the sweep of history passing before our eyes.
The past 30 years has been one of the most dangerous periods in human history. It was a period of Promethean change during which we ran the risks of several world wide conflagrations. North and south, east and west, rich and poor, black and white, the powerful and the weak, came into contact with each other under explosive circumstances.
Science and technology made incredible strides, for good and bad. Atomic weapons and energy were born. Man landed
The Address-Mr. Roche
on the moon. More than a thousand satellites were launched around the earth. Man further extended the power of his eyes with giant telescopes, spectroscopes, television, electronic microscopes and radars; the power of his hands with incredible machines and factories; the faculties of his hearing with sonars, radio and space telecommunications; the capacities of his brain with computers and automation. His knowledge has reached farther and farther into the universe and deeper and deeper into the infinitely small. Many of his inventions bore seeds of progress as well as of destruction. A world war was nevertheless avoided, and I believe that the United Nations has played an important role in building bridges and reducing tensions.
The changes of the past 30 years have revealed many limits and constraints regarding human life and behaviour on our planet: limits of population; limits of the environment, limits of growth, limits of resources, limits of the biosphere. These external constraints begin to demonstrate to governments that there are also limits to power. I believe that this first correct view of our planet and of human life on it, obtained in large degree through the United Nations and its specialized agencies, will finally bring governments to act in a more responsible and concerted way.
This evolutionary progress is the real value of UN work. With its 16 specialized agencies, 14 permanent programs and string of world conferences, the United Nations is working on the whole fabric of peace. The UN is helping us to know what we need to know to ensure a decent, peaceful and happy life of self-fulfilled people. National governments are learning that they must co-operate because of the physical and economic interdependence of the whole planet. The UN even in these early stages of its development, is one of the most astonishing instruments on earth. This is a time to praise it, not damn it.
As we consider a greater role for Canada in the global community, we must note the UN shift in emphasis from peacekeeping to international economic and social development. Peace is no longer defined as the absence of war; peace now means human development. Far from being different goals, peacekeeping and development should be intertwined in our total contribution to peace. Canada has consistently supported United Nations activities in maintaining peace and security. With 1,500 military personnel abroad in this capacity, Canada is the largest contributor of troops for UN peacekeeping. We can make an even greater contribution, in a military sense, by stepping up our efforts to end the arms race. Here the special qualifications of Ambassador Barton, formerly Canada's envoy to the UN disarmament committee, will be significant in intensifying Canada's work.
The UN Secretary-General considers the arms race to be "one of the most critical world problems that confronts us today." In a world increasingly preoccupied with the problems of social justice, hunger, poverty, illiteracy, disease, development and an equitable sharing of resources, world military expenditures have spiralled to $300 billion a year. By shameful contrast, the net flow of official development assistance is only $15 billion a year. The international arms trade has reached

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Roche
$20 billion-including Canada's share-conventional weapons are becoming increasingly more sophisticated and deadly, and the technological arms race threatens to produce even more horrible means of mass destruction.
While some 400,000 engineers and scientists are working on military projects which absorb some 40 per cent of the funds allocated in the world to research and development, important problems facing mankind and requiring the contribution of those scientists and engineers are being neglected. The continued "improvement" of nuclear weapons that could obliterate all human life many times over is a demonic spectacle.
Nuclear proliferation is sweeping the globe, and the nuclear club is no longer exclusive. Even countries that have not acceded to the non-proliferation treaty-Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Israel, Spain-are on the point of obtaining giant reactors. The more nuclear powers there are, the less control there will be and the greater the likelihood that the atom will be used in violence. That is what has led the authoritative Stockholm International Peace Research Institute to issue a gloomy prediction. Within nine years, 35 countries will be able to make atomic weapons. The future is very gloomy indeed.
Despite the growing danger, two years of SALT negotiations produced no positive results and the long-awaited world disarmament conference is no nearer reality. Yet we cannot give up on disarmament. I think the time is right for Canada to push hard for a special session of the UN general assembly devoted to disarmament.
If a world disarmament conference is still an impossibility, then a special session of the UN is the next best thing, for a special session would put a world spotlight on disarmament and mobilize public opinion on the necessity of disarmament. It would stimulate international action to make disarmament more likely, especially the creation of better world security, including permanent UN peacekeeping machinery, and develop a comprehensive program on disarmament, reaffirming the goal of general and complete disarmament. If such a special session were successful, it could serve as a stimulus for convening a world disarmament conference.
Disarmament can only be achieved if confidence is increased among nations. The non-aligned and the smaller countries have an increasingly important role to play in building a spirit of international confidence. This task is directly connected to development, since there can be no confidence in a world situation in which 30 per cent of the world's population receives and controls 70 per cent of the world's income.
What is at issue-as the UN has repeatedly made clear throughout this second development decade-is the continuing validity of the economic system which has dominated the world since the great economic expansion of the industrialized nations a century ago. We cannot have a stable and healthy world unless the enormous disparity between the affluent nations and those millions in Africa, Asia and Latin-America who suffer from poverty, malnutrition and lack of hope can be reduced and eventually eliminated.

Only this weekend the United Nations has again proven its value with the publication of a report, "The Future of the World Economy", which amasses a huge body of data to show that world resources will be sufficient to support a growing population and higher living standards without inevitable environmental damage. What is still needed is a reform of relations between developed and developing nations to share that economic growth. I will quote only one paragraph from this remarkable document to show that the mobilization of political will is our chief problem:
To ensure accelerated development, two general conditions are necessary: first, far-reaching internal changes of a social, political and institutional character in the developing countries and, second, significant changes in the world economic order.
The debate on the new international economic order has opened a new chapter in international relations, in which the sixth and seventh special sessions of the general assembly, along with the adoption of the charter of economic rights and duties of states, have so far been the key points.
I am often asked what the new economic order is all about. It is not a club or an association or some sort of economic miracle. It is, rather, a process to provide rapid economic and social development in the developing countries which contain the majority of mankind. It is a determination to provide the basics of life-food, shelter, education, medicine and job opportunities for every human being. It is a plan to make nations self-reliant so that the people within them can find true human liberation in their own lives.
In short, the global reform proposed by the new international economic order embraces: eradication of mass poverty and unemployment; stable and equitable return for commodities; self-sufficiency in food; reform of rules governing international trade; and an increased share in industrial activities for developing countries. Further proposals include an increased flow of assistance on concessional terms based only on need and equity, and equitable sharing in the global economic decisionmaking process.
The response of Canada to this challenge has been splendid-in rhetorical terms. The speeches of the Prime Minister and the former external affairs minister have been impressive. So, too, is the government's one-year old strategy for international development cooperation, a 21-point, multidimensional policy which supports the main lines of the new economic order.
I unhesitatingly support this strategy because it begins the process of moving away from aid as the only expression of our humanitarian concern. The strategy makes a commitment to the reform of the international trade and monetary systems which are at the root of mass poverty. Canada's total policy includes increased aid to the least developed and a willingness to move forward on commodity agreements, trade liberalization and industrial co-operation. It is weak on specifics, but the direction of the policy is accurate.
October 18, 1976

The principal problem with the strategy, as I discovered in a tour of the country, is that few Canadians have ever heard of it. The government, preoccupied with the domestic economy, has not promoted it. The media have all but ignored it. The result is that Canadian public opinion lags far behind the reality of the interlocking nature of global problems highlighted by the special UN conferences on population, food and human settlements. For its part, parliament, in its usual inversion of priorities, devotes very little attention to international development.
There is, in short, scarcely any pressure on the government to implement its own strategy. The pressure is the other way- not to allow more imports from "cheap labour" countries; not to share the mineral resources on the continental shelf beyond the 200-mile economic zone; not to pay any more than we have to for third world commodities.
Our direct foreign aid, as a percentage of GNP, has been cut-the ironic victim of domestic restraint. Our bilateral aid is still heavily tied to Canadian business. Our role in the important negotiations at the fourth United Nations trade and development conference was marked by resistance to the third world rather than support.
What the government has signalled to the UN in the first year of this new policy is timidity and drift rather than the innovative action so desperately needed. What the government has signalled to Canada in the throne speech is that international affairs are not very important. I call on the new Secretary of State for External Affairs to involve Canada more deeply in the work of the UN. He is a practical man and undoubtedly wants specific suggestions. Here are some. First, reconstitute the subcommittee on international development which during the last session did such valuable work in opening up ways in which Canada can help bring about trade and monetary reform. Second, increase the share of CIDA's budget going to non-governmental organizations which are the only effective public education instrument we have. Boost the mere $35,000 the government provides the United Nations Association of Canada so that it can do the information job it is capable of. Third, involve more Canadians in international development by enabling CIDA to honour its matching fund program which currently is restricted to matching only 54 cents for every dollar raised privately. Fourth, demonstrate Canada's determination to reach .7 per cent of GNP in development assistance by raising our commitment at least as much as our defence budget which goes up by an inflation factor plus 12 per cent a year. Last, press for the creation of a minister of state for international development who would be able to give full time to the necessary watchdog function of CIDA and also raise the level of public participation in Canada's role internationally.
The demands of a new order and their implications for our way of life must enter the daily consciousness of Canadians. This is a job for more than government, but if government does not take the lead in helping Canadians understand what the United Nations is calling for, there is faint prospect that the changes required will be supported by the voters.
The Address-Mr. Cyr
With the arousal of political will there is every reason to hope for a better future. The technology to make it possible is exciting. Recently, I visited the Wheat and Maize Improvement Centre in Mexico, one of the principal agricultural research centres in the world and home of the green revolution. Funded partly by Canada, the centre's work in developing new strains of maize, wheat, barley, sorghum and triticale has dramatically raised world cereal yields in the past decade with the prospect of greater gains ahead as the technology is applied.
The experts I talked with are agreed that the world has the capacity to feed billions more people than are now living. It is a strange world where the scientists give reasons for hope and the politicians despair. Perhaps we should all step back a pace and survey the wide scene as Barbara Ward did at the conclusion of "The Home of Man", written for Habitat:
In this time of reassessment, in this age of questioning as intense as any since the great debates of the millenium before the birth of Christ, there is promise of an extraordinary and almost wholly unforeseen fusion of ideas which, separated and even hostile for many centuries, now seem capable of that mutual interpenetration which, in the nuclear as in the intellectual world, can release floods of new energy, new directions, new possibilities, new beings, new forms.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to congratulate you and wish you great success in the office you have held in the House over the past year. The Sudbury constituents are proud of their elected representative, and we were able to appreciate your many talents during the first session of this Parliament. I wish also to congratulate the movers of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne for their excellent presentations.
In October 1974, I did not have the opportunity to take part in the Speech from the Throne debate, and I want to tell the House how proud I am to represent the Gaspe constituency in the Canadian Parliament. The people in the Gaspe constituency have given their vote to the Liberal party because they know that Liberal governments have always demonstrated their concern for economically poorer regions, and the development we have witnessed these past few years is surely evidence of this. My duty, ever since I have been their elected representative, has been to make sure that they are well provided for.
In the 1974 election, Gaspe was the only riding with two candidates only, one Liberal and one Conservative. In my opinion, this is an historical fact which must be brought before the House.
I am glad that the Speech from the Throne deals with the equality of opportunity for all Canadians. I would like to read again this excerpt which is very important for the regional development. I quote;
While it is essential to national unity that all Canadians believe we have an equal opportunity to be fully ourselves in a cultural sense, it is just as essential to unity that we enjoy equal opportunities for individual and regional economic fulfilment.
166

The Address-Mr. Cyr
To translate Canada's economic potential into real growth and equality of opportunity, we must be both clear-sighted in our recognition of the obstacles which lie in our path, and united in our determination to remove them.
On the economic level, the Gaspe peninsula which I represent benefitted from special agreements for the social and economic development of eastern Quebec. Signed in 1968, this general agreement for Canada-Quebec cooperation gave results which in some cases go beyond the estimated objectives.
The agreement contributed to the implementation of infrastructures which are very important for the development of the area. It is now a matter of launching programs to stimulate the establishment of productive occupations and consolidate jobs in traditional sectors. Negotiations are under way between both levels of government and the people in eastern Quebec, particularly Gaspe, request the signature of another special agreement or of auxiliary agreements to set up sectorial programs for the economic development of the area while maintaining the objective of job creation.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) must pay particular attention to the allocation of budgets for the coming years to favour economically deprived areas. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) must have at his disposal the necessary funds to meet his obligations with the provinces for the development of slow growth areas in Canada.
The government must not apply their budgetary restrictions in areas with low income or very high unemployment. I venture to suggest to the ministers, particularly to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), that air and road communications in Gaspe leave much to be desired and that there is room for some improvements. It is inconceivable that in 1976 Gaspe cannot yet boast a 6,000-foot runway nor the proper flight control facilities.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks on the fishing industry in eastern Canada and more particularly in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) on his recent appointment as Minister of Fisheries and the Envionment and wish him the same success he had as Minister of State responsible for Fisheries and acting Minister of the Environment.
In the last few years, it has become increasingly obvious that the intensive fishing practised by foreign fleets off the Canadian coast, in particular that of ground fish on the eastern coast, would lead to a disastrous situation. The fish population, formerly abundant, have reached dangerously low levels. The very existence of the Canadian communities that depend on fishing for their livelihood is therefore threatened. The Liberal government, under the leadership of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), signed bilateral agreements with several countries which had access to our fishing areas thereby allowing Canada to extend from 12 to 200 miles off-shore its territorial sovereignity with regard to fishing. That decision is most important for the future of that industry in Canada. All members and all Canadians congratulate the ministers and their officials who participated in the drafting and the signa-
[Mr. Cyr.l
ture of the agreements between countries. In fact, Mr. Speaker, those agreements are being used as models by those countries which are now facing a similar situation. In extending the fishing zone to 200 miles, the government has shown a genuine interest in fishing industries in Canada.
Since 1974, the government has spent more than $130 million to support fishing industries and more specifically those on the east coast. The Department of Environment has a price support program for fishermen and for companies processing first quality ground fish. In addition, the government of Quebec also has several programs for fishing industries and a recent agreement has been concluded between the provincial government and processing plant owners under which employees are guaranteed a standard working week. With decreasing catches in the gulf, some plants can only give a few days of work to their employees every week. With the new Quebec program employees can look forward to a normal income every week. However we hope that all those programs will be temporary and that conditions will be normalized in a near future, let us hope before 1980.
Although the governments have implemented satisfactory programs to assist fisheries, prospects are not very encouraging because stocks of red fish and cod in several areas of the gulf have been seriously depleted, so that the quotas for those two species will be considerably reduced for 1977. In order to replenish those stocks, it is essential to restrict fishing in the immediate future lest the survival of fisheries be jeopardized in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Quebec fishermen will experience a difficult period as long as the stocks are not restored, because large trawlers operating in the gulf will have to fish elsewhere, more specially on the Atlantic coast. The government has given financial support to fishermen whose home port is in the gulf to compensate for the longer trips they will have to make as well as the problems faced by those who fish in unknown areas.
Since September 28, cod fishing in the Gaspe area and the north of New Brunswick is closed up to three miles from the coast. The quota of fish set by the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries (ICNAF) in area T4 has been exceeded. If we have reached the aim at the end of September, it is due to the exceptional quantities of cod taken earlier this year by trawlers from Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, more particularly in January, February and March. For the remaining of 1976 the minister has decreed that Newfoundland and Nova Scotia trawlers will no longer be allowed to catch redfish in the gulf and cod in the southern part of the gulf. That is not enough to preserve fish stocks in the gulf.
To share out equally the number of fish that can be landed in a season and to protect the fishing industry in Quebec and in northern New Brunswick, I recommend that the Gulf of St. Lawrence as a whole be reserved to fishermen whose home port is the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and that fishing for some species such as redfish and cod be prohibited in January,
October 18, 1976

February and March for the next two years. And I think that in the speech he made on October 14 the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) echoed my ideas, when he said, as reported in Hansard, page 64, I quote:
I also believe that in order to develop a sound management scheme for our fisheries, consideration should be given to such factors as the time of the year when fish can be most efficiently caught, and here the fishermen's knowledge should be utilized. Consideration should also be given to the seasonal variations in the quality of fish, as well as other biological factors relating to the spawning period. We cannot continue in our old ways and habits if we are serious in our intention to rebuild our fisheries resources, and this applies to all ships licensed to fish on our banks, whether they be Canadian or ships of other nations.
Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with that statement of the official spokesman for the opposition, when he says that the government should immediately take very drastic measures.
Lately, the government amended the unemployment insurance program for fishermen, and those changes should come into effect this fall. Fishermen will be able to draw their unemployment benefits during the first week of November instead of December, while the deadline remains the week of May 15. The main changes provide fishermen with supplementary benefits based on the regional rate of unemployment. Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that these changes to the Unemployment Insurance Commission Regulations will benefit mostly fishermen in the Gaspe Peninsula, !les-de-la-Madeleine and even those in northern New Brunswick; congratulations to the ministers who introduced these changes!
In the last few years, grants available for building fishing boats of 30 to 75 feet have declined; I therefore ask the government to take the necessary steps to continue this program of grants to the fishing boat building industry to allow a rational renewal of the fleet, not grants to build new fishing boats but to renew old ones.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and his government hold close to their heart the well-being of our people, particularly working families, the unemployed and non-organized people. He has demonstrated it in the Speech from the Throne and again in a special way in his speech to the House last Wednesday. This speech is well worth reading by all Canadians as it demonstrates that both the CLC president and the leader of the NDP are wrong to criticize the anti-inflation legislation without offering alternative solutions. The failure of the day of protest against the anti-inflation measures on October 14 is abundant proof that the Canadian people support their government in its fight against inflation.
The Prime Minister drew a very realistic picture of the impact the controls had over the Canadian economy. The workers from Gaspesia, whose income is one of the lowest in Canada, agree that the anti-inflation measures had positive effects on the area, the province and the whole of Canada.
My constituents are convinced that the anti-inflation controls are necessary and they already have contributed in reducing the inflation rate. Those who disapprove of this program are the leaders of large labour unions and the directors of big companies. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the program which benefits small wage-earners and hurts mostly those who want to taker over political power.
The Address-Mr. Cyr
Many financial institutions in Canada as well as businessmen regrouped within the Canadian boards of trade have urged both the federal and provincial governments to reduce their expenses, without ever indicating clearly where these budgetary cuts should be made. When we travel from one end of the country to the other, we realize that our larger centers- such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver-are those which contributes most inflation. When considering budgetary cuts, the government must therefore make sure that all departments pay special attention to the projects which have been postponed for several years in the regions which are economically weaker and where the unemployment rate is the highest.
The right hon. Prime Minister said on his recent visit in Riviere-du-Loup that he was opposed to budget cuts in low economic growth regions by cancelling social measures. In the Gaspe region we live in an area where people are already in a position in which they cannot even contribute to inflation.
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the government is also contemplating measures to make it easier for small business to gain access to financial assistance and other services provided by various departments, the Federal Business Development Bank and financial institutions in the private sector. Small businesses, managed by their owners, are the main job providers in many of our towns and villages in Gaspe. The economic structure in the Gaspe peninsula is heavily relying on seasonal activities, like agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism and construction. In order to make a decent living, a great number of Gaspesians have to be jacks-of-all-trades.
1 therefore feel that those new assistance programs to small businesses are indeed very timely for the development of the Gaspe peninsula and all eastern Quebec. They tie in with the recommendations of the Gaspe Chamber of Commerce which states as follows in a brief dated May 1976, and I quote:
That the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in cooperation with other departments, Gaspe businessmen and economic organizations of that area, set up a commission whose specific purpose would be to conduct research, to give initial impetus to the industrial and commercial development of that area of the province, and to achieve a just balance between the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors of our activities;
That more moneys in a future agreement between Quebec and Canada be assigned to the development of industry, and more particularly small businesses, with a view to making it more supple, more easily accessible, less prone to exporting profits and less susceptible to general stoppages which paralyze and check the economic activity of the whole community.
Despite numerous programs initiated by the federal government in the last few years to fight unemployment, rate of unemployment is still very high in that area. At a recent meeting of the Liberal party in Matane, the delegates proposed that the federal government implement a job creating program for several years and not only the winter months. I am proud of the new direct job creation program announced in the speech from the throne. It will be most beneficial to the Gaspe peninsula has a chronically high unemployment level.
This new job creation program should promote projects which are beneficial to the community. However, many organ-
80001 - 1214

The Address-Mr. Cyr
izations and municipalities do not have the financial means to purchase the required building supplies and equipment to carry out projects which are necessary to the community. I thus suggest that other federal departments cooperate with the Department of Manpower and Immigration and contribute to the financing of a portion of the building supplies required to carry out some projects. We hope that some departments will make additional contributions for the development of marinas and wharfs for traditional fishing, for the construction of breakers along our coasts, and for a number of other projects which could easily fall under the direct job creation program.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word about unemployment insurance. Indeed it is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I think it is very disappointing that some beneficiaries can hardly have their problems solved. There is certainly lack of communication between the commission staff and beneficiaries. I am sure that the staff is looking forward to help but the problem seems to be the amount of travelling claimants have to do to get information. It is unthinkable that some citizens of Gaspe have to travel 100 miles or more to settle an unemployment insurance problem. The commission will have to establish more extensive service in its unemployment insurance office on the north shore of Gaspe at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts. This is an urgent need for the constituency of Gaspe.
I should like to deal with another subject today, the parliamentary reform. We are aware that Parliament is the heart of democracy in Canada and that great progress has been made since 1968 toward concrete and positive changes to upgrade this institution which is imperfect and too close to tradition. Most hon. members want significant changes to make Parliament both more efficient and more modern and to give a new value to the role of parliamentarians. I am far from willing to sway from the principle according to which democracy must be safeguarded. But we can do it while accepting a careful planning of work for each session of Parliament, and the examination of bills can be made according to a fixed schedule, ensuring the good operation of a more rational and more efficient forum, while enabling a more humane and more intelligent participation by parliamentarians. Restricting the lenght of the speeches made by parliamentarians of all parties does not detract from the value of a debate. Very strict rules must be established in order take into account the fact that there are now four parties in this House.
Debates have become repetitive and stray more and more from the subject matter under consideration. We are here in Parliament to decide the fate of Canadians and we are wasting valuable time on debates which go on for months when they could be completed in a few days. The opposition must be granted the rights and the means to put their views forward in a thorough but not dilatory manner, thus eliminating every possibility of repeating the same elements of debate at the various stages of the legislative process. Debates must be restricted to the subject matter under consideration and the quality of speeches must be upgraded.

In a speech he delivered yesterday in Quebec City, the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition said the following, and I quote from Le Devoir of October 18:
Quebec City (by Lise Bissonnette)-It is quite clear, and Mr. Joe Clark said it in French in Quebec City: His party "will continue to refrain from proposing immediate or detailed solutions" to the present economic and language problems, regardless of all pressures.
First, there is a "political reason" for this, he said; "the solutions of the fall of 1976 are not going to determine the results of the 1978 general election".
If the opposition leader tells the Canadian people outside the House that he will not put forward any solutions to the present economic and language problems, then why hold debates in the House of Commons if the opposition is only trying to criticize instead of proposing solutions? I infer from that statement that a Progressive Conservative may be defined as an economist who knows all the answers to the events of the past year.
Mr. Speaker, it is urgent to amend the procedures of the House, and particularly to find an updated voting system. It is ridiculous for parliamentarians to have to be called by a bell which sometimes rings from two to three hours before the vote is taken. What a waste of time and money for Canadians! Moreover, the whole staff of the House must wait for the vote to be over before moving on to other work. If this is what we call a productive system, Canada is in a sad way. The members of the Liberal causus have made representations to the committee responsible for studying the procedures of the House. We are in favour of negotiating the changes suggested by the official opposition. However, if it is impossible to reach a consensus, the federal government will have to act since the interests of Canadians are at stake.
In closing, I should like to congratulate in my own name and on behalf of my fellow citizens all my colleagues who have been chosen to perform very important duties within the cabinet. I should like to assure them of my full cooperation. To the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan), Minister of Public Works, I wish much success in his new duties. He has already done very well early in his mandate by visiting several communities in eastern Quebec and northern New Brunswick. The efforts made by the minister to learn French since he came to Ottawa, that is since 1968, are worth mentioning in the House and should be held as an example before the other members. If all Canadians showed the same good will as the Minister of Public Works, we would not have any linguistic and cultural problems in Canada.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: How did you enjoy your weekend in Quebec?


William James Kempling: I had a very nice weekend in Quebec City, and it is nice to be back in the House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to add some remarks to those made by my colleagues in this debate. It has been said by several speakers in this debate that the throne speech was a rather sterile document, that in fact it did not indicate any real grasp by the government of the problems that we are facing. The

gaps in the address, the obvious omissions, were apparent to all, I think. As one commentator 1 heard on the day of delivery of the throne speech said, it was blander than usual. That is as kind as one can be.
Rather than deal with the language and cultural problems, as the government did extensively in the throne speech, we should have heard what will be done about the high interest rates that are being paid by Canadians. No mention was made of how we will deal with the serious balance of payments problems or how we will go about reducing them into more manageable levels. There was'some mention of productivity.
We are told in the throne speech that there will be more boards, more words, more discussions, more dialogue, more advertising and more slogans. But let us get right to the point. I do not believe that Canadian workers, per se, are less productive than workers in any other country. This has never been proven. I think our workers, given the equivalent in facilities and tools, are just as productive as workers in any other country in the world. I question the scale used to determine productivity, the methods, the formula or the process of weighing one economy against another.
Look at the taxation provisions and at the government's attitude toward depreciation provisions for plant and machinery. Look at the interest rates which must be paid by industry to acquire new machinery. Examine fully and carefully the restrictions placed on corporate profits and dividends, coupled with the high interest rates, and you will see the root of the problem.
Talking about productivity will not solve the problem. The government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) know the root cause of low productivity on the scales we are using in Canada. Representatives of labour and industry have stated their concerns for years. All their words fell on deaf ears.
We lack commitment to a strong secondary industrial base in this country. The former minister of industry, trade and commerce, who is now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), told our standing committee that he did not feel Canada could develop a secondary industrial base. He later took the course which we see used by many ministers-that being more dialogue and more discussion-and finally he stated that he was going to take a sectoral approach and develop an industrial strategy based on sectors. I think he stated we may end up with 18 or 20 different industrial strategies. This is just another idea to get away from the main point at issue here. This minister and his successor, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) sat in their places and allowed-


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member referred to some positions I took in my former portfolio. I think he owes it to me and to the House to give a specific reference as to when, if at any time, in my former
The Address-Mr. Kempling
ministry I ever said that I was against developing a secondary industrial base for this country.


William James Kempling: I will undertake to go through the minutes of the meetings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and 1 will provide the minister with the reference. We asked him specifically about developing a secondary industrial base, and he said specifically that he did not think it was possible, that he was looking at it from a sectoral approach and that we may end up with 18 or 20 different strategies. I asked the succeeding minister if he would follow the same route. He said he was not sure and that he had not yet considered it.


Alastair William Gillespie: I hope you will have the good grace to apologize when you find out that at no time did 1 ever make the statement that I was against developing the secondary industrial base of this country.


William James Kempling: I will find the reference for the minister and let him have it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Right between the eyes.


William James Kempling: It is nice to see that someone opposite is listening. It is good to see that the minister is awake.


Mr. Lachance:: Keep trying.


Alastair William Gillespie: We don't like the big lie technique. You hope that if you repeat it often enough we might even believe it.


William James Kempling: Look at the 1974 election. The government said it would not introduce controls, yet it did so. We know all about the government's big lie technique. At any rate, this minister and the succeeding minister sat in their places and watched a provision put into the AIB legislation, through a regulation, which caused research and development to be grouped in the same grouping as advertising, sales promotion and donations to charity. While this provision has now been removed, it caused a pause in research, caused many projects to be stoped or slowed down and caused hundreds of industrial projects to be shelved.
In fact, when the people in industrial research called the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce inquiring about the AIB regulation, the people in the department were not aware that such a regulation had been put in place. We had one department imposing a regulation and another department not knowing anything about it. Perhaps the former minister would like to comment on that at some time because, as I recall, he was there at that time.
Today we hear much about technological advances in industry, yet we are looking at a working paper and proposed legislation to change the patent laws in Canada. If this legislation proceeds, it will have a disastrous effect on the development of advanced technology in Canada. It will make it difficult not only to import technology, but it will almost preclude Canadian inventors and innovators from the foreign market. If the proposed patent law is put in place, we will have

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Kempling
no patent legislation in Canada in ten years' time because what it is suggesting is that we go along for a ten year period and at the end of that period reassess it. However, when we read the legislation we find that what the government really wants to do is eliminate patents altogether. If the proposed legislation is enacted, the only country in the world which will have similar patent provisions will be the Soviet Union.
We have heard comments from every quarter of the economy regarding cutbacks in research and development, and we have already seen an exodus of many research projects to countries which have more favourable economic climates and fewer restrictions. If we carry the bleak research prospects which now face Canadian industry and the proposed patent laws to a conclusion, the future is not at all encouraging. The people mainly responsible for putting together the proposed patent legislation are themselves deficient. As far as I can determine, none of them has any extensive knowledge of the practical or historical aspects of patents. They have decided they are going to change our patent laws, and without consultation with patent attorneys, patent agents or the Patent Institute they have written a new proposed patent act. I understand that they have even suggested they have a priority on this, which I find deplorable.
In concert with the winding down of research funding we find the Treasury Board has issued an instruction under the folio TB Circular No. 1976-2, and this document restricts government scientists from attending non-government sponsored scientific conferences. The circular states that only one person may attend. Earlier this month-from October 4 to October 8, to be exact-the Canadian Aeronautics and Space Institute held its tenth congress in Ottawa. Between 200 and 300 prominent scientists attended and more than 60 learned papers were presented. Even though the congress was held in Ottawa, only one government scientist was allowed to attend. I, personally, find this restrictive regulation deplorable. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that one scientist cannot possibly have the time nor the expertise for every aspect of aeronautics and space, and I hope the new Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) will see fit to have this restriction lifted.
Let me turn for a few moments to the anti-inflation program. Our inflation has eased slightly this year, but let us put it in its proper perspective. Food and food prices are not inlcuded under the AIB legislation. The food cost figures which go into the consumer price index have dropped or have remained relatively stable. As we understand it, this is due to a drop in the price of imported products. However, if we remove food from the consumer price index and look at inflation in that light, we will find that our inflation rate is still 9.4 per cent, not the 6.5 per cent which the AIB is advertising. I think it is a fraud on the people of Canada for the AIB to take credit for a drop in food prices when in fact food does not come under their regulations. A drop in inflation from 12 per cent to
9.4	per cent is not as dramatic as a drop from 12 per cent to
6.5	per cent.

It is ironic that people in industry and in the scientific community can see many solutions to our economic problems, both national and international, but find they are restricted by government regulations and poorly thought-out policies or, in fact, no policies at all. At recent meetings of the OECD and the International Monetary Fund, and at the meeting called a few months ago by President Ford which was convened in Puerto Rico, the call was for stricter fiscal and monetary restraint. In fact, the IMF chairman at the conference recently held in Manila hinted strongly that unless some countries put in place monetary legislation or regulations to control the amount of money being printed, and unless they are prepared to help themselves, perhaps the IMF would restrict loans to those countries and not rush to their aid.
The same message was set forth in recent OECD releases and it was the theme of the conference held recently in Puerto Rico. In Canada, the printing of money in the past few years has been in the order of 12 per cent to 15 per cent annually and in the most recent period, if it has not been adjusted, it was 27 per cent on an annual basis. Because of high interest rates, serious distortions are occurring in our economy. The bank rate is at an all-time high and Canadian businessmen are being attracted to purchasing products outside Canada where interest rates are considerably lower. In fact, it is possible to finance inventory outside Canada at about half our rate.
The spin-off effect of this to the business community will be disastrous if it is allowed to continue for long. If a purchaser of manufactured goods can purchase them abroad at a price competitive to domestic production, and can finance his purchase at half our bank rate, why should he ever purchase in Canada? When you reflect upon the long term effects of this fact of business life, Mr. Speaker, you can see ahead a continuing trade deficit, a continuing balance of payments problem and a bleak future for any small and medium-sized Canadian manufacturer.
Clearly, interest rates must come down; we cannot allow them to continue at this high rate. I know of companies which can finance their inventory at fixed rates of exchange and fixed interest rates of 6 Vi per cent or 7 per cent offshore. They can take advantage of container shipping and bring goods in during the Seaway season for the best possible freight rate; but looked at in the long term, this spells disaster for many small and medium-sized manufacturers.
Many industries have reacted and are searching for ways to reduce operating costs. A company contacted me recently and laid before me a program they wanted to start but, because of Anti-Inflation Board regulations, they cannot. The program would increase productivity and stabilize prices and might, over a period of time, even reduce their prices. They wanted to install an incentive cost reduction program which would require the co-operation of all employees. It would not result in the loss of any jobs, but would increase productivity, improve efficiency and help keep the company competitive in the domestic market against imported competition. It was a simple

program. They targeted for a certain number of dollars a day by which to reduce operating costs. Multiplied by the number of working days in the year, it gave an annual reduction. They proposed to share a portion of the saving in the form of an incentive bonus to employees. A portion would, of course, accrue to the management. The portion that would accrue to the employees could earn some of them as much as $1,000 a year more than they presently receive.
The Anti-Inflation Board stepped in and said they could not allow it; that there was a collective bargaining agreement which brought them under the umbrella of the AIB. They were told they could not adopt this type of program because it would raise the earnings of employees above the set level. In spite of the fact that the proposal would increase the productivity of the firm, improve its efficiency and reduce overhead, they were not allowed to adopt it. That is a deplorable situation, Mr. Speaker, and it is one of the inequities of the AIB program. The portion that the company would have retained would have driven their profits above the 85 per cent level and so it caused them difficulties.
There are many subjects that we had expected would be covered in the Speech from the Throne. We were speculating on its contents before it was presented. Maybe I did not look at it thoroughly enough, but I thought, in view of the difficulties facing the country and the expected day of protest on October 14, as well as the problems expressed to me by people in every walk of life and the business community in particular, that it would be a gung ho document. I expected it would give the people some hope for an end to their problems.
Instead, we were treated to a very bland document, one that fell far short of what the government is capable of. I think they are capable of producing a better document than that, for 1 have a great deal of confidence in some of the people in the departments. I do not have much confidence in many of the ministers, but some of the people in the departments are very competent and I think are capable of producing a document to give the people hope that in the years ahead their problems would be solved and they would reach the standard of living they deserve.
We got a disappointing document. The only thing we can look forward to now is the budget speech. If it does not have more in it than the Speech from the Throne, then there are serious times and trouble ahead of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco).


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think, since the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) has just returned to his seat, we would be glad to allow him to speak.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?
The Address-Mr. Pinard


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I believe we ought to thank the opposition whip for bringing that matter to our attention and allowing the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) to speak.
[ Translation]


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his courtesy and understanding following a temporary absence of a few seconds. I appreciate it greatly.
First, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the speech from the throne. They did their job with dignity and once again showed how well they can represent their constituents here.
I should also like to join with all those who paid tribute to our late colleague, Mrs. Albanie Morin. As we all know, she quickly won the admiration of all members in this House, and her death saddens us deeply. To her family and relatives, I extend my deepest sympathy.
With regards to the Speech from the Throne, I welcome the obvious fact that in that speech the principles that have always been the strength of the Liberal party are not only safeguarded but reaffirmed, especially with respect to bilingualism in relation to national unity, the quest for a formal constitutional independance, the reinforcement of the structure of Canadian agriculture, the fight against regional inequalities, respect for the collective bargaining, while at the same time promoting cooperation rather than antagonism, the protection of small businesses and respect of the private sector, and placing a great deal of emphasis on the fact that a notion of social conscience must accompany that of profit.
But today I should like to deal with two specific topics mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and dealing with individual freedom; first, a human rights bill, and second, the broadcasting of the debates of this House. With respect to a human rights bill, the speech from the throne states, and I quote:
In a similar effort to remove obstacles to information and to equal opportunity, the Government will introduce a Human Rights Bill. The major effect of the Bill will be to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, national or ethnic origin, religion, age, sex, marital status, or physical handicap. In particular, the Bill will establish the principle of equal compensation for work of equal value performed by persons of either sex. It will establish a citizen's statutory right to gain greater access to personal records in federal information banks and to correct that information when it is in error. It will also limit the gathering of personal information by the Government.
The Canadian Bill of Rights, for the recognition and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, assented to on August 10, 1960, states, and I quote:
The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free men and free institutions; Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law; And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, in a Bill of Rights which shall reflect

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Pinard
the respect of Parliament for its constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection of these rights and freedoms in Canada:
Mr. Speaker, since December 10, 1948, the day of the adoption by the United Nations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there has been in many countries an increasing awareness of the necessity to legislate and create internal mechanisms to fight discrimination against individuals. In his speech for the Nobel prize presentation, Alexander Soljenitsyn said, and this is from a quotation previously made in this House:
A quarter of a century ago the creation of the United Nations raised great expectations for humanity. Alas, in an immoral world they also became immoral. These are not united nations but united governments where those who were really elected, those who imposed themselves by force and those who came to power through an armed takeover are all on the same footing. Because of the mercenary prejudices of the majority, the United Nations jealously watch over the freedom of some nations while they do not care for that of others. By an unofficial vote they refused to consider individual claims, the pleas of the individual, of ordinary people not important enough for that gigantic organization. The United Nations never tried to impose on governments, as a condition for admissibility, the Bill of Rights, the most significant document of its 25 years of existence, leaving the population at the mercy of governments they did not choose.
All Canadian provinces have enacted statutes respecting human rights in relation to discriminatory practices. Every provincial statute, except that of Prince Edward Island, contains provisions for the establishment of a human rights commission or, for Newfoundland, the appointment of a commissioner. The provinces have taken the lead in this field because discriminatory practices have tended to be more prevalent in matters under provincial jurisdiction in the areas of employment, accommodation and services and because so many more Canadians are involved in matters under provincial jurisdiction.
Existing anti-discrimination provisions of federal statutes and regulations are fragmentary. For example, part I of the Canada Labour Code, which deals with fair employment practices, applies to employment by organizations such as banks, railways, etc., under the jurisdiction of parliament but does not include employment by the Crown in right of Canada. There is no over-all body of law at the federal level to which persons may resort when they consider themselves to have been harmed by the iscriminatory practices of organizations or persons whose activities fall within the legislative authority of parliament. As well, there is no legislation providing for the establishment of standards on the basis of which personal information in government records is accurate, accessible to the individual and used only for authorized purposes.

On July 21, 1975, the Minister of Justice introduced in the House of Commons Bill C-72 entitled the Canadian Human Rights Act. In announcing the legislation, the minister said and I quote:
I believe that the government has put forth a comprehensive legislative measure for the protection of human rights and interests in Canada. This is a bill which should please all Canadians.
Devised to extend the Canadian Bill of Rights, this legislation has two main purposes:
1.	-To prohibit discrimination in all matters within federal government jurisdiction on the grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, marital status or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted;
2.	-To establish measures through which the right to individual privacy can be better protected consistent with public order and well-being.
The bill provides for the establishment of a Canadian Human Rights Commission as a vehicle for investigating and preventing discriminatory practices in areas under federal jurisdiction.

The commission would also develop information and research programs to foster public understanding of human rights and freedoms in Canada.
Finally, Bill C-72 authorizes the government to establish a series of guidelines providing that any File it possesses and which contains personal information about the nature, reputation, financial situation, health, living conditions and way of life of an individual be exact, put away in a safe place, open to the person concerned and used by others only with an authorization.
Mr. Speaker, on December 11 and 12, 1975, during a federal-provincial conference on the rights of man, Canada made an important step towards the ratification of three documents of the United Nations concerning the rights of man: a covenant on economic, social and cultural rights, a covenant on civil and political rights and the optional protocol accompanying it, all of them having been adopted by the United Nations in 1966; thus, the goals of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights became written down in international legal documents. It is fortunate that some paragraphs of the Throne Speech let us hope that legislation in this field will be introduced in the cause of this session.
As for broadcasting the debates of the House, the Speech from the Throne declares on page 4:
The Government and all Parliamentarians are concerned about the extent to which the average citizen is informed about Parliament. The Government wishes to provide access to the Parliamentary process for as many Canadians as possible. It will therefore seek approval to enable the proceedings of the House of Commons to be broadcast.
Mr. Speaker, to my mind, this suggestion justifies more than ever the necessity for important changes in the Standing Orders, 1 mean far-reaching reforms.
As most of my colleagues and particularly the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), and the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) who spoke on that subject Friday afternoon, I know that Parliament is the heart of Canadian democracy and that since 1968 serious efforts which brought concrete and positive changes have contributed to improve that imperfect institution and, as the hon. member for Gaspe said, an institution which sticks too much to tradition. It is really to be hoped, Mr. Speaker, that another important phase will be covered to modernize the House of Commons and make it more efficient and also to enhance the role of parliamentarians.
I do not intend to make an exhaustive or academic study of the activities of Parliament. Indeed since 1968, the members can increasingly take part in the drafting of legislation; as an example, between October 8, 1970 and February 16, 1972- because statistics are available-21 committees of the House of Commons were set up and held 900 sittings. They called 2,751 witnesses and the record of their interventions make up over 30,000 pages.
I proceed from the ideal principal that a careful planning of the proceedings of each parliamentary session and the passage of bills according to a determined agenda ensure a more rational and efficient tribune while making the role played by
October 18, 1976

parliamentarians more humane and intelligent. I do not forget on the other hand that it is surely necessary to recognize to the opposition the right and the means to make its views known thoroughly but not in a dilatory manner and 1 would like to suggest substantial technical amendments which are however a safeguard for democracy.
The main grievances 1 have with respect to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons are as follows: First, unwarranted repetition of the same elements of discussion. Second, more often than not debates are impressed with partisan spirit rather than valuable or constructive criticism, hence we have far too many digressions in speeches. Third, we make improper use of the time and means put at the disposal of the opposition in the course of the various stages of consideration of bills in an attempt-often admitted-to prevent or unduly delay passage by a majority government; that is called "filibuster". Fourth, I find there is the highly abusive restraint of continual and too often useless physical presence in the House of Commons, making it impossible for the member to plan soundly and carry out effectively the diversified tasks which he or she could or should undertake. Fifth, a disorderly and overly exhaustive schedule of parliamentary business deprives the member from an essential and valuable presence in his riding and with his family. I submit that the implementation of the following principles is necessary if we mean to have a workable reform.
The first principle is that we must in fact
(a)	recognize that tbe opposition is entitled to have the right and means to make its views known, in a thorough and immediate manner, by eliminating the opportunity to reiterate the same arguments at the different stages of the procedure, bringing back the discussion to relevant points and thusly improving the quality of the debate.
The second principle which, in my view, is valid is the following:
(b)	: Carefully plan the member's presence in the House of Commons to make a more effective schedule possible.
Lastly, the third principle that we should adopt if we wish to make sensible improvements is as follows:
(c)	Establish a well ordained parliamentary schedule which would permit hon. members to carry out their political duties away from Parliament Hill and live a more normal family life.
Mr. Speaker, as a suggestion for the administration of these guidelines, I propose that the House adopt the following changes which are not restrictive in any way.
First of all, concerning the business hours of the House of Commons: in my humble opinion, the House should sit every day, except Monday or Friday, from 2 to 6 p.m., and then again from 8 to 10 p.m. This echoes the suggestion the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) made in the House last Friday to limit the number of working days in the House to four. Once again, and 1 do not wish to repeat what I have said, I want to practise what I preach, follow the guidelines and meet the grievances I indicated previously.
The Address-Mr. Pinard
As to the vote, when possible I think it should be deferred to a fixed date and to a determined time, except for urgent matters. Speeches should be limited to 15 or 20 minutes for each speaker, except for the official spokesman or the first speaker of each party who would be allowed 30 minutes.
Concerning private members' hour, I propose that it be held every second Wednesday night, that is from eight to nine o'clock and from nine to ten o'clock, with the vote, if any, deferred to the day and date determined for that purpose. As to opposition days, they should be established according to a parliamentary schedule.
The debates relating to the Speech from the Throne and to the budget speech should be reduced to sittings of six days for the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne and five days for the budget speech.
Most important of all is the parliamentary schedule. Each session should end June 23 at the latest, the eve of Saint John the Baptist's Day, the day of French Canada, until the day following Labour Day, that is at the beginning of September.
Having regard to debates on government bills, I propose a standing committee of parliamentary leaders to determine a time schedule for the House and the committees with power being granted to the government to impose its decision whenever an agreement is impossible. Recourse to this closure rule should be debatable by only one speaker for each party with a 30-minute time limit in each case.
In addition, we should limit to 10 minutes the speech delivered by the mover of an amendment put a second time at the report stage and to 10 minutes the speech of the governments's speaker.
Mr. Speaker, failure to raise quorum should bring the adjournment of the House only after the bells have rung for ten minutes to call members.
I think it is absolutely ridiculous, as I noticed it happened once last year, that because there is one member missing in the House to have the quorum, the House should lose precious hours and adjourn until the next day to resume its business. 1 hope this unfortunate experience will not occur again. It is not the fault of one party in particular, but I think that a minor change in the Standing Orders would prevent a new occurrence of a ridiculous and obsolete situation. Upon noticing that there is no quorum, we should ring the bells for ten minutes to call the members. As for the question period, I suggest that government members should have the same privileges as those extended to opposition members.
Finally, I will say a word about the committee of the whole. The votes on the consideration of each clause should be deferred and held at the same time. On various matters, I agree that the Speaker should be severe and not hesitate to intervene when the discussion departs from the subject under consideration. I agree with the suggestions that a special committee be set up for second reading of all bills that are acceptable to all parties, and also that the order paper should be simplified and made easier to understand. As for the

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Brisco
standing committees, their membership should be limited to a maximum of 20 and quorum reduced to seven.
Several changes, Mr. Speaker, were discussed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, committee of which I am a member and on which I sat for five days during the summer break before Parliament came back last Tuesday. Because there is pressing need for those changes, committee members agreed to submit them for discussion to their respective caucuses in the next few days. Those changes are not necessarily all included in those I have just mentioned, but several of them, which were discussed and met with the general approval of the committee, are among those I have just talked about. I believe circumstances will justify those changes and if they are well explained to Canadians the latter, in all logic, will see that they are in their interest and that they will in no way affect true democracy.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, that parliamentary reform is urgent, fundamental and necessary. We will soon know where we stand with regard to the attitude of the various political parties towards the negotiated changes. I trust petty politics will be set aside to achieve a procedure truly worthy of a Parliament at once modern, humane, efficient as well as interesting, because I have just included all speeches on parliamentary reform in my argument on televising our debates. It is important that our Parliament should also become interesting. Concerned about offering the Canadian public both objective information of the business of Parliament and reports interesting and worthy of responsible public men, I feel that this parliamentry reform would justify televising the debates of this House, as suggested in the Speech from the Throne.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that others today have recognized the fact that this is one of the first occasions upon which, as Assistant Deputy Chairman, you have taken the Speaker's chair. I have been absent from the House and in my riding for a couple of days and this is the first time I have seen Your Honour presiding over our debates. I should like to extend my best wishes and those of Kootenay West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Having said that, and bearing in mind that it is our responsibility to debate, discuss and comment on the Speech from the Throne, may I say in summary that all that needs to be said about it has already been said by our leader.


An hon. Member:: Too narrow.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I hear a comment from across the chamber to the effect that it was too narrow a speech. The only thing that is narrow is the vision of the hon. member who made that remark. As a relatively new member from British Columbia, I have reviewed the Speech from the Throne with some care. I must say that in an area of concern to many Canadians it caused me a great deal of agony and some soul-searching. I
[Mr. Pinard.l
feel I am obliged to comment on one of the first points made in that speech:
Since 1968 the policy of official languages, supported by all parties represented in parliament, has been based on the principle of equality and on the right of Canadians to speak English or French according to their own will. An essential consequence, agreed by parliament, is that the federal government provide services in the two official languages in the national capital and wherever else there is sufficient demand for such services.
I call attention to the use of the word "policy" in that statement. Mr. Speaker, that policy is not supported by this member. In fact, it is not supported by a large number of members who sit in this House. It is not the policy which we support; it is, rather, the principle. We have no difficulty living with the principle, but when we see a policy of the nature we have seen so far we cannot but recognize that it is divisive and the subject of bitter debate across Canada. How can I associate myself with that type of federal bungling? When I sit in caucus and listen to the comments of our Francophone members and compatriots, one of my greatest embarrassments is that I cannot understand what they say.


Monique Bégin: Don't you have simultaneous translation in your caucus?


Robert Hylton Brisco: The hon. lady is trying to be funny in a moment of seriousness, and I resent that remark.


Monique Bégin: I wasn't trying to be funny at all.


Robert Hylton Brisco: With the aid of our translation service I have an opportunity to listen to what the Francophone members of our caucus say, but 1 am not bilingual and I regret it very much. I regret the fact that the previous member for Kootenay West left such a lot of work to be done that I have not had time to devote myself to the study of the other language. Nevertheless, during my brief stay in Ottawa I have come to recognize at least some of the factors involved here.
I think it is incumbent upon me, as a westerner, to spend more time in the province of Quebec. I have heard those who say, "Don't go to Quebec because you will not be welcomed; they will not speak English to you." That is simply not true. Some of the most enjoyable days I have spent in eastern Canada have been spent in Quebec. Those who live there are fine, courteous people, no different in that respect from westerners. They happen to speak a different tongue. That is not the problem; it is a question of priorities. When the government thrusts into the face of the westerner matters which are not of immediate importance to that part of Canada, then it is in trouble.
It is not the principle, it is the policy that is wrong. Of course, there is nothing new in this. It is a policy of confrontation. Ninety-five per cent of the bills one could mention, bills introduced last session, had to do with confrontation-confrontation with labour, confrontation with industry, confrontation with the provinces. That is the history of the government's attitude. They know nothing about the word "consultation". They don't know what the word "consultation" means. I want those on the other side to understand that we in western Canada will do our best to solve the problem of bilingualism.

When the Conservative party comes to power we shall address ourselves to this question. We will never pull the fortunes of the country into wasteful programs. We will address ourselves to the situation as it really is. If there is one sentence in the speech in which the government shows some understanding of the problem, it is when reference is made to their readiness to spend a few dollars at the post-secondary level and in the area of post-secondary education, the area in which it will be most effective.
Canada is a diverse country, says the speech, and unity can result only from a recognition of that diversity. 1 am pleased the government is able to recognize that fact. They go on to say that unity can result only from a recognition of that diversity, and not from any attempt to impose rigid uniformity. What else is the bilingualism program but rigid uniformity? That is the government's problem-rigid uniformity and confrontation.
Enough of that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move on. I notice there is talk of continued reduction of inflation and the creation of many more employment opportunities for Canadians, that they will continue to be the government's highest priorities. I find that very interesting. One of these high priorities was manifested this year with LIP funding to various provinces in Canada. Last year the riding of Kootenay West received $608,000; this year it is down to $297,000.
We will hear from the other side the story that that is part of the government's restraint program. The problem with this government is that it restrains in the wrong areas. On the one hand the government says it will address itself to job creation in certain areas and help resolve unemployment, which is standing at around 7 per cent. But what does it do for starters? It cuts back the very program that addresses itself to those people who can perhaps at times be classified as "unemployed unemployables". The LIP program is reduced by 50 per cent in Kootenay West; it is reduced by enormous sums in other ridings. Is that the government's instant solution?


An hon. Member:: Let's hear yours.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Did not the minister read the throne speech? Surely he knew what was coming. I wonder whether the voice I hear over on the other side, which seems to be grumbling in the background, would mind waiting until I have finished my speech, when I will be pleased to answer any questions. In the meantime, why doesn't he just pay attention for a change? I wait with hopeful anticipation, but with a great deal of doubt, suspicion and negative thinking, so far as the job creation program of the government is concerned.
There are some very capable people in British Columbia who have been involved in the Outreach program. I would think there is hardly a soul on the other side who has ever heard of the Outreach program, but it happens to be one of your babies. It was doing a credible job in Kootenay West and on the lower mainland, but the government cut it back. It was reduced on the lower mainland and eliminated in Kootenay
The Address-Mr. Brisco
West. Is that part of the government's job creation capacity?
It is just an example of the record of an inadequate government. If hon. members opposite would listen to some of the experts for a change they might come up with something concrete that would carry itself through the scene. But unfortunately they plan, they scheme, they develop, and then they bring things to a halt.
Moving to another area, Mr. Speaker, I notice that the government indicates that it is going to support private industry in meeting greater international competition. What the government says is very interesting. It says it will modify substantially its industrial assistance program. I should like to refer to one area in which the government should modify its industrial assistance program. Let me start with DREE and with one particular DREE grant to the province of Quebec in which $5,970,000 was given to one industry to create 220 jobs. That is very commendable. It just so happens that this sum of $5,970,000 granted to one industry in Quebec is just a shade over the entire sum that this government has put into the province of British Columbia for industrial development. The DREE program has spent $5.7 million in British Columbia, and the government has the guts to come up with another $5.9 million for one industry in the province of Quebec. What industry is this, Mr. Speaker? It is SKW Electro-Metallurgy Canada Limited. The company is a subsidiary of a German company, which I wish I could pronounce but my German is as poor as my French, Suddeutsche Kalkstickstoffe-Werke A.G., of West Germany.
That gives a real indication of the government's intention to support private industry in meeting greater international competition, Mr. Speaker. It gives $6 million to a German firm to establish in Quebec at a time when Germany is probably the strongest economic nation in the world, second only to the United States. Yet this government, in its largesse and its woolly-headed thinking, makes a grant like that!
How does it excuse its actions to the province of British Columbia? What is the minister responsible for DREE saying to the province of British Columbia and to B.C. members of parliament? Last week it was, "Well, we are going to put in a mining program". Next week it will be something for agriculture and the week after that it will probably be something for forestry. The fact remains that the entire DREE budget for next year in the province of British Columbia is $10 million. Planning in the province under the DREE program requires more than $50 million, and I derive that information from the DREE experts, people who know their business. This government does not know its business. I should like to hear the minister explain by what stretch of the imagination he can justify a $6 million grant to a German firm to establish one industry in Quebec when at the same time he has spent less than that in the whole of the province of British Columbia ever since the DREE program was implemented.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of tokenism that we have had from DREE, and it is what I mean when I talk of western alienation. That is only one of a hundred examples. Yet the government just does not hear. It does not get the message

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Brisco
because it has its earmuffs on. I hope that by the end of the day the government will have a clear message from the ridings of Ottawa-Carleton and St. John's West.
I also notice that the government, in its wisdom, has said it will introduce measures to assist small business by improving local access to financial assistance and other services provided by the federal departments. Mention is made of the Federal Business Development Bank. What I should like to ask is, how small is small business? Is the government talking of a $100 million business, a $1 million business, a $50,000 business or a $25,000 business? Is it talking about the corner druggist who wants to establish in a small community that does not have a drugstore, or does it refer to some big industry?
I will tell the government one thing it does not know about small business-or perhaps one thing that it does know. Let me tell them that they are a bunch of cynics. I say that because when the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) was given responsibility by the leader of this party for addressing himself to the problems of small business in Canada, what did we hear from the other side of the House? Hoots, jeers, roars and laughter. They thought it was the biggest thing since Mutt and Jeff; they really thought it was a laugh. They treated the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley with nothing but cynicism, and being a typically cynical government they now smilingly introduce their program for small business and to create a new, minor industry. The people of Canada will have the record laid before them as it unfolds-the promises of this government, the distortions of this government, the shallow rhetoric of this government. Whether it is small business, amateur sport, big business, DREE, transportation, health-you name it; the record is there and Canadians can surely perceive it.
While I am talking about the Federal Business Development Bank, businessmen in my community say to anyone who is looking for money, "You want us to bankroll you, and you say you have been to the Federal Business Development Bank. Well, we really cannot do much business with you if that is where you have been". The reason is that in British Columbia and in many areas the federal development business bank is regarded as a court of last resort. Surely the interest rates reflect it. If it is the intention of this government really to address itself to the serious problems in respect of funding small business, then I think it should do so at a greatly reduced rate of interest.
The next area which concerns me deals with safety. With Bill C-83 the government intended to establish a whole new bureaucracy which would cost the taxpayers millions of dollars for a woolly-headed bill in respect of gun control, a bill that was so idiotic and misconceived that the government really, I think, was afraid to introduce it for third reading. If it had meant that much to the government, the government would have continued the session for a couple of weeks in order to deal with it. But now we will never see Bill C-83 again. The
[Mr. Brisco.l
government will bring in another mutton-headed bill of similar ilk.
Now we see that the government is to delve into another area. I wonder who the government is trying to cozy up to. An industrial safety and health centre is to be established to assist companies and workers in their efforts to identify and remove hazards. That sounds beautiful. It really is nice. But I think, Mr. Speaker, if you examine the record you will find that the provinces of Canada are well ahead of the federal government in this area and that the provinces have developed the expertise. If it is the federal government's proposal to complement the research and studies of the provinces, I have no difficulty with that; I support it. But if it is to be a repetition, a side-by-side bureaucracy to spend more taxpayers' dollars on a useless project, then what is the sense of it? I hope the government has its priorities squared away.
I note, also, that as a further element of the government's food policies, measures are to be introduced to make more farm-stored crops eligible for advance payments and that the government will also work with the provinces and farm organizations to strengthen the structure and productivity of Canadian agriculture. That is just like apple pie; it is just sweet words of rhetoric. We are to strengthen the structure and productivity of Canadian agriculture. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, unbeknown to this government apparently, there is a program called MSQ, "milk subsidy quota." They are now busy penalizing the farmers in the various provinces who produce our milk.
A couple of weeks ago, in the province of British Columbia, the dairies were out of milk because the farmers are being penalized for overproduction. What is happening? The dairy herds are being reduced. They do not like this penalty. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) now is taking away what he had given them. He is robbing Peter to pay Paul. Who is suffering? The dairy farmers and also the end purchaser. The local dairies have an excellent cheese factory in British Columbia. This year it has operated, I believe, for a total of three days. Why has it not operated for a longer period? Because this government wants to import a large proportion of its cheese. Because this government established an MSQ program which reduced the amount of milk, so that there are no milk by-products available to this cheese factory.
Of course, the government could not care less because this factory employs only 20 or 30 people. So why worry! If British Columbia happens to be short of milk for a few days, then I suppose it is assumed the milk could be obtained from Alberta. Alberta does not have any to spare. The MSQ program is a farce and a laugh, and there is not a farmer in British Columbia who would support this Minister of Agriculture.
First we had the Minister of Agriculture with egg on his face. Now we have him with milk in his veins, and finally we have him with some potatoes in his brain. He recognizes the fact that American potatoes are coming into British Columbia, but he is not prepared to impose any sort of a tariff because the potato farmers of British Columbia are facing ruin. He will look at the program in a few months' time to see what the

imports were, and balance out what the farmers of British Columbia have left over in the way of potatoes. He has not told us what to do about the potatoes that are already there. He has not told us how to get rid of them or how to sell them. He is not prepared to protect the Canadian producer.
If he were prepared to protect the Canadian producer, he would have some answers for those people in British Columbia who grow tomatoes, tree fruits and soft fruits who see on the shelves those tomatoes, tree fruits and soft fruits from South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan, Formosa, or wherever. This imported produce appears on the shelves at much lower prices. The farmers of British Columbia cannot compete with those prices. We will have smaller orchards, fewer producing farmers, a weakened agriculture, and when they have gone belly-up, then watch the prices of those canned goods from those foreign countries escalate in price on our shelves. Who will be to blame? Well, we know who is to blame. It is the ill-informed Minister of Agriculture who sits across the House and who today disposed of the cattle industry in a brilliant statement which in my view, and in the view of our agricultural critic, displayed his unfeeling and uncaring attitude toward the cattle industry of Canada.
In any event, the government carries on and talks about the fact that it is going into a position of co-operative restraint with the provinces on education, medical insurance and hospital insurance. "Co-operative restraint" is a beautiful phrase. That is a two-word summary of the confrontation of this government with the provinces of Canada and the issue of Bill C-68, a bill which this government in the last session had to get through the House by means of closure. They refer to it as co-operative restraint. What a laugh!
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the hospital board in my community does not think very much of the government's co-operative restraint, because already the pinch is being felt of the cutbacks of this government and those it has yet to implement which are already being felt by the medical system in British Columbia. However, the government dispenses with that little problem with two beautiful words, "co-operative restraint".
The government then goes on to talk about affordable housing. That is also very interesting. In British Columbia, in my riding, there is a very successful program called "rural and remote". A lot of AHOP homes are being built under the AHOP limits, but in my riding the AHOP limit is $33,000. With that limit of $33,000 one is lucky to find property on which to build under the program. If people do build, they are very lucky to be able to build within that AHOP limit. When they end up with a structure of 980 or 1,000 square feet, it really is not adequate for a family of four, five or six persons. Yet in another area of British Columbia, where the cost of construction is much lower and where the price of property is much less, this government, in its wisdom, establishes an AHOP limit of $38,000 so the homes have all the frills one could wish and are greater in dimension. They have one and a half bathrooms, a fireplace, a carport and a full basement. That is just great, but there is a mixture of priorities and again
The Address-Mr. Brisco
a lack of co-ordination with the province. In another area of the province the land is available if the federal authorities can get it from the provincial government. Houses are needed there. The government of British Columbia holds the land, but the federal government cannot address itself to securing any of that land for the construction of houses.
Another area of concern with these AHOP homes is the lack of a careful determination of the quality of occupancy of these homes. A vast majority of the tenants are good tenants, but there are also undesirable tenants who have no concept of the value of the property they occupy and in two years they make a brand new home look like a 60 year old shack. I suggest that some thought should be given to that problem, that perhaps what the government should consider is a rental purchase program so that the condition of a home can be checked after it had been occupied for some time to determine whether or not the occupant is a responsible buyer or whether we are in fact subsidizing a family which does not look after the property. Certainly I do not care to see good money thrown after bad. When we see some of the problems that arise with AHOP homes, it becomes obvious that the minister should take a second look at them.
Something else astonishes me in the Speech from the Throne and that is the fact that a total of only five lines, which in the view of the government constitutes a paragraph, is devoted to the largest single cultural, social and economic problem in Canada, namely, the native people. At the end of the five lines the government states that it will introduce some kind of bill dealing with James Bay. That is the kind of tokenism that we have learnt to expect from this government. No reference is made to a housing program for the native people, or to land settlements.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will try to be as brief as I can, Mr. Speaker. If the government attaches continuing importance to the aspirations of Canada's native peoples, as it has said it does, it could have devoted more than five lines to those problems.
Another area of concern is the fact that the government has also given short shrift to amateur sports. The only sensible move by the government was to appoint a responsible cabinet minister in the person of the charming and lovely hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo).


Ralph Goodale: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: She is one of the few competent people in an incompetent cabinet.


Mr. Benjamin:: You are neither lovely nor charming, Ralph.

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Brisco


Robert Hylton Brisco: We had a critic of amateur sports long before the government created the ministry, namely, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley. What did the government members do? They sneered at the hon. member and said this is a laugh. Since we are discussing the various areas of concern of the government let me refer to the Little League from Trail, British Columbia, who became Canadian champions this year. To the finals in Sherbrooke, Quebec, they defeated the Little League from Toronto. It could not have happened to a nicer team. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate in my view-and perhaps it shows up a problem which we have in western Canada as well as in eastern Canada-that some dissatisfaction was voiced by some of the parents of the members of the Little Leaguers. They came to me and told me that at a banquet for the Little League team on Saturday night, as well as during the entire time they spent in Quebec, all the programs, all the literature, and everything pertaining to the four anglophone teams was in French. They did not understand anything that was being said. Surely they could have been accommodated.


Monique Bégin: Are such programs in French in your city?


Robert Hylton Brisco: In my city the principal languages are Italian, Russian, and English.


Monique Bégin: In Quebec it is French.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am sure that had the Sherbrooke team been in Trail we would have made an effort to establish a bilingual relationship instead of a unilingual relationship. I only point this out to show that this is a symptom of an underlying problem. The hon. member opposite cannot accept that. She is waxing eloquent about the problem.


Monique Bégin: Sherbrooke is a French speaking city.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I suggest that the hon. lady withhold her remarks until I complete mine.
I notice also in the throne speech an indication that the government will address itself to the protection of children. I was fortunate enough to have been a member of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs during the period when we reviewed much of the literature and information concerning child abuse across Canada. 1 think it should go on the record that this issue was brought before the committee at the insistence of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie). I am sure that members on both sides of the House recognize his valuable contribution in bringing this issue to the attention of members of the House. I hope that an effort will be made to co-ordinate a system of review all across Canada so that a record can be kept of child abuse cases. In the case of a chronic child abuser, or the case of a family who abuses children moving from one province to another, contact can be maintained with them so that if new violations occur they can be controlled and a record kept in order that these people cannot escape the law by moving from one province to another. Of course this is only one aspect of child abuse; the others are more of a social nature.
[Mr. Benjamin.)
I note also that in the throne speech the government has addressed itself to nuclear arms in a very cynical fashion. Enough has been said on this subject by members of our party so that I do not need to comment on it more except to reinforce what has been said.
1 note also that the government intends to take action in the matter of government secrecy. I have to laugh at that because recently in the press we have seen many references to government secrecy. We see that the former hope of the Liberal party, John Turner of all people, spoke about government secrecy and about how bad it is. By God, there is a fellow who should know. That white knight was the expert on government secrecy when he sat in the House. He was an expert on a lot of things. He was the fellow who led this country into the biggest periods of inflation we have ever known. He was the brain behind it all. But there he is in his ivory tower in Toronto saying, "Naughty, naughty. This government's income and price control is all wrong. If they had followed my direction, it would have been different". Bring this expert back. We would be pleased to deal with him.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Do you want him to continue doing that?


Robert Hylton Brisco: It does not matter what he does; he suffers from a credibility gap that is as big as this House.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Look at who is talking.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thought the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) would like a qualified and valued opinion, in view of the quality of my remarks.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Haven't you got anything to say?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would do something about the hon. member for St. Boniface. He is running off at the mouth, and I would like to wind up as quickly as I can.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: At least I say something; you don't.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The government should finally get around to one area which is of importance to me and to the people of British Columbia. The government talks about equal opportunities for individuals, and regional economic fulfillment. That is interesting, but I would like to know what its idea of economic fulfillment is. I would also like to know what its idea of regional unemployment is. Is the government talking about a province, a county, a town, or a regional district?
In Kootenay West there are some urgent needs to address to DREE. We are interested in a mineral study, and a water supply from the Columbia River. We are concerned that the city of Trail and the city of Castlegar have to spend over $500,000 this year to put in water wells. We are doubly concerned when we see that the province of Saskatchewan has a water treatment plant coming up for Unity, Saskatchewan,
October 18, 1976

under the DREE program. Of course the announcement was made by the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of regional economic expansion, which figures.


Ralph Goodale: A fine member.


Robert Hylton Brisco: He was looking after his own back yard, and Unity, Saskatchewan, is to get a $500,000 water treatment facility.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They would't let me make the
announcement.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We can understand that.


Robert Hylton Brisco: We are also concerned about the southern transprovincial highway. We are concerned about special ARDA for B.C. The lower Kootenay Band sits on some of the most valuable agricultural land in British Columbia. That is part of their reserve. On two occasions they addressed their concern to special ARDA. They wanted money to develop the hay land. They wanted money to establish a cattle farm. What did special ARDA say? It told them that they did not know what they were talking about; that they did not know anything about cattle or about farming and that they did not even have the proper land for the project. That pronouncement was made from an ivory tower in Vancouver, and nobody bothered to go out there.
Only recently, as a result of my own personal efforts, somebody came up there to look at it. That person had some sense of feeling and judgment, and wondered why nothing had been done. This is some of the finest agricultural land in the province, and he wondered why we were not developing it. The reason was that special ARDA did not think it was worth while developing.
In conclusion, the government says it is going to resolve regional problems. There is no way the members of this government will do that by sitting on their butts in ivory towers and not getting out into the areas and identifying regional problems. They have been talking about regional problems in the Kootenays, in the northwest part of B.C., in the northeast part of B.C., in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick, but thus far only in the Maritimes has the government been able to get out and identify these problems. The government expects the people from the areas affected to tell it what the problems are and then to sit back and wait for the government to act. We have gone that route so many times that we are sick and tired of it.
The riding of Kootenay West was designated for special funding for industry. That designation was removed last year, and there has been nothing to replace it. The government has not spent a dime in the province of British Columbia under DREE for the past year except to operate its office in Victoria. That is the extent of the concern of the government. That is the extent of the government's skill and management in regional development. The government has the power right now unilaterally to provide industrial incentives to the province of British Columbia without consultation with the province if
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
it cannot get agreement. My feeling is that the province of B.C. would not be offended at that particular approach, but will the government take that approach? Actions speak louder than words. I will have an opportunity again in this House to discuss my concerns about DREE.
I have many more concerns about DREE policy. I am concerned about divisiveness, unfairness, the treatment afforded to certain areas, favouritism in other areas, the total ignoring of certain areas, and lack of planning. There will be opportunities to expand on those concerns, but I am serving notice that the government has an opportunity right now, if it wants to, to do something for the province of B.C. and unilaterally to introduce incentives for new business and industry. I do not say that that is the best route to take, and I do not recommend it as such, but it is a route, and it would do something for the economy of that province.
If the government is listening, the evidence should be clear in a matter of a few months. If it is not, hon. members will be hearing a lot more from me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am pleased to note that my colleagues on all sides are anxiously waiting for my remarks. I want to dwell mostly on the questions of agriculture and national transportation, and the political positions of the Liberal and Tory parties on those matters, but first I would like to say that I feel inclined to repeat some remarks I made about a year ago.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Same old speech!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Since only the members of my own caucus chose to pay any attention to them, I will have to repeat them until we can get some hon. members on the government side at least to listen.
I will have to repeat what has been said by parliamentarians at all levels of government on many occasions. Many times, on occasions such as throne speech debates, hon. members have complained not so much about what was in the throne speech but about what was not in the throne speech. I am disappointed in the throne speech debate, and that is putting it mildly. I should have said the throne speech. Of course I am disappointed in some of the debate as well. I am disappointed in the throne speech for what it leaves out. It left out some things which would have received support from all sides of the House.
There was nothing in the throne speech for old age pensioners or veterans. In fact had the government decided to implement its anti-inflation program more fairly and equitably, even a year later it would have brought in measures to make the program not only seem to be fair but also actually to be fair.
The government should have announced in the throne speech that legislation would be presented to raise old age and

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
veterans' pensions and armed forces and RCMP pensions by a minimum of $50 per month to make sure they received the minimum under the guidelines of $600 per year, but the government, some of the time with the aid and countenance of the Tories, feels that the people who cause inflation are those who are on pensions, on minimum wages, on low wages and on low salaries.
If we are to have a program to control inflation which is fair and equitable, it seems to me and to the members of the New Democratic Party that the program should start at the top and work down. However, with the usual organizational genius of the Liberal government we have a program which starts at the bottom and works up. It seems to me that the throne speech should have announced a $50 per month increase at least for old age pensioners. I thought it would have announced an intention to raise the minimum wage to $3 an hour. This would have given people a $600 a year increase which would come under the guidelines. However the government, with not a word of complaint from the Tories, let it be known that it felt it was the people on minimum wages who are causing inflation and so they should be held down.
I am proud to note, and I know the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) is happy about it as well, that the provincial government of Saskatchewan increased the minimum wage by $500-$600 a year. Now I should like to know if this government proposes to increase the minimum wage in the near future. The Liberals and the Tories seem to believe that the people on minimum wages helped cause inflation and so they have to be controlled.
I had hoped that the Speech from the Throne would mention a reduction in mortgage rates for people on middle and low incomes. If the government wanted to fight inflation and housing costs while at the same time doing something about unemployment it would have provided a substantial reduction in interest rates for low income people. This would have accelerated housing construction, which in turn would solve some of our unemployment problems. An interest rate of 6 per cent, 7 per cent, or 8 per cent for housing for low income families would have reduced the cost of housing and at the same time have increased employment.
Something that is dear to my heart, Mr. Speaker, and to the hearts of hundreds of thousands of people in western Canada is the strengthening and enlarging of the Canadian Wheat Board, but again it was not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. There was nothing about returning feed grains to the total jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board or putting flax, rye, and rapeseed under its jurisdiction.
Mir. Goodale: That was turned down in a vote by farmers.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member mentions that that was done away with. That was done with a phony stacked deck by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, believe it or not. This is demonstrated by the three questions that were

on the plebiscite. There was provision for the answer "no opinion", and the minister counted that as "against".


Ralph Goodale: There were not enough in that category to change the vote; less than 2 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can hardly wait for the hon. member for Assiniboia to get into the debate.


Ralph Goodale: 1 am in it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is in it, but under false pretences- through the back door. Mr. Speaker, that kind of phony plebiscite will never convince me and most producers in western Canada that it was the fit and proper way to get the opinion of grain producers.
Like the majority of grain producers in western Canada I should like to see an announcement in the Speech from the Throne that the government will do away with the flexible tariff for the handling and storing of grain. I was hoping for an announcement that the country elevator grain handling system owned by the grain producers in the three prairie provinces, the three prairie wheat pools, and the UGG which constitute something like 80 per cent or 95 per cent ownership of the country elevator system, would be protected from the destructive nature of inland terminals and the unconscionable activities of outfits such as Cargill Inc.
I was hoping for something about the enlargement and rebuilding of our passenger train system, but there was nothing.
As I travel through the west droves of people tell me that the Liberals have little or no support there. That is not surprising. If I were political, which I am not, 1 would be encouraged when people in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and Alberta ask me what the Tories are doing. They want to know why the Conservative Alberta government came out strongly in support of inland terminals. A fair number of farmers in the three prairie provinces who belong to the three pools of the United Grain Growers are unhappy about this. In fact in the brief submitted to the Hall Commission by the Alberta government they supported the concept of inland terminals on the basis of increased competition, improved grain handling, and further rationalization of the outdated elevator system. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Alberta wheat pool will be glad to hear that their system is out of date.
The Alberta government wants incentives for the inland terminals. But who are those incentives really for, Mr. Speaker? I know Your Honour will want to hear this, even if my friends to my right and across the way do not. One of the outfits the Tories wanted incentives for is Cargill Inc. That company has been around since about 1881-as long as the CPR, and it is just as bad.
Back in the 1870's, 1880's and 1890's Cargill in many cases controlled the only elevator at major railroad stops, and so
October 18, 1976

local farmers were often forced to accept the price they offered for their grain. Railway owners and grain elevators such as Cargill sometimes conspired to fix grain prices, and by the 1880's Cargill operated along major railway arteries in five states-North and South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Even Cargill's official historian admits that-


An hon. Member:: Stanley.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Even Stanley is not that old. Their historian admits that the company held monopolistic trading positions in southern Minnesota and South Dakota.
Let us go on about this outfit to which the Tories and the Alberta government want to give incentives. In recent years Cargill Inc. have gone into what is called in the United States "subterminals". In western Canada they are called "inland terminals". In recent years these subterminals have assumed a special role in the company's expansion. They are able to handle large volumes of grain in relatively short periods of time. These inland terminals are used by Cargill-and I want to impress this point on the hon. member for Assiniboia and my Tory friends-to bypass country elevators that are often under the control of local co-operatives. And, like other large corporations that are under monopoly capitalism, Cargill seeks to limit the commercial options available to the small producer.
I hope they go bankrupt, and I have already said that in Weyburn and Estevan. Unlike my hon. friends opposite and to my right, Mr. Speaker, on a matter such as this I do not leave my position in doubt. Their position is sometimes horizontal, sometimes vertical, and sometimes on both sides of the street at the same time.


An hon. Member:: That's Joe Clark.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Joe Clark is trying to run down the middle of the road. He is trying to take it over. Mr. Speaker, to be fair, both Liberals and Tories like something else about Cargill. 1 am talking about transportation figures which show prominently Cargill's manipulation of the domestic market. Since World War II the company, to stay one jump ahead of competitors and to extract the maximum dollar for every bushel of grain it handles, has opened a new access route along the Mississippi River by widening the channel and by-passing the city of Minneapolis. Then the company bought cargo carriers, began using inland waterways, and exerted pressure through its lobbies, which are influential. By the way, this is the ninth largest privately owned corporation in the United States, with sales in the order of $9 billion. It is hardly a case for welfare-except when you hear the Tories and Grits talking. They want to give the company incentives.
The company took the lead in pressuring the U.S. Interstate Commerce Commission to restructure railway rates and regulations so that rail transportation would be more economical for the Cargill grain company-but not for farmers. It was concerned about grain companies.
The Address-Mr. Benjamin
The company rented locomotives, cabooses and track, and hauled grain. Perhaps the CPR is willing to rent locomotives, cabooses and track to Cargill and permit it to haul grain on the track. I suppose that is one way of getting around the Crowsnest Pass rates in Canada. In any case that shows the kind of thing this outfit was able to do. Yet the Tory government in Alberta says that this outfit should get an incentive. Of course many Liberals look with benign eyes on outfits like Cargill grain company which is presently in the process of constructing inland grain terminals at Melfort, Saskatchewan, and Elm Creek, Manitoba. Wait for it-it will not be long before they are in Alberta.
Let me direct attention to other aspects of this company's operations-I am talking about the company which Conservatives want to provide with incentives. For instance Cargill Incorporated was found guilty of an illegal squeeze that pushed wheat futures up to an artificial high on the Chicago market in 1963. It was found guilty. All it got was two years' probation, for all the good that did.
Later a senate investigations subcommittee under Senator Henry Jackson discovered a few things about this outfit in 1973. For instance it discovered how grain companies reaped profits through manipulation of the government subsidy program on exports. At the time of the Russian wheat deal subsidies had soared to 47 cents a bushel. Cargill bought wheat from United States farmers and sold it to its wholly-owned affiliate in South America, Tradex-Panama. Cargill collected the subsidy when it showed proof of shipment to its affiliate. The affiliate then sold the wheat to another affiliate in Geneva, which thereupon made a final sale for $2.20 a bushel, ten cents above the American price. Senator Jackson's investigators said that as far as they could tell the wheat never left the ship on which it was originally loaded. All transactions were on paper. And this outfit to which the Tory government of Alberta wants to give incentives ripped off the United States for 57 cents a bushel.
Cargill recently appeared before a U.S. Senate foreign relations subcommittee on multinational corporations. The committee was investigating charges that grain exporting firms tried to manipulate the world grain market and acted in collusion with other large corporations to set prices paid to U.S. farmers. One charge was contained in a memo from an agriculture department attache in Europe which accused Cargill and three other major U.S. grain exporters of supplying false data to the European Economic Council in order to influence pricing decisions. The second charge was made by a North Dakota grain elevator operator who said Cargill and other grain export companies quoted him identical prices for wheat more than 90 per cent of the time. The operator called the practice collusion.
Tories and Liberals who welcome inland terminals and multinational grain handling companies like Cargill to Canada will appreciate the next example I am about to recite. It will make their free enterprise hearts happy. The United States department of agriculture, investigations division, uncovered possible short-weighing of grain at export elevators in nine

The Address-Mr. Benjamin
states, and payments of gratuities to licensed inspectors in seven. They indicated that 49 separate investigations have been conducted into market irregularities in 15 states. Those investigations turned up unexplained "overages of about eight million bushels of grain at elevators in California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington State, and Wisconsin. The term overage refers to an excess of grain in an elevator over what should be there if purchases and sales records are accurate. Large overages might reflect deliberate short-weighing of grain taken from the elevators and sold.
Interpol had been looking into outfits like Cargill which the Tories and Grits would welcome to Canada. Interpol advises that most of the grain was stolen from poor countries. Every time somebody short-weighed a shipment to those countries some children did not eat.
That shows you the kind of outfit the Grits and Tories would welcome to Canada. That is the kind of outfit the Tories say should get incentives.
The assistant attorney general in the United States, Richard Thornburgh, who is head of the justice department's criminal division, stated that civil actions are being prepared against major grain exporting firms to recover losses incurred by the U.S. government as a result of short-weighing and misgrading of U.S. financed grain for export under Food for Peace and other plans.
Cargill was recently accused of and admitted to shipping American buckwheat into Manitoba on trucking backhauls. So far they have denied any intent to use the Crow rates to ship to Vancouver. But why any reputable company would ship buckwheat to Manitoba, the one province in Canada where buckwheat is grown, is totally beyond my comprehension.
In any case I have just given the House a short resume of some of the company's dealings. I have much more to bring forward in other speeches during this session. I shall reveal more about this outfit which has entered western Canada with the aid and blessing of Liberals and Tories.
Let me now deal with some of the things not dealt with in the throne speech. The omission is understandable, both Liberals and Tories harbouring similar views on these matters. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) favours large clearing houses for grain. He agrees with the Alberta government. He says it would be more efficient to have one large house with respect to which the various companies would share the capital cost. He would allow the producer to determine with which house he would deal. The hon. member suggests that a large house would provide facilities for drying, cleaning, grading and so on.
I wish the hon. member for Moose Jaw would go to every shipping point in the three prairie provinces-it would take him a few years-every place where there is a wheat pool or United Grain Grower elevator, and explain to those farmers what they are supposed to do with the grain elevator they bought and paid for. Are they supposed to walk away and leave it sitting there? Well, the hon. member for Moose Jaw

favours larger clearing houses. That's a nice word for inland terminals-terminals owned by outfits like Cargill grain company.
Now I come to freight rates, and on this subject the Speech from the Throne says something good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I note the following sentence from the Speech from the Throne:
For this reason, changes will be introduced to the National Transportation Act to protect against unfair freight rates.
That is excellent so far as it goes; I am only sorry that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or the hon. member for Assiniboia have not risen in their places to explain what that language means.
Victor Mackie, a journalist in the Press Gallery, reports:
The intention is to charge a progressively higher rate by distance travelled.
That would rid us of an anomaly whereby it costs more to ship steel from Toronto to Regina than from Toronto to Vancouver. That is a laudable objective. It would receive the support of every member of this House, particularly those west of Thunder Bay.
The intention is to charge a progressively higher rate by distance travelled. The railways will be prevented from charging a higher rate for a shorter distance for the same commodity moved in the same direction over the same track,-
That is excellent. It is perfect. Now comes the hooker, the Otto Lang hooker.
-unless the Canadian Transport Commission grants an exemption for competitive reasons.
Those "competitive reasons" are what got us into trouble in the first place. There were reasons like the Great Northern, Union Pacific, the Panama Canal, and Japanese steel producers. It is because of those competitive reasons that many freight rates are lower from Toronto to Vancouver than from Toronto to Regina. Our Minister of Transport is going to keep that in his policy.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is he your Minister of Transport?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have news for him. There were two other objectives. The third one bothers me.
A third objective will be to eliminate those special rates which are below the amount needed to cover "basic charges," an official said. Railways will still be required to charge a rate which covers their expenses for a particular service.
That is more of the minister's user shall pay concept. I wish I had another 40 minutes to go into that. However, I will deal with it in another debate, possibly the budget debate or when the minister brings in some legislation.


Ralph Goodale: You will be impressed with the bill when you see it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If this report by Mr. Mackie is accurate, I will not be impressed by the legislation that is brought in. I hope that Mr. Mackie's informant is wrong.

We have had more on freight rates in the past two or three years than we have needed. In fact we did not need most of it. We had threats to eliminate the "at and East rates"; threats, moves, demands and proposals to increase or eliminate the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates. Some Tories think that would be all right, for example the Alberta government. With friends like that, the Tories don't need enemies. They say the same as the Minister of Transport, let the producers get the benefit of the Crowsnest rate in another way. They recognize that statutory grain rates have been beneficial in making Canadian grain producers competitive, but they want the Crow rates' benefits applied in another way. That is what the Minister of Transport said, and it aroused the ire of every producer in the western provinces.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw said there was no doubt in his mind that in order for the grain industry to remain viable the producers would have to receive the benefits of these reduced rates in some form or another. If those are not weasel words, I have not heard any. I would like the hon. member for Moose Jaw, Mr. Hugh Horner of Alberta, the Alberta government, and all other Tories of western Canada to listen to a poll conducted by the Alberta Wheat Pool. Seventy-six per cent of its respondents, members of the Alberta Wheat Pool, which constitutes an overwhelming majority of the grain producers in that province, favoured retaining the statutory Crowsnest rates for grain with, if necessary, financial assistance to the railways from the federal government. That could almost be right out of an NDP leaflet, but it is not.
Only 19 per cent were in favour of increasing freight rates on export grain, but doing it in some other way, as the hon. member for Moose Jaw and the Alberta government have said. Only 5 per cent favoured increasing freight rates on export grain to a level that is compensatory to the railways, a favourite phrase of the Minister of Transport. He thinks the railway rates should be compensatory.
In my opinion there is no difference between the position taken by the Progressive Conservative party from the position taken by the Liberal party on the issues I have raised. In fact there was a convincing occasion the other night when our amendment seeking to end the government's program to fight inflation immediately because it is unfair and inequitable, a program which the Tories themselves criticized and said should be soon ended, was defeated. We did our best to help the Tories. We took "soon" to mean something like tomorrow. However, when our amendment was voted on, the Tories were in bed with the Liberals voting to keep the Liberal program which they have criticized so loudly for the past year.
The Speech from the Throne did not contain what the people of Canada want and need. Many more items other than the one I cited have been left out. I hope that for the welfare and good order of this nation the government will bring in legislation, although not mentioned in the throne speech, to accomplish some of the objectives and programs I have illustrated. With my background regarding grain transportation and handling, the whole issue of freight rates-
The Address-Mr. Benjamin


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I thank my colleagues for their generosity. I appreciate having another minute or two to wind up what I have been saying.
The government should bring in legislation to restore feed grains to the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, announce that flax, rye, and rapeseed will be under the jurisdiction of the board, do away with flexible tariffs for grain handling, announce and implement a national marketing authority for beef and beef products. The activities of multinational grain corporations in this country should be halted. In fact I would like to put in an amendment to the immigration bill saying that they be deported. It would be a favour to this country.
There is a need for legislation to establish national transportation. For too long Liberal and Tory governments have called transcontinental passenger trains those that begin in Montreal and end in Vancouver, leaving out the Atlantic provinces. Even though Newfoundland has been part of Canada since 1949 it still is not part of the national transportation system. In fact they do not even have the same gauge track. The minister's version of revitalizing transportation is reducing it.
In addition to bringing in measures to fight inflation in a fair and equitable manner, measures should be introduced to grant decent increases in minimum wages and pensions, increases for low income families in order that they can survive inflation and not be the victims of it. If the government did this, it would draw support from all quarters of the House. It would gain the support, and even in some quarters, the approbation of the Canadian population.
They have time to mend their ways-when I say "their" I mean both the Liberals and the Tories, because there is no fundamental difference between them. Well, there is a difference. The difference is that one is in and the other is out, and they spend their time trying to change places. But there is no fundamental difference when it comes to policy.
I get tired of protestations that there is some fundamental difference between Tories and Liberals because I find they both support the same philosophies, the same institutions which have got us into our present difficulties. When speaking in Western Canada, as well as elsewhere, I lose no opportunity to illustrate with words from their own mouths how the Liberals and the Tories stand with regard to various institutions, ideals, and philosophies, showing that there is no fundamental difference between them.
I am sad that the official opposition did not see fit to support our amendment the other night. However, I am not surprised. I expected it and they did not disappoint me. One

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Anderson
can observe this pattern of behaviour over the past 110 years, and I predict that the people of Canada will see it over the next 110 years if those parties are around that long. Liberal behaviour will differ very little from that of the Tories.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me, and for the riding of Comox-Alberni, to have this opportunity of participating in this debate. Needless to say, the importance of the document we are discussing lies in the effect government policy will have on Canada and in particular on my riding, which is the playground of British Columbia.
I note the government's intent to obtain a better balance between money spent on public services and bilingualism and money spent to enable young people to learn to communicate in both languages. I trust this will be regarded by Canadians as an option, not as coercion, to strengthen the bonds of Canadian unity.
I congratulate the government on making funds available for young people to travel throughout Canada so as to understand better the various regions which make up our nation, because there is no more diverse country in the world than Canada, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, from Baffin Island in the Arctic to the 49th parallel. Canada is composed of a variety of regions. Perhaps the wonder is that in the 110 years since Confederation these regions have managed to stay together. I am sure this parliament would not want to be the parliament which witnessed the break-up of this unity.
Surely it is in the interests of Canada to strive for racial and for language harmony, knowing full well the consequences of intolerance and failure. 1 strongly fear that if intolerance becomes the accepted philosophy of the Canadian people, other minority groups such as the Chinese, the people of the Jewish religion, or East Indians, could become the targets of tomorrow. To my colleagues in Western Canada and in all parties in this House I appeal for leadership to preserve one Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There must be bonds of understanding. Surely this needs to be our goal.
I have a great fear when I receive letters from my riding such as the following:
The time for liberation of western Canada will come. The federal political parties will only hasten the process by denying us honest representation. The flag of Canada has become the representation of a curse that hovers over western Canada. I personally reject it and now await another flag and government that will show us the path of honest representation and dignity.
Yours truly,
Freedom and dignity for Western Canada


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Is that letter signed?


Hugh Alan Anderson: Yes, the letter is signed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Might we have the name? The writer deserves to have it made public.


Hugh Alan Anderson: The hon. member who spoke before me made reference to the DREE situation in British Columbia. I should like to point out to him that the province of British Columbia

has designated certain parts of the province to come under the DREE program. As the member of parliament for Comox-Alberni I must say I would welcome DREE funds into my riding even though, in all honesty, I have to tell the House that Port Alberni, for example, enjoys the third or fourth highest per capita income in all of Canada. However, there are parts of the riding which could use these funds, areas where the natural resources in the way of lumber, minerals and so on, are limited.
It is not people like myself who designate where the DREE money is to go. It is British Columbia in agreement with the federal government, and the federal government has undertaken to go into North Vancouver Island by arrangement with the province. This was not forthcoming under the previous provincial government but we are hoping that under the new government, elected in December, 1975, some recognition will be given to the difficulties of the northern part of Vancouver Island.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was going to mention a third point that the hon. member from the Koote-nays did not mention in regard to DREE funding in the province of British Columbia. One problem is that in setting up new industries in British Columbia we find our labour rates are such that they tend to make these companies non-competitive not only in Canadian markets but also in world markets. If we are properly to utilize DREE money within the province, I think we should utilize it in a more progressive manner by funding small communities where, due to their size, there is not the capacity for putting in water or sewage treatment plants. DREE money could be used within the province in this way, not perhaps in the industrial sense but in the community sense.
I should like to refer to two examples of where this money may be used, namely, in the Tofino-Ucluelet area of Vancouver Island. These two communities are adjacent to Pacific Rim National Park. As the result of the establishment of Pacific Rim National Park the two communities of Tofino and Uclue-let have the very onerous responsibility placed upon them, not of their own choice, of providing sewage and water facilities for over 300,000 tourists per year who visit the Tofino-Ucluelet area and nearby Pacific Rim National Park.
So far as the Speech from the Throne is concerned, I applaud the government's initiative in attempting to improve labour-management relations as an essential pre-condition to economic stability. As a member of parliament from British Columbia it has become more and more apparent that better mechanisms for settling disputes are required. It is in the
October 18, 1976

interests of both labour and management to settle disputes not in an adversary manner but in a spirit of co-operation.
It is a very sad fact-I trust the official opposition are aware of this-that in 1975 Canada had the worst record for lost productivity due to strikes of any western industrialized nation. In 1974 Italy had a worse record than Canada; however, we now have the most dubious distinction of having a worse record than Italy.
Greater participation by workers in decision making, a collective bargaining information centre, a national institution to improve the quality of life in the work place, are a small beginning. From a personal point of view I believe that profit sharing by employees is an invaluable tool to demonstrate that a company making a profit is in the best interests of the employee.
I should like to comment on the word "profit" for a minute because I know that in some parts of the House that word is a very dirty and misleading one. I submit that without profit there is not the money to generate new plants or provide for modernization of equipment. I would hope that responsible members of the House would not direct attacks on companies which generate profits because without those profits there will not be jobs for our children and the children who follow.
The government is aware of the need for careful conservation of vital energy resources to protect the public interest. New sources of energy, both renewable and non-renewable, must be explored, and further emphasis must be placed on research and development. Canada is richly blessed in coal resources. We are aware that during World War II the Third Reich perfected the extraction of petroleum products from coal. To my knowledge we have ignored massive research funds to utilize our coal resources in Canada. I believe it is the responsibility of the Government of Canada and of the provincial governments, as well as of industry, to direct their expertise in this direction.
We are self-sufficient in coal. We know the vast potential of the resource. Now is the time to ensure that the full potential of this resource is utilized for the benefit of all Canadians. As time goes on perhaps we should consider not only building a pipeline from the McKenzie Delta but also a pipeline for the movement of coal from one part of Canada to another. I consider that basically we have not utilized, or put sufficient money into research in respect of these resources. Canada is one of the richest countries in the world in respect of coal resources. I hope the minister will take cognizance of this fact. I trust that as we review the estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce additional funds will be made available for the study of our coal resources and their potential use for Canada.
I approve also of the government's decision to conserve the food resources of the sea with a proclamation on January 1 regarding Canadian jurisdiction over waters within 200 miles of our coastline. This is the first step to aquaculture, the farming of the resources of the sea. We know that the ocean is
The Address-Mr. Anderson
the last frontier for future protein. We know that arable land is reaching the point of maximum utilization. We know that world population will double in the next 50 years. We also must know that management of the sea resources must be achieved if we are to exist.
With the 200-mile limit Canada is taking the first step to manage the resources of the sea. Responsibility for this vast new area also causes obligations. The Government of Canada must immediately state its priorities for search and rescue. Too long have we divided this responsibility among various government departments, with the result that no clear authority rests with a single administration. Ships capable of patrolling large areas of the ocean for extended periods of time must be constructed immediately. These ships must have helicopter capability. A coast guard academy should be established on the west coast to train sailors for west coast conditions. The Canadian coast guard, through the Department of National Defence, or independently, should be charged with enforcing, control of smuggling, excise, search and rescue, as well as water surveillance of our 200-mile economic zone. Failure to do this will doom any advantages in obtaining the 200-mile limit.
The Department of Fisheries must, in addition to salmon enhancement, be prepared to increase substantially its research programs in ocean biology. Sovereignty must be accompanied by utilization of the living resources of the Canadian coastline. We are not in a position to do this on January 1. Utilization of stocks not used at the present time must occur in the future. New markets must be sought and processing must take place in Canada. These are some responsibilities facing the Government of Canada.
During the first session of this parliament two bills reached committee stage and were due for third reading, Bill C-61, the Maritime Code Act, and Bill C-83, the peace and security legislation. I trust the two ministers involved will re-introduce their legislation as soon as possible. Bill C-61 makes the first tentative step to assert Canadian sovereignty over marine activity on Canada's coasts. Canadian coastal shipping must be encouraged if we are to develop a Canadian merchant marine.
Bill C-83, the peace and security legislation, has many important clauses to ensure added protection for the law-abiding Canadian citizen. The changes regarding habitual and dangerous offenders, earned remissions for prisoners, wiretapping, organized crime, and gun controls are all attempts to provide security for Canadian citizens. I believe Canadian citizens view with apprehension kidnapping, rape, hijackings, armed robberies, and all crimes of violence. Those who transgress the laws, especially in a violent manner, must do so with the knowledge that the law will be administered harshly.


An hon. Member:: What about capital punishment?


Hugh Alan Anderson: A deterrent is required, and where the deterrent is not successful, dangerous offenders must remain incarcerated until such time as no reasonable doubt remains as to their danger in inflicting future violence on society.

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. MacLean
An hon. member across the aisle asked "What about capital punishment?" The hon. member is aware that I voted for the retention of capital punishment. I also supported Bill C-83 for the same reason, that is, that it contains deterrents. There are increased terms for those who use guns during the commission of a crime. I think it follows that one who believes there is a deterrent in capital punishment would also believe there are deterrents under Bill C-83.
One area of grave concern to me is not that we have too few safeguards to the law-abiding citizens but that the laws we have on the books are not being enforced. We in this House are aware that on October 14 many trade unionists ignored legal contracts and ignored provincial laws. Some members of the House, if not actively encouraging this action, expressed total and complete compliance with these illegal acts. Most Canadians are law abiding but I sense a feeling of frustration when certain groups in our society deliberately flout the laws of our country with impunity.
Are we not encouraging non-compliance with the law if we do nothing when illegal acts take place? If a pressure group has a grievance, real or otherwise, does the breaking of laws duly passed make them assume legality? Are we encouraging people to take the law into their own hands? If so, I believe we are doing the country a disfavour. Whether the law is federal or provincial I believe governments must ensure that those who take the law into their own hands must accept the responsibility for their actions. No; you cannot barricade public roads; you cannot condone illegal strikes, nor can you allow incarcerated prisoners to dictate to custodians how prisons will be managed. Dangerous precedents are being set if Canadians perceive that laws can be broken with impunity, without retribution.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there are many positive aspects of the Speech from the Throne. One which I have supported is an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan which would further recognize the value of the contribution made to the family and Canadian life in general, by both marriage partners, while one remains at home to raise children when the other works. Recent judicial decisions have emphasized the contribution the wife makes to the financial success of a marriage and I would trust priority would be given to changes in the Canada Pension Plan by this government. Why not?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: -it is obvious that this occasion is non-partisan. Therefore in my remarks I will try to follow the trend that has been set.
My first words are to express my appreciation to colleagues in my party who have stood aside to give me the opportunity to speak on this occasion. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it must be obvious to anyone that when our whip asks someone to step aside, that person has no other choice but to do so. Since I

was given that privilege, I discovered by accident that it was 25 years ago, to the day, that I made my maiden speech in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: It is a heartwarming coincidence for me that I made my first speech on October 18, 1951, having been first elected to this august Chamber on June 25 of that year, together with my desk mate, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I have seen many changes since then. The most immediate one, of course, is the change in the membership of the House of Commons. The only members who have been returned in successive elections since my deskmate and I were first elected in 1951 are ourselves and my former desk-mate, the Right Hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: There are others, of course, such as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and, I think, maybe the leader of the Creditiste party, who perhaps have served longer terms in the House of Commons than I have, but not continuously.
I would like to speak now of other changes than those among my immediate circle of friends, and I speak to you all as friends because in this institution we make friendships that are life long, across party lines as well as within them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I want to speak now for a few moments of other changes I have seen, some of which I am happy with, and some of which make me less happy.
One of the changes that I have seen over the last 25 years is the rapid urbanization of our country. I realize that this urbanization is not necessarily due to the vital growth of urban centres but also represents, on the other side of the scale, a hemorrhage of the life's blood of the small towns in rural Canada.
I regret that our development as a country has been so uneven. Over the last 25 years there has been a lusty but sometimes malignant growth of our urban centres, especially of areas based on the rapid exploitation of non-renewable resources. It is obvious, of course, that a civilization, a culture, or an economy based on non-renewable resources is, by definition, non-renewable itself. I regret the prodigal squandering of our natural resources which should be the precious capital of a civilization as long as it lasts, for a continuing civilization and culture must be based on renewable resources to be renewable themselves.
Of course I am probably biased in this matter because by birth and a long life of experience I am a country man, vividly
October 18, 1976

aware of the fact that we as humans are part of the web of life and that, if we forget that fact, we forget it at our peril.
I believe that this uneven development of our country is not entirely unavoidable or inevitable. Much of it has been caused by bias, often unconscious bias, in the whole apparatus of government at every level, based on the false premise that was instilled perhaps 40 or 50 years ago but which is no longer valid, namely, that the good life can be obtained only in an urban setting. Experience has proved the opposite to be true.
There was a time some decades ago when modern conveniences, modern communications and so on, were the prerogatives of the urban area, but that is no longer true. Technology has advanced to the point where those who live in rural Canada can enjoy all the modern conveniences, if they can afford them, that the urban dweller can, and have the joy and benefit and recreational facilities-and I mean recreational in the best sense of the word-and the experience, of living in the country. I believe that the highest and best quality of life is achievable more easily in rural Canada and in the small towns than it is in the large urban centres.
I do not think it is inevitable that modern technology forces us to the large urban conglomeration of society. This has come about, I think, because of a worship of giantism and an over selling of the benefits of large scale. In the process the human element has been lost, and I do not think it is good that that should be the case. I have from time to time been talking along this line over 25 years and, as far as I can tell, nobody has been listening, but as I said, I found by accident that I made my maiden speech in this Chamber exactly 25 years ago today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: Perhaps I could be pardoned if I read a small quotation from it. As reported in Hansard of October 18, 1951, in the debate on the throne speech of that year I said on that occasion:
I maintain that if industry were brought to the outlying sections of our country the economy of the country would be improved, as would the social life in those areas. I would say too that children brought up in small towns and villages and in the country have an advantage over those brought up in the larger cities, who must live among the flashing lights and the ringing bells. The child of the modern city must feel something like a ball in a pin-ball machine. On the other hand a child living in the country either consciously or unconsciously comes to recognize that he is part of God's creation, a fact that stands him in good stead in later years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I recently made a speech along these lines in a different setting, and one of my friends congratulated me on the profound impression the book entitled "Small is Beautiful" had had on my thinking. The book is by E. F. Schumacher, and I had to confess to him that I not only never read the book but, up to that point, I had scarcely heard of it, and that I had been talking along these lines for 25 years. I suppose it is too much to expect or hope that Mr. Schumacher, the author of the book, had been reading some of my speeches.


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


John Angus MacLean: However, I do not agree with the theory that over urbanization is inevitable or that the use in a prodigal way of non renewable resources to fuel that kind of industry is justified. I will do Mr. Schumacher the honour of quoting from his book in this connection:
First of all, and most obviously, there are the fossil fuels. No one, I am sure, will deny that we are treating them as income items although they are undeniably capital items. If we treated them as capital items, we should be concerned with conservation; we should do everything in our power to try and minimise their current rate of use; we might be saying, for instance, that the money obtained from the realisation of these assets-these irreplaceable assets-must be placed into a special fund to be devoted exclusively to the evolution of production methods and patterns of living which do not depend on fossil fuels at all or depend on them only to a very slight extent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: In my humble opinion we have to develop a way of life ever conscious that we are ourselves part of the web of life and that we cannot escape that fact. I would like again to quote from Mr. Schumacher's book, "Small is Beautiful":
While many theoreticians-who may not be too closely in touch with real life- are still engaging in the idolatory of large size, with practical people in the actual world there is a tremendous longing and striving to profit, if at all possible, from the convenience, humanity, and manageability of smallness. This, also, is a tendency which anyone can easily observe for himself.
Today we suffer from the almost universal idolatory of giantism. It is therefore necessary to insist on the virtue of smallness. In my view small is beautiful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I might digress here for a moment and deal with government experts. I have no objection to civil servants as individuals, but I think it is unrealistic for us as a country to take a person from perhaps the age of four, put him into a publicly supported kindergarten, put him through school and high school, which are funded publicly to a large extent, then through university and perhaps to a PhD degree, with a large contribution for that education from the public taxpayer, and then immediately make him a civil servant to direct us and to tell us what is best for us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I would like to see the day when one of the requirements to be a civil servant will be to have lived in real society for at least five years. Under the circumstances as they apply to us now, I believe to our disadvantage, we as a legislative body have been overawed unjustly by the governmental expert who is supposed to know what is best for the Canadian people.
I take second place to no one, regardless of his education or his qualifications, who is set up by his own peers, as to who is best qualified to say what is best for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: We as commoners should be more ready to assert our superiority over the technical advice given us by

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. MacLean
people who are supposed to be more greatly qualified and therefore in a better position to say in what direction our nation should go. After all, we should not break faith with the people we represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: We suffer from an almost universal idolatry of giantism. It is therefore necessary to insist upon the virtues of smallness. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote briefly once more from the book "Small is Beautiful" at page 63 as follows:
Take the question of size of a city. While one cannot judge these things with precision, I think it is fairly safe to say that the upper limit of what is desirable for the size of a city is probably something of the order of half a million inhabitants. It is quite clear that above such a size nothing is added to the virtue of the city. In places like London, or Tokyo, or New York the millions do not add to the city's real value but merely create enormous problems and produce human degradation.
At page 66 it goes on to say:
As an illustration, let me take the case of Peru. The capital city, Lima, situated on the Pacific coast, had a population of 175,000 in the early 1920s, just 50 years ago. Its population is now approaching three million. The once beautiful Spanish city is now infested by slums, surrounded by misery-belts that are crawling up the Andes. But this is not all. People are arriving from the rural areas at the rate of a thousand a day-and nobody knows what to do with them. The social or psychological structure of life in the hinterland has collapsed.
This is where I quarrel with governments; not only this government-this is completely non-partisan-but every government in recent years. Due to the advice they have been getting they have not given enough concern or interest to rural and smalltown Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: Any government that suggests such a thing of course has its suggestions turned aside by the argument that urbanization is inevitable and automatic; that we will have most of our population living in large urban centres in a very few years. They say it is true because of technology. Well, Mr. Speaker, we should not be slaves to technology-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: On the other hand we should make technology our servant, give technology a human face.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I think it is false for us to assume that all the values of life can be measured in dollars and cents, or in economists' graphs. There are other things in life that are more important, that are equally important. The material side of life is only a prerequisite to enjoying life. 1 will quote again from page 70 of Mr. Schumacher's book as follows:
The conventional wisdom of what is now taught as economics by-passes the poor, the very people for whom development is really needed. The economics of giantism and automation is a left-over of nineteenth century conditions and nineteenth century thinking and it is totally incapable of solving any of the real problems of today. An entirely new system of thought is needed, a system based on attention to people, not primarily attention to goods-the goods will look after themselves! It could be summed up in the phrase, "production by the
[Mr. MacLean.)
masses, rather than mass production". What was impossible, however, in the nineteenth century, is possible now. And what was in fact-if not necessarily at least understandably-neglected in the nineteenth century in unbelievably urgent now. That is, the conscious utilization of our enormous technological and scentific potential for the fight against misery and human degradation-a fight in intimate contact with actual people, with individuals, families, small groups, rather than states and other anonymous abstractions. And this presupposes a political and organizational structure that can provide this intimacy.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that one of the greatest mistakes economists ever made is that they treated agriculture and our soil as just another economic value. It is more than that. Agriculture is more than an industry. Any nation that over urbanizes and neglects its soil, and has a large percentage of its people unconscious of the fact that they are part of the web of life, is in for trouble.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: It may be a coincidence but the facts of history show that when civilizations became highly urbanized they collapsed. That may be coincidental but it is a provable fact that when civilizations neglected their soil and forgot they were part of the web of life, that humanity itself is part of the biosphere of this little planet, collapse was certain.
I should like to say it is a historic fact that when civilizations neglected their soil and treated it as if agriculture were merely an industry, without exception they collapsed and disappeared. Again quoting from Schumacher at page 95:
Man, whether civilized or savage, is a child of nature-he is not the master of nature. He must conform his actions to certain natural laws if he is to maintain his dominance over his environment. When he tries to circumvent the laws of nature, he usually destroys the natural environment that sustains him. And when his environment deteriorates rapidly, his civilization declines.
The soil is a producer, directly or indirectly, of virtually all our renewable resources. Humanity depends upon that fact because we are part of the web of life. We should take a wider view of agriculture and not treat it as just another industry.
At page 105 of his book Mr. Schumacher writes:
On a wider wiew, however, the land is seen as a priceless asset which it is man's task and happiness "to dress and to keep". We can say that man's management of the land must be primarily orientated toward three goals- health, beauty and permanence. The fourth goal-the only one accepted by the experts-productivity, will then be attained almost as a by-product. The crude materialist view sees agriculture as essentially directed toward food-production'.
A wider view sees agriculture as having to fulfil at least three tasks:
-to keep man in touch with living nature, of which he is and remains a highly
vulnerable part;
-to humanize and ennoble man's wider habitat; and
-to bring forth the foodstuffs and other materials which are needed for a
becoming life.
I am almost finished, Mr. Speaker. I cannot close without referring to my home province, Prince Edward Island. It was proud to be called a million acre farm. However, in the last few decades it has suffered as much as, if not more than, any other province from government policies which favoured giantism, industrialization, and the exploitation of non-renewable resources. Such policies were "in". Saskatchewan probably suffered as much as Prince Edward Island from such policies,
October 18, 1976

until non-renewable resources like potash and oil were exploited in the province. Speaking as a Prince Edward Islander, 1 make no apology for the difficult times we have gone through as a province. I only regret that the resources supplied to my province by well meaning but ineffectual organizations such as DREE weve not administered in a way which will leave lasting benefits.
In Prince Edward Island our main resource is the soil; our second resource is the sea. We are in a highly favoured position since, in the long run, our resources are renewable. If we husband our resources wisely, if we are prepared to take the long view instead of acting according to expediency, we in Prince Edward Island will prosper as a living civilization, and areas which depend on non-renewable resources will look to us for help, rather than the other way around.
In closing may I say that, for me, the past 25 years are an experience I would not have missed for anything. On the other hand it is apparent that the sacrifice the member of parliament makes is not appreciated by the public at large. I do not know the reason for this. Perhaps it is the distorted image of this institution held up to the public of Canada by the media. Whatever the reason, the public ought to know that, generally speaking, members of any party make a great sacrifice when they agree to serve in this House. Usually they sacrifice the most productive periods of their lives in order to serve the best interests of Canadians, as they see them. But the public does not, generally, appreciate this.
I want to see the day when the public recognizes the sacrifice of those who stand for parliament. In every constituency several candidates present themselves for election to parliament. They are selected by our parties on the basis of character and standing. Our parties try to bring the best people forward. Out of three or four candidates only one is elected. If one were to be cynical, one could say that the elected one is the unlucky one. Usually he is in the most productive period of his life, which means he, or she, may sacrifice, for the sake of serving a few years, the opportunity for security. I include the families of members in my remarks, and I want to pay special tribute to the wives and families of members of parliament who accept, without reservation, the necessary sacrifices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: Such families become, in effect, one-parent families, because the father must serve in this Chamber perhaps ten months of the year.


An hon. Member:: Or the mother.


John Angus MacLean: Or the mother, as the case may be.
Having said that, I plan to leave this place tomorrow, of course with many regrets. I remember the friendships I have made here over the years. I hope I shall have the opportunity to come back to visit my friends on the Hill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Hon. J. C. Munro


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) and join with all members of the House in congratulating him on a graceful, thoughtful speech which exemplifies the man himself to all his friends and admirers in this Chamber and country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I have been a member of this House since 1962. During these past years I always found the hon. member kind and thoughtful, and most helpful to all members when they first present themselves in this House. Never can I recall his doing anything shabby, mean, or disappointing, so I join my colleagues in wishing him the best in every endeavour he may pursue-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: -except one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: In the remaining moments I wish to outline what the government has in mind with respect to one of its major priorities as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. That is the very important area in our industrial relations system and how we hope to improve it.
I might indicate that what we have here is a 16 point program to improve our industrial relations system. Much of it is predicated on one underlying precondition, that is, that it involves discussion and co-operation between the government, labour and the business community. It involves implicitly the necessity for the acceptance of the labour movement as a legitimate body in this country for the purpose of consulting and for involvement in decision making in the country. It means not only should labour be accepted on an equal footing with the business community in Canada, but it is an absolute essential if we are to arrive at meaningful accommodations in terms of the realization of many of the points I am going to discuss.
As I indicated, all the proposals require the co-operation of labour and management. We intend to consult with labour and management and, in some cases, the provinces, in order to develop the necessary consensus which we will need. When these proposals are translated into legislation and programs, I hope with the full support and co-operation of labour and management, we will have gone a long way toward improving the climate and the performance of labour-management relations in Canada.
The government's proposals attack the problems on three fronts. First, we want to amend and improve the structure and process of labour-management relations. Second, we want to deal with substantive issues to improve the work environment. And third, we want to remove the contentious issues, to the greatest extent possible, from the bargaining table. I would like to deal with each of these areas in some detail.
190

October 18, 1976
The Address-Hon. J. C. Munro
Dealing with the structure and the process of labour-management relations, the first point of the 16 point program would be the constitution of a multipartite forum for consultation.
An essential step toward a more responsive and responsible industrial relations system is the development of a multi-partite forum for consultation and the exchange of information on the broad issues of social and economic concern. Such a forum would bring together representatives of government, labour, business, the farm community, consumers, possibly others. We do not favour a body with the wide-sweeping powers which has been advocated tentatively by the Canadian Labour Congress. The body proposed by the Congress would purport to manage all or major parts of the economy and would require a significant delegation of power by parliament, and this we are not prepared to do.
The multi-partite body we are proposing would provide decision-makers in the industrial relations field with the background information they need for making decisions that are in their own interest and in the public interest. Under the umbrella of such a national body we propose there would be a tripartite consultative body to deal specifically with labour-management relations.
It should be quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that in pursuing the course the government is recommending to parliament we want the involvement and whole-hearted support of labour and management.
Second, we are proposing the establishment of a collective bargaining information centre. The need for such a centre was recognized by labour and by management at the first meeting of the Canada Labour Relations Council in July, 1975. Both parties recognized the need for a centre where they could turn for information on the economy and the various bargaining issues which was acceptable to both parties. Members on all sides of the House will agree, I am sure, that a collective bargaining data centre of this kind would go a long way toward removing some of the worst adversarial aspects of the collective bargaining system.
Considerable quantities of economic data are now available from various government and private sources. This is not the problem. The problem is that much of this information is unsuitable for collective bargaining. In our discussions at the Canada Labour Relations Council it was agreed there should be a single agency which would pull together these data and make them relevant and available to both parties. The government believes that the availability of such information, comprehensive and up-to-date, would improve the attitudes of the parties and would make them aware of what the economy can bear.
The kind of centre we have in mind would not duplicate existing data collection functions. It would act as a clearing house. It would encourage existing agencies to make their output more relevant and useful to the collective bargaining process. It would include information on rates of pay, employee earnings, conditions of employment, and fringe benefits. It would provide information on the state of the economy

and the state of individual industries, including comparisons with other countries, particularly Canada's major partners. It would operate under the direction of a tripartite advisory board consisting of representatives of labour, management, and government. Its data would be available to the public.
Third, another change the government would like to encourage is to provide for greater worker participation at the plant level. To be quite frank about it, the umbrella organization, the national consultative council we are proposing, might not be seen as having much relevance to the worker on the shop floor. The consultative bodies would be more relevant to the senior labour leadership and to management. But there are important structural changes which could have immediate import for men and women workers at the production level.
We will work closely with Crown corporations to promote the introduction of worker participation at various levels of the enterprise. There are three such areas the government wants to pursue. One is an institute for occupational health and safety. The second is measures to improve opportunities for labour education. The third is worker education.
The fourth element is the constitution of an occupational health and safety institute. There can be no significant and lasting improvement in industrial relations as long as workers, in any place and in any industry, feel there is insufficient concern for their health and safety, or as long as health and safety hazards which can be identified are allowed to continue. The labour movement is concerned about this issue. Several of the provinces have introduced legislation and committed themselves to programs. We must move forward in co-operation with the provinces.
There is a demonstrated need for a national code; there is a need for the testing of potentially dangerous substances and conditions and industrial processes; and there is a need for a technical advisory service to workers, trade unions, employers, government and agencies, and the public. I anticipate full multipartite and provincial involvement in the development and operation of an occupational health and safety institute.
The fifth point deals with paid educational leave. In the field of education the government wants to explore the opportunities for individual workers and the opportunities for trade unions.
The opportunities for paid educational leave relate to the desire of workers to improve themselves in their jobs, or to develop their skills, or to prepare themselves for new careers. The concept is related to the need for worker sabbaticals so that they can regenerate themselves and prepare themselves for new opportunities in a flexible working life. Paid leave is now more or less a luxury which is afforded to some professional workers, notably teachers and doctors. The government believes that Canadian workers in all categories want to discover new career choices, and that Canada would be better off is we were to help make it possible. Therefore the government plans to undertake a fact-finding exercise which would discover present practice in Canada and other countries and attempt to assess the possible impact of educational leave on unemployment strategies and the relationship of educational leave to a flexible working life.

The sixth point deals with labour education. In the other area, labour education, the government recognizes the need for programs which would assist labour leaders and potential labour leaders to acquire a more comprehensive knowledge of the structure, goals, policies and responsibilities of the labour movement in the social and economic context of Canada. Canada is well-equipped with, and well-served by, university and private institutions for the development of managers and management skills. But we have paid only minor attention to the development of trade union leadership. There is a whole new generation of workers who have no knowledge of the contributions which have been made by the labour movement to the development of Canadian democracy, and who have no access to institutions which could help them develop collective bargaining skills. The government will be seeking the approval of the House for programs which will provide support to individual workers and to labour and educational organizations.
I would now like to deal with the second element of the government's proposals-improving the work environment. We are proposing many innovations in this area. I do not anticipate that I will have sufficient time today to give all the detail that hon. members will want, but there will be other opportunities during the debate and following.
I have already spoken of the need for a national code for occupational health and safety. The government is proposing a program to increase worker participation in determining the working conditions that affect the work environment. We propose that this could be achieved, in part, through the establishment and promotion of joint safety and health committees in the shop, under federal jurisdiction. The establishment of committees on a plant-by-plant basis would provide a means for sharing the responsibility for health and safety between labour and management. They would provide a recognized role for employees in the decision-making related to safety and health matters.
I think that hon. members will appreciate the potential for such committees. Besides their concern for health and safety, they would improve communications in the workplace, and given the co-operation and good will which I anticipate will be developed, they could be extended to other work processes and conditions.
Another area for improving the working environment is the area of basic minimum standards. A major irritant to good labour relations in any workplace is unjust dismissal. Organized labour has developed a code of practice in collective bargaining which provides for the protection of worker rights through a grievance procedure. The government proposes to extend to all employees in the federal jurisdiction the right of grievance against alleged unjust dismissal. This would not infringe on the right of dismissal for misconduct, incompetency or incapacity, and it would not impede lay-offs on a non-discriminatory basis when work is not available. The proposed procedure would include filing of a complaint and
The Address-Hon. J. C. Munro conciliation of the complaint by an officer of the Department of Labour or by arbitration where the departmental officer was unable to reach a satisfactory conclusion.
In addition to cases of dismissal without just cause, we would like to protect unorganized workers in other areas, including standards on hours of work, paid annual leave and wage protection. We are prepared to give consideration to proposals on flexible hours of work and we would like to move ahead with new proposals for wage protection, sick leave, bereavement leave, reporting pay and layoff and recall procedures. In order to update standards according to current needs and conditions, we will be asking the House to permit the improvement of standards through regulation, rather than submitting each proposal for amendment to the legislative process.
Closely related to the government's intention to improve the working environment through the upgrading of minimum standards is our proposal for developing a normative and voluntary code of good industrial relations practices. Such a code would provide employers and employees with a manual of good practices in all personnel-related issues. A move in this direction would help to reduce the divergence of views towards recurring labour-management issues. My department believes that the adoption of such a code in the United Kingdom was an important element in the acceptance of the social contract between government, labour and management in that country. Such a code could emerge out of the tripartite consultations which we want to resume in the very near future.
I have referred to paid education leave and support for labour education as initiatives for restructuring labour-management relations in this country. Paid education leave could also make a significant contribution to improving the working environment. This proposal originated in a convention of the International Labour Organization and it has the full backing of the Canadian Labour Congress.
The government has proposed the establishment of a national institution to improve the quality of life in the workplace. I will be perfectly candid and say that the concept of "quality of working life" is neither clear nor easily defined. But we do know that European experiments in industrial democracy and North American experiments in the humanization of work tend to show there is one factor which is common to all successful attempts to improve working conditions while maintaining and improving productivity. That common element is worker participation. What we are proposing to do is to study the full range of participatory mechanisms and promote their implementation in the private and public sectors, unionized or otherwise, in the federal and provincial jurisdictions.
We recognize some serious problem areas. Trade unions have been hesitant to participate in experiments in the reorganization work, particularly if the experiment poses a threat to collective bargaining. Management has been hesitant about any change that threatens its right to organize and assign work in the enterprise. These sources of disapproval have not been insurmountable elsewhere, and I anticipate a willingness on the part of both labour and management to join in a tripartite
80001 -1314

The Address-Hon. J. C. Munro
study of this whole question. The successful implementation of any proposals in this area will involve the federal and provincial governments, and the provinces will be willing partners. This is to be a national effort.
While I would not want to anticipate the direction which labour, management and the provinces would want to take, I think it is conceivable that we would want to start with the collection and distribution of data on experiments that have been conducted in Canada and elsewhere for the improvement of the quality of working life-we would include the monitoring of experiments in the field, we would include lectures, seminars and workshops on methods and problems, and we would establish technical and consulting services on the whole area of quality of working life. I would anticipate that the program would be administered by the Department of Labour, and the department would seek the advice of a multi partite committee including the provinces in determining priorities and co-ordinating programs.
Another of the substantive issues in the workplace is the pension and retirement issue. This has become a significant source of friction in labour-management relations. An interdepartmental task force is currently studying the relationship of private to public plans and the adequacy of coverage and benefits. The Department of Labour will be assessing the information that will be developed over the next three or four months.
I should like to move on now to the third major element of the proposals which has to do with the improvement of the collective bargaining process. The thirteenth point of the program in this area concerns the initiative toward broader-based bargaining. One of the first changes we wish to make is an improvement in this direction especially in some of the major federal services. I am thinking, by way of example, of the airline industry. A move in the direction of coalition bargaining would help avoid the kind of sequential shutdowns we have experienced in the past in this important public service. The Department of Labour has examined the collective bargaining process in this area and is now ready to initiate discussions with Treasury Board and the Public Service Staff Relations Board. We intend to propose that the parties concerned consider some form of voluntary coalition for bargaining purposes, but should this approach not succeed the government may wish to consider amendments to the legislation.
Many of our proposals are intended to diminish the adversary element in the collective bargaining process, but it is unrealistic to believe that the adversary element will disappear. It is an essential part of bargaining. What we want to continue doing, and do even better than in the past, is to provide for third party assistance in the resolution of labour-management disputes.
In conclusion I might mention our proposal for the improved training of conciliators and mediators. We are putting more resources into this area as a matter of urgency. It is considered also that the training available to conciliators and mediators ought to be improved and plans have been prepared accordingly. This would, of course, involve getting together with the

provinces and making more resources available for the purpose. I might add that amendments to Part V of the Labour Code would provide a much better system for the resolution of many of the factors which cause delays in the processing of grievances. Those are some of the main elements and I would welcome any further discussion or information that my colleagues in the House might desire with regard to this particular program.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, before I speak tonight I think I could render the House a service by bringing hon. members up to date on some very important events which took place today. First of all I will give hon. members the latest results in the Ottawa-Carleton byelection. With 300 of 422 polls heard from, the Conservative candidate has 21,685 votes, the Liberal candidate has 12,003, and the NDP candidate has 8,059 votes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: The communications are not quite so good from Newfoundland but it has come through officially that the Conservative candidate has been declared the winner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: The NDP candidate has come second. I might say that that is the first time that an NDP candidate has made any showing in this area whatsoever. Third candidate by a long way is the Liberal candidate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have just been given more recent results and I know hon. gentlemen opposite want to hear them. In Ottawa-Carleton with 322 polls heard from, the Conservative candidate now has 23,612 votes, the Liberal candidate has 12,979 and the NDP candidate 8,748. So we sing:
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday to you,
Happy birthday dear Pierre,
Happy birthday to you!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would not want to complicate the job of the interpreters so I would hope that he would return to his text.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I assure hon. members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of State is rising on a point of order.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I was delighted to hear the "happy birthday" of the hon. gentleman from Prince Edward-Hastings, and since it is my birthday too I will take it as a great honour from him because there will be another woman in the House. We on this side will

welcome her because we know that she is going to put a lot of fire under some of the old wood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the fact that the hon. member repeated the figures for Ottawa-Carleton, for the benefit of those who came in late would he not also repeat the figures for St. John's West?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that I have been asked that question, because in Newfoundland the results are as follows-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Denis is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would not want to spoil the celebration of the hon. gentlemen opposite, but I hope that the hon. member will remember what one Mr. St. Laurent, a great Prime Minister, used to say, that he would rather win a general election than win a by-election.


George Harris Hees: Well, we just take it election by election. First of all we win the by-elections and then we win the general election. As my colleagues around me point out, it is obviously a great night for the nobodies. The latest results from Newfoundland are as follows: Crosbie, Conservative, 9,939; Mayo, NDP, 7,152; Innes, Liberal, 3,755.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having dealt with the really important matters this evening 1 Will just speak very briefly on what led to these electoral disasters on the part of the government. At the end of the two day meeting of the Liberal members of parliament on September 8 and 9 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was asked by the press what assessment he had made as to why the popularity of the government had sunk so low. He gave one reason and one reason only. He said it was simply because of the people's disenchantment with the antiinflation program which he said, to use his own words, was "trampling on people's expectations".
In making such a reply the Prime Minister either had not listened to his members of parliament or, if he had, he had paid no attention to what they said, because the Prime Minister heard from his constituents, Liberal members heard from theirs, and we heard from ours exactly the same story, and that was that the people are becoming increasingly disenchanted with this government for two main reasons. By far the most important of these reasons is the Prime Minister's increasing habit of disregarding the wishes of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: He has had every way of learning what these wishes were because they were told him by his own members, by members of the opposition, and by opinion polls. Instead of listening to the wishes of the people he has initiated policies that are largely his own views. This growing elitism and paternalism on the part of the Prime Minister has infuriated a
The Address-Mr. Hees
steadily growing number of Canadians, as expressed very clearly in the results of the two by-elections that have been held today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have been informed that there might be a disposition not to see the clock because of the fact that there is only one vote tonight. This can only be done by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent not to see the clock and to proceed with the vote at 9:45?
[ Translation\
Does the House agree to vote at 9:45 instead of 9:30?


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of casting objections but, given the circumstances, 1 think 1 shall do so since my hon. colleague does not seem very much interested in the Speech from the Throne. Instead of speaking to the motion, he finds nothing better than reporting election results.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order may 1 say that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) was really only clearing his throat as he approached the substance of his speech. I hope you would put the question again because there was a consultation with the Government whip, with the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, and with the House Leader of the Social Credit Party for the purpose of permitting this debate to continue for the reasons given by Mr. Speaker. I think that despite the results of the elections, which were not decided in this House except indirectly, it would be a matter of common courtesy on the point of order raised by my friend to allow this matter to go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to confirm that there were these consultations. 1 think it is a matter of courtesy that we should agree to let the member continue his speech.
[ Translation]


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Speaker, it is true that consultations have been held to allow the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) to go on with his very interesting speech. Therefore, we would like to continue until 9:45.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must abide by the Standing Orders of the House. Standing Order 38(4) says that on the fourth day the vote is to be called at 9.30. I really am in the hands of the House. 1 am ready to co-operate. I have invited unanimous consent.


Walter David Baker: Invite it again, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will put the question again and ask the members if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous

October 18, 1976
The Address-Mr. Hees
consent that I not see the clock and call the vote at 9.45? There does not seem to be unanimous consent.
Order, please. It being 9.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (4) of Standing Order 38, to forthwith put the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. The question is on the amendment of Mr. Clark. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Amendment (Mr. Clark) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.08 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 19, 1976