1976-10-19

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of a substantial deficit incurred by the organizing committee for the 1976 Olympiad for the physically disabled held earlier this year in Toronto, the Olympiad is embarking on a worldwide sale of precious metal commemorative medallions to honour Sir Ludwig Guttmann, the originator of organized sport for the disabled. In that funds generated will be used to offset the current deficit and to further the cause of organized sports for the disabled worldwide, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane):
That this House support and encourage the Olympiad for the disabled in their current fund raising program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, under Standing Order 43, a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the unanimous viewpoints being expressed from both sides of the House over the last few days, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urge the management of Canadian Press and the newspaper publishers of this country to accept the proposal of the Newspaper Guild so that this dispute can be terminated under equitable and just conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the current high interest rates are the main cause of price inflation in all areas, whether in the private or public sector, and also that Parliament should exert supreme authority in this country, something I have always held, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House immediately entrust the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee with a special order of reference for the purpose of examining closely and in depth the disastrous consequences on our economy of the current high interest rates, as well as of the considerable profits made by banks and other financial institutions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.

October 19, 1976
Canadian Press Strike


ELECTIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis):
That this House express its appreciation to Jim Coutts and others from the Prime Minister's office for their contribution to the democratic process as was evident from the by-election results in Ottawa-Carleton yesterday.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
FOR TERRASSE DE LA CHAUDlfiRE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On July 13, 1976 in Hansard at page 15286 the former minister of public works said that no agreement had been signed with the Campeau Corporation concerning Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project in Hull, Quebec.
In view of the fact that the Campeau Corporation under date of June 28, 1976 had an information circular in the hands of certain financial houses in Canada for the purpose of raising $148,500,000 and also the fact that only eight days after the minister's statement in this House the Department of Public Works had signed extensive documents of lease with the Campeau Corporation, and because the terms of the documents indicate a financing factor of approximately $50 million more than a reasonable estimate of cost for the area leased by the government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That all further progress on construction and financial arrangements cease until all matters pertaining to possible conflict of interest and the apparent excesses involved in the financial arrangements have been examined by a judicial inquiry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF HOUSE FACILITIES BY NON-UNION MEMBERS OF CANADIAN PRESS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the

provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir) and agreed to I understand by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro):
That this House agrees that no scab employees of Canadian Press be allowed to work in this House by using the press, diplomatic or any other gallery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of vital importance to members of this House as well as to Canadian beef producers arising from a statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that the United States had agreed to allow a 90 million pound beef export quota for Canada, causing embarrassment to citizens on both sides of the border when it was found that the statement was not in accordance with the facts. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the Minister of Agriculture make a statement in this House explaining why he used the 90 million pound figure and at the same time inform the House and beef producers what mechanism will be used to trigger the granting of import permits for Australian and New Zealand beef.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.


Mr. Muir:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to you and to my leader who will be the next Prime Minister of this country. With regard to the motion under Standing Order 43 moved by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, I understood that there was agreement on the part of the Minister of Labour. I thought there was unanimous consent but someone tells me that some member of the Liberal party said no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: We have an identification. We know who said no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the hon. member goes further let me tell him that I heard "no" from both sides of the House with respect to the motion.
October 19, 1976



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question to ask which would normally be directed to the Prime Minister. He is not here, having found it prudent to leave the country. I should like to direct my question in his absence to the Minister of Finance. Now that we have received the document entitled "The Way Ahead" which is generally recognized as a document full of generalities-


Mr. Fairweather:: And retreat.


Charles Joseph Clark: -would the Minister of Finance be prepared to table in the House all of the documents which we assume have been prepared during the last six months by the group known as the DM-10 group, so that we can debate in this House all economic options facing this country on the basis of more than the platitudes included in the document entitled "The Way Ahead."


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, a great deal of preparatory work has been done on many aspects of public policy, as has always been the case, preceded by documents which have been submitted to cabinet. I do not know in this particular case why we should depart from the longstanding tradition under which cabinet documents and cabinet discussions themselves are accorded confidentiality. I think it is important in these particular discussions that hard alternatives should be discussed at the cabinet level, and for this purpose there should be a wide review of the questions which face the country and are before cabinet. The critical thing, which has always been so in our parliamentary system, is to what the government has committed itself. We have set out in the document "The Way Ahead" the analysis of circumstances which we think brought about the present situation in Canada, and an indication of the government's trends in the future. We would use this document for the purpose of discussions with Canadians generally and specific groups in particular, many of whom have asked us to put this kind of indication before parliament and the country.


REQUEST FOR REFERENCE OF DOCUMENT ENTITLED &quot;THE WAY AHEAD&quot; TO COMMITTEE
Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Many of us had been led to hope that there might be a movement away from that kind of secrecy because of the inclusion in the Speech from the Throne of the following words:
... the Government will increase the number and range of internal documents available to the public.
We can assume that that is simply another empty promise in the Speech from the Throne.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as far as we are concerned, that general document is simply an inadequate basis. I ask the minister, first, to reconsider his decision to hold closely information that should be available to the whole country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might ask his supplementary question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he will not reconsider his decision to closely hold within the secret confines of the government documents prepared for the whole House and country. Second, I ask if he will please, in order that we may begin discussions in this House, the place which should be the proper focus of the discussions of the economic options facing this country, make an immediate reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs not only of the document of generalities entitled "The Way Ahead" but also of the other documents prepared by the DM-10 group in secret and so far kept from the people of Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been no documents prepared for the people of Canada that have not been made public.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Indeed, the document "The Way Ahead" was prepared expressly for that purpose. If the hon. member is saying that cabinet documentation and cabinet proceedings should hereafter be made public-that is an interesting point. I take it that is a promise he would be making to Canadians if he ever became Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: However, the parliamentary system and the system of cabinet government in Canada, as in the United Kingdom, has involved confidential discussions within cabinet. I think there are sound reasons for that which the hon. member might do well to study.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Your predecessor, John Turner.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I just point out to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal that in his proposals my predecessor specifically exempted this type of document from publication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Although the man is in Japan, the spirit of evasion persists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I ask the minister to answer my question. Will he give us an immediate reference to the appropriate standing
198

Oral Questions
committee of at least the document "The Way Ahead"? That is my first question. My second question is this. Will the minister seriously consider making available to the standing committee of parliament, to the representatives of the people here assembled, the documents that have been prepared for and by the group DM-10 so that the decisions as to the economic future of Canada will be taken by the whole Parliament of Canada, the people of Canada, and not by some secret little group which advises the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to have a reference of "The Way Ahead" to the standing committee. I am sure that my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, will be pleased to oblige in this regard. With regard to the question of documents prepared for cabinet consideration, I think that I have stated the position very clearly to the hon. member. Under our system, changes in policy, including changes in law, are put before parliament and the country by the government from time to time. That is what we intend to do with regard to various changes in substantive law and changes in the economic policy. The hon. member should know, although he apparently does not, that no group of public servants by themselves has the authority to make any change in either the positive law or the policy of the government.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT DATE OF TERMINATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. As we consider "The Way Ahead" document, and further to the minister's reply yesterday in which he hinted that the anti-inflation program may be extended beyond December 1978, although it was admitted that such extension would require parliamentary approval, and as such an extension would appear to be running contrary to the Prime Minister's undertaking in this House of last week that the program would not in any event go beyond 1978, will the minister once and for all remove this uncertainty by confirming to the House that he will propose an amendment to the Anti-Inflation Act which would have the effect of deleting from the Act any reference to its provisions being extended beyond 1978?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's statement that I hinted it would be extended is totally and completely false. The law is there. Termination is provided under the circumstances indicated in the law. There does not seem to be any necessity to bring in a change. The law will come to an end in accordance with its own terms.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Prime Minister made a clear statement at the Financial Post conference in Toronto, and I quote:
[Mr. Clark.)
The controls will expire before the end of 1978, and sooner if economic circumstances are favourable. They will not be extended. They will end.
In view of that statement, will the minister indicate why he declines to move an amendment to the present act to make it legislatively impossible, as far as Bill C-73 is concerned to extend the controls beyond 1978.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Because that is the current effect of the law, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Will the minister explain to the House why the cabinet has recently decided to change unemployment insurance regulations in a way that will make it mandatory that unemployed Canadians will have to take LIP or related kinds of short-run employment as a condition for further UIC eligibility?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, that is not quite the way the system works. That is a slight bit of misinformation being given by the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: I would welcome a correction, then, as I am sure would others. I might say I have my information on reasonably good authority, the words of the minister himself. Now, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the hon. gentleman explain why, if men and women are to be compelled to take such short-run jobs, as I understand is the intention of the government, the government has decided that any earnings which come from such employment shall not be included in determining the level of future earnings for which the individual concerned would be eligible in terms of the scheme? I should like the minister to give a clear answer, because what seems to be involved here is a fundamental and serious change to the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Again, the leader of the New Democratic Party is wrong about the compulsion aspect, and because the premise is wrong I do not see there is any need to answer the latter part of the question.


John Edward Broadbent: Will the minister offer an assurance, then, that the government does not intend to change the Unemployment Insurance Act or regulations in such a way as to oblige Canadians, in order to be eligible for UIC benefits, to take employment under LIP, or related employment, without all the earnings they get from such employment being used to determine future levels of benefit?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: until that point before I give the hon. gentleman the answers he is seeking.

[ Translation]


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware that pork is currently sold at 53 cents a pound in Toronto while production costs reach between 57 and 59 cents a pound? Then can the minister tell the House whether he will do something to improve the situation and help producers stay in business?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: It is true this price has become depressed, just in recent days, and we are very aware of it. We also know, as do the pork producers concerned, that price stabilization arrangements apply to that product and, if necessary, they will be used. By law we would be obliged to use them.
[ Translation]


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Is the minister aware that it may take five or six months to implement this price stabilization policy? Since it is the first time pork prices have been decreasing in the last three years, does the minister believe that this price stabilization policy will have concrete results the moment prices start declining?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker, because by law it has to be announced at the year end. An announcement might be made earlier, if desired-it could be done on a quarterly or six-months basis-but there has been no demand from producers, no representation that we should take immediate action. In any case, I think it would be highly unlikely we would be able to do anything before the end of the year.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
LES TERRASSES DE LA CHAUDlfiRE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON LEASE ARRANGEMENT
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Has the hon. gentleman received the report requested of his officials regarding the terms and circumstances surrounding the lease-purchase agreement with the Campeau Corporation in connection with the Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project and, if so, will he table that report?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: I have not yet received a report. I shall be meeting with my officials
Oral Questions
on the question this afternoon and we shall have a report at that time.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether he has made a request of the builder-lessor of Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere project to cease financing and construction plans until the minister has had a chance to gain a clear understanding of the "unusual arrangement" surrounding this deal and satisfy himself that it is indeed in the best interests of the government and the taxpayers of this country?


J. Judd Buchanan: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not. I have asked, as I indicated to the hon. member prior to the sitting of the House, for significant details of this, but it is my understanding that we are in a position where we are into a confirmed and binding contract. However, these are matters that I intend to pursue with my officials.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister prepared to announce the appointment of a new chairman of the National Capital Commission to fill the position that has been vacant since July 1 of this year?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not yet prepared to make that announcement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is the one I asked him yesterday regarding Miss Bethune who is in a Mexican jail. I understand the minister has an answer for me.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The young lady in question, Miss Bethune, is going to be released either today or tomorrow. She will be turned over to the Mexican immigration authorities and is expected back in Canada within a few days.
200

Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question in light of his answer given on October 14, which seemed somewhat ambiguous. The minister said at that time:
-I am not in a position to say at this time whether any bill will be introduced-
As a result of that answer I asked him about the abolition of the jury system and preliminary hearings, and he assured me that there would be no abolition. What bill does the minister contemplate if he is not going to interfere with the jury system and preliminary hearings or with the right of an accused person to remain silent?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: A bill dealing with matters upon which the Law Reform Commission of Canada has reported, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand why the Minister of Justice is laughing because I regard this as a very serious matter. As I take the minister's answer, he said he was going to introduce some legislation to expedite trials in this country. What kind of legislation is he talking about, or is he playing ducks and drakes with the Canadian people and intends to interfere with the jury system and preliminary hearings? Let him come clean.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, at my request the chairman of the Law Reform Commission last winter put together a task force of people to examine the whole law relating to pre-trial delays and pre-trial procedures. Those proposals were discussed tentatively with my provincial counterparts, the attorneys general, and by our respective officials. No conclusions have been arrived at as to what, if any, federal legislation would be helpful or useful in dealing with the question of pre-trial delays and pre-trial procedures. Therefore I have not, of course, made any recommendation to my colleagues. I am not in a position to indicate when I will be in a position to make any recommendations; therefore I am not able to assure the hon. member when or if a bill will be introduced.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Given the fact that the state of the government's management and controls systems is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness and the fact that the Auditor General, in testimony before the public accounts committee, revealed that unless the systems are corrected the day may very well come when a clear certificate of the accounts of Canada cannot be given, may I ask the

October 19, 1976
President of the Treasury Board when he will be in a position to present to parliament an up to date progress report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Auditor General, as was agreed to in committee, in order that we might restore some confidence in the government's ability to manage and control the financial affairs of this country?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there has been some discussion of this matter between myself and the Auditor General and I consider it to have been very helpful and constructive. As to the precise date when I will be able to do what the hon. member suggests, I can only say that it will be at the first possible opportunity. I want a little more time to digest some of the details, although I am aware of the need to move on this. Indeed, some action has been taken already with the appointment and establishment of a deputy secretary within the Treasury Board secretariat with the precise responsibility of monitoring and expanding financial controls and financial management, which is a step in the direction of the recommendation of the Auditor General. I share the hon. member's concern and I want to get at it as quickly as possible.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Dealing specifically with the form and content of the estimates, might I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the review has been completed, whether changes are contemplated and, if so, whether such changes will be incorporated in the estimates of the next fiscal year. Might I also ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he will be asking members of parliament for their suggestions and input regarding the form and content of the estimates. I ask this particularly because it is members of parliament who are charged with the task of scrutinizing and examining the estimates.


Robert Knight Andras: 
GOVERNMENT POSITION ON REQUEST OF NOVA SCOTIA FOR ASSISTANCE WITH COST OF ELECTRICITY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to the mysterious request for aid for electric power from the province of Nova Scotia, which has not been disclosed but which the minister says and has said for the last six months is being considered. I ask the minister, who is trying to fool whom? When may we expect a decision from the govern-
October 19, 1976

ment as to how it is dealing with this mysterious request which has not been disclosed, particularly in light of the fact that the premier of Prince Edward Island has said that the minister has indicated that nothing is being favourably considered, and particularly in view of the fact that some important rate increase hearings are taking place in Nova Scotia which will be affected by any decision made by the government. When is the minister going to come clean in this?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I answered a very similar question from the hon. member's colleague, the member for Hillsborough, last week. I indicated that there was no change in the government's position; this matter is still under consideration.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. How does the minister expect us to take him seriously when 1 know that he does want to be taken seriously on this question? When is he going to give a decision with regard to this mysterious, unknown request? Would he also tell the House how he is getting along with his alternative proposal, which I judge to be his true position, that a study should be made of full integration and pooling arrangements. What is the minister's position there? Is he going to continue to fool around with the question, the same as he is fooling around with this other mysterious request, or can he report progress there?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to proceed as quickly as possible with a grid and power pooling study. I have received from the three provincial premiers letters which clearly, I think, can be said to be agreement in principle. However, the hon. member will realize that there are differences of view between some of the provinces, and it is those differences of view which at the present moment I am trying to reconcile so that we can come up with a particular term of reference for the study. I must say that the response I have received has been constructive and, indeed, I am optimistic that it may be possible to put together a term of reference in the very near future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the expression of support for the State of Israel by the Secretary of State for External Affairs during the recent visit of the Israeli foreign minister, is the government giving consideration to following the example of the United States Congress Department, which has published the names of U.S. corporations participating in the boycott of Israeli companies, by publishing the names of Canadian corporations which have complied with the requests or demands by
Oral Questions
Arab countries that any corporations doing business with Arab countries refuse to do business in or with the State of Israel?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will not necessarily be following the example of the United States Congress, and I do not think the hon. member would necessarily want to have us do that, but I will be making a statement with regard to the boycott, if not tomorrow then on Thursday.

[ Translation]


AIRPORTS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Transport.
In view of the importance the government and the minister in particular give with good reason to safety in air transportation, could the minister inform the House and the impatient community of the Magdalen Islands whether his department intends to take action further to my requests, representations and supplications, as well as those of the people from the Magdalen Islands, and authorize immediately the long required improvement of airport facilities at the Magdalen Islands in order to provide the population with a safe and adequate air service? May I remind the minister that the plane is the only transportation means to and from the Magdalen Islands during winter!


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I have taken note of this and his previous representations with regard to the air needs of Iles-de-la-Madeleine. We are looking very closely at them and I hope to be able to give him and the people who live there a clear indication before too long of the plans for improvements to the facilities that we will foresee.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and is further to the minister's statement to the press in Washington last Friday. Will he inform the House if the proposed transition fund agreed to between himself and Dr. Kissinger is intended to help Rhodesia and her government improve her economic status, or is it to be used mainly for the purpose of helping white Rhodesians leave their country to settle in other countries including Canada?

October 19, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to answer the question. Before doing so I should emphasize, however, that there was no agreement with regard to this matter between Canada and the United States, for the simple reason that Secretary Kissinger indicated they were not ready as yet to indicate in detail what kind of proposal they were making. He made it clear that he would hope for Canadian participation in the fund.
As to the substance of the hon. member's question, as I understood it from Mr. Kissinger the objective of the fund is to stabilize or to help stabilize the economy of Rhodesia, and also to discourage a mass exodus, I think was the word I used at the press conference in this regard, of white Rhodesians following the establishment of a majority government in that country. In other words, the fund would be weighted, as it was explained to me, in favour of those who are going to remain in Rhodesia, or who are prepared to remain there and carry on their normal activities.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, since there was no agreement, will the minister assure this House that before any specific commitment is made by Canada in this regard parliament will have an opportunity to debate the whole matter, preferably by way of a resolution introduced by the government in this House?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is the appropriate technique, but I can certainly assure the hon. member that, in so far as I personally am concerned, I would be very glad to make available to the House, or to do it publicly, whatever proposals are put forward and to provide an opportunity to discuss them. I emphasize that this is premature at the moment because nothing has been transmitted between us other than the explanation the secretary gave me during my visit.


HOUSING
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, of which I gave him notice last week, having to do with activity in the United States by Canadian housing developers. Is the minister aware of this exodus of Canadian housing equity investment capital and Canadian knowhow to the United States, and has he been able to determine the extent and amount of it?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member for his notice. Indeed, I have been aware of the situation for well over a year, almost two years, that is, that Canadian developers have been expanding their operations into the United States. I see nothing wrong with Canadian corporations becoming multinational

corporations as long as that is not to the detriment of our Canadian industry. The housing starts and the activities of these same companies in Canada to date would indicate that it is not to the detriment of activity in the housing field here. Indeed, we are going at close to local records.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, does the minister interpret the export of both Canadian equity money and Canadian knowhow and ingenuity, which normally would be invested and put to use in Canada building houses for Canadians, as a reflection of either a loss of market confidence in Canada or the result of the controls program? Could the minister be more specific as to why there has been this dramatic shift in the last several months of this housing activity from Canada to the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is one of vital concern, I am sure, but obviously it deserves a much longer and more thorough answer than can be given during the question period.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Fisheries) and the Environment, to whom I extend my personal and sincere congratulations on the occasion of his additional Cabinet responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: It will come as no surprise to the Minister that my question arises out of the United States National Academy of Sciences' report regarding the imminent threat to our environment caused by the continued use of aerosol sprays containing fluorocarbons, and it is further prompted by their announcement last week of a phasing out of the use of these aerosol sprays that threaten our ozone layer. Will the minister advise whether he intends in concert, of course, with the provinces to ban aerosol sprays containing fluorocarbons and, if so, within what time frame will that ban or phase-out occur?


Hon. Rom6o LeBIanc (Minister of State (Fisheries) and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind words, and I will be looking forward to his questions as the days pass. The subject he raises is one which can only be attacked in a global way since it is a global problem. He is right to tie it to co-operation between not only the provinces and the federal government but between nations. We have taken note of the recommendations of the United States Academy of Sciences. We have on the books, in the Environmental Contaminants Act, a provision which affords the possibility of acting very quickly. I am expecting a report from a committee which was set up sometime ago to look at this very question and which is to report within a matter of weeks. I hope to be in a better position to answer fully. I have
October 19, 1976

also asked that the industry which is involved in this area be informed that we are looking at this problem with a view to replacing the use of fluorochloromethanes when the time comes.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, is the hon. gentleman aware that almost two years ago officials of his atomospheric environmental service were very anxious that action be taken at that time, and, in view of that, will he tell the House what discussions are scheduled with his counterparts in either the environmental protection agency of the United States or its food and drug administration officials? In this regard, will the minister now commit himself to saying that if we can act in concert with the United States we will do so without waiting to obtain an agreement with western European countries? Will he act at least in a North American context before he feels it is necessary to obtain a European agreement on the ban of aerosol sprays?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check the records as long ago as two years to see what was the recommendation of the officials of the department. Certainly we are in constant communication with United States authorities in this area and we know that we have to act in concert with them. I can certainly assure the hon. member that if the recommendations of the scientists to me are of such a nature that action on the North American continent is advised, then I would not hesitate to act. At the moment, we have in the law books the capacity to do it.


PATENTS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Considering the representations which the minister has received from lawyers, businessmen and inventors from all over Canada relating to the negative effects which could result from the government's working paper on the patent law revision and the proposed law itself, is it still the intention of the minister to proceed with the law?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the paper was produced for the very purpose of gaining advice from the business community in particular, and 1 can assure the hon. member that we are not going to introduce a law which will be injurious to the country in this area. I can assure him that there will be no early introduction of such a bill in any event until we have had exhaustive discussions.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question for the minister. I am fully aware that the minister has received from
Oral Questions
practically the same people the same representations that I and my committee have. I wish to ask him by way of a supplementary question whether, in view of the fact that it is the government's announced intention in the throne speech to encourage enterprise and individual initiative-I am sure the minister has heard that the proposed law could end invention and a positive patent law in this country-the minister will now shelve this law prepared by his predecessor and simply start a new one?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: No, Mr. Speaker. I must confess that I have not yet studied the matter as carefully as I am sure my hon. friend has. I am aware of the very wide number of representations, but until I have studied them and consulted my officials in this regard, I certainly do not intend to shelve the intentions of the department.


John Edward Broadbent: Don't be too candid over there.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Anthony Chisholm Abbott: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I re-read my answer to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings yesterday and I must confess that I thought his criticism was accurate and that it was a rather fuzzy and waffling answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I thought of much more clever answers during the night, but I would simply like to say now that on reflection I agree that Canadian automobiles are subjected to heavy corrosive conditions. I think automobile companies are really failing to meet the proper standards in this regard. I intend to have early discussions with those companies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport conveyed the decision to raise rental rates for employees of his department living in accommodations rented by his department by as much as 300 per cent, can the minister indicate whether he has communicated with the Anti-Inflation Board to determine whether this is acceptable under their guidelines and, if not, whether he intends to do so before making a final decision on this change?

October 19, 1976
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, 1 would be glad to look at any specific case that the hon. member has in mind. Generally, of course, where charges do not reflect full costs there is the possibility of raising those charges without contravening the guidelines. It is really a question of whether or not the taxpayer pays the difference. We have been examining some of these charges but I will be glad to look at the specific one to which the hon. member refers.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of a report by the Conference Board that Canadian firms led all foreign investors in the United States in the third quarter and in view of the fact that it was not just a day of protest by those firms but a year long investment strike in the country, I should like to ask the minister what action he will take to stop the strike of Canadian investment in Canada by Canadian firms.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, indeed that is a very serious problem. We are now in the process of studying the situation. The fact that productivity has decreased in Canada and that in some sectors salaries have increased more quickly than in the United States obviously alters our competitive position in that field. I trust, therefore, that Canadians will realize that by demanding too much of the Canadian economy, that type of problem can be perpetuated.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I should like to ask the minister whether or not he will be in direct communication with the striking firms and, if so, what will he be saying to them individually and what action will he be taking with them?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can give no specific answer to the hon. member at this time.


MANPOWER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who, because of his experience, will surely appreciate its validity.
Because of the great number of able-bodied persons now unemployed, because LIP is intended to create jobs to reduce

unemployment and because several MPs of my area-including the Liberal member for Levis who said so in his speech on October 15-find that the moneys earmarked for LIP projects are quite insufficient, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he is willing to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that additional credits be allotted the Department of Manpower so that more LIP projects can be implemented without delay?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I believe my colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, will be elaborating on certain measures in the course of the debate in the Speech from the Throne, and I surmise that the hon. member will be quite satisfied with the information that my colleague will be conveying.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. First, I would like to congratulate him on his appointment and wish him well in his performance of his various duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: The former minister instructed the deputy minister of the Department of Science and Technology to release to me upon my request studies that had been done on a variety of subjects. This was conveyed to me by the deputy minister and confirmed by the former minister. When I requested to see a series of studies that had been completed, I was told they could not be released without the permission of the person who had prepared them and that permission was not forthcoming. Will the minister review this matter and tell me whether or not a veil of secrecy extends over his department and whether his numerous staff members have veto power over a clear directive by the minister?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. I will certainly review the matter he mentioned. I would have no difficulty in living up to an undertaking by my predecessor but I would like to look into it.


DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION GOVERNING EXPLORATION FOR OIL ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the
October 19, 1976

minister tell us whether or not the government intends to introduce legislation in this session to bring into effect the regulations governing exploration and development of oil on federal property?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, yes, and that was set forth in the Speech from the Throne.


James McPhail Gillies: I raised this question, Mr. Speaker, because it was not quite clear in the Speech from the Throne whether or not the government intended to do it in this session. Are the rumours correct that major changes are being proposed in these regulations before they come forth at the next session?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not know where the hon. member is getting his information. I have stated the position of the government in the past. My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I made public the principles governing the new legislation and the legislation is now being drafted. It will be placed before the House in due course. Of course, all the parties will have an opportunity to put forward any proposals they may wish.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question, and first and second supplementaries are to the Minister of Transport relating to Air Canada. I wonder if the minister could inform the House as to when it is anticipated there will be an appointment of a permanent chairman of Air Canada.
In view of the promises of the minister, could he tell us if it is anticipated that we will have amendments to the Air Canada Act this session?
Finally, in view of the fact that there has not been a reference of the annual report of Air Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications since 1973, will the minister give a firm undertaking that this will be done in the very near future?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the chairmanship may be decided in the very near future, although I must say that the acting chairman, Mr. Pierre Taschereau, has been doing a superb job in his role with Air Canada.
I am hopeful that the legislation which is now in a determined form can come forward, but that may depend upon the discussions the House leaders will have about how fast it can be brought forward. That might be a suitable time and vehicle with which to broaden discussion and include the annual report, but if that does not happen conveniently, I am prepared
Privilege-Mr. MacLean
to discuss with hon. members on both sides of this House how we can best get the questions relating to Air Canada before a House committee.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this occasion to make a brief statement. It is a matter of personal privilege for me to say that I am resigning my seat in this House effective midnight tonight in order to contest a seat in the legislature in my home province of Prince Edward Island, where I have been chosen provincial leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: While 1 consider my new responsibilities a great challenge, it is naturally not without regrets that I leave this chamber after 25 years' service. I will especially miss the honour of representing the people of the constituency of Malpeque, some of whom were also members of my former constituency of Queen's. They have done me the honour of electing me ten consecutive times to this chamber, thus making me their representative in one third of the parliaments elected since Confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Angus MacLean: I would like to record my deep appreciation to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all the members and staff of this House for the many courtesies extended to me on so many occasions. I will miss the many friendships I have been fortunate to enjoy among you.
I will, of course, miss working in the parliamentary associations in which I have been active, and I will miss my work as chairman of the Standing Committee on Management and Members Services and the close association this entailed with the Commissioners of Internal Economy.
Whatever the future holds, I hope I may be able to retain at least most of the friendships I have enjoyed here. Let me wish you all continuing good health and satisfaction in your respective responsibilities to our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I feel it a considerable honour to have the opportunity to speak on the question of privilege which has been raised by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean).
I am sure that each and every member of the House shares the regret I feel at his departure from the House of Commons

October 19, 1976
Privilege-Mr. MacLean
after such a long and successful service. He was in the House of Commons when I entered in 1953. He had been elected in a by-election, I believe, in 1951, and when I entered, I regarded him as a well established veteran of the House.
Since that time he has added lustre to the chamber by his industry, his integrity and by the way in which he associated on a personal basis with members of the House in all parties. As a minister he performed exceedingly well, and following his departure from the ministry he has served as a member of the opposition, on committees and in the House of Commons in an extremely effective way. However, I believe all of us will remember Angus MacLean mostly for his personal qualities, his readiness to extend friendship and his high integrity.
He is leaving the House to take on new responsibilities, and judging from recent events he does not require good wishes from me in order to discharge those responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues in the House I would like to join with the government House leader in extending our very warmest personal wishes to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). As the government House leader has said, during his 25 years in the House the hon. member has distinguished himself as one of the truly exceptional gentlemen of this House, and that is said in the most positive sense. He is a man of honesty, integrity and personal commitment to the wellbeing of his constituents.
In expressing wishes for continuing good health and personal happiness to the hon. member in the most genuine fashion on behalf of my colleagues I, of course, want to make it abundantly clear that we do not extend these good wishes into the political domain. I am sure the hon. member understands that. We wish him well as he returns to his native island. We hope the political success he confronts there is not at all commensurate with the 100 per cent personal success we wish him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to join in with the two previous speakers, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, to congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) for the beautiful speech he made last night. In the person of the hon. member for Malpeque, Mr. J. Angus MacLean, the House of Commons loses an extraordinary man, an every day man of duty and also a man respected by all. I know he will surely fulfill other as honourable functions and that he will be as devoted as he was in the House of Commons. Our wishes of success and good health be with him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we in my party, of course, have particular cause to appreciate the steadiness, the judgment, the integrity and the very good
[Mr. MacEachen.J
humour and sense of comradeship of Angus MacLean, the member of this parliament for Malpeque. He came to the House of Commons after a distinguished career as a bomber pilot, a career which won him the DFC. After a remarkable history of escape during the war he has served in this House as a respected member of the ministry of my colleague and predecessor the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He has impressed all of us who have had the privilege of knowing him with both his very warm human qualities and his capacity to offer solid, considered judgments and advice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 know I speak for all of us who have had the privilege of serving in the leadership of my party when I say there are few members whose advice has been more helpful during the quarter century of service of Angus MacLean than the advice of the member of parliament for Malpeque.
While we in this House of Commons may differ in the degree of force with which we wish him well in future endeavours, that enthusiasm is unreserved in this party, and what might be seen now as a loss for the House of Commons of Canada is very much a gain for the province of Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope hon. members will permit me to just add a word if I may. Not much can be added to the wonderful tributes that have been paid so deservedly to the Hon. Angus MacLean. May I only say that the Management and Members Services Committee is a recent addition to the roster of standing committees of the House and the work of that committee provides a service which potentially benefits or should benefit all members of the House. It benefits the Speaker of the House directly in the difficult decisions of attempting to strike a proper balance between those services which members require to fulfil their obligations and those which they deserve in terms of the financial burden of the estimates of the House.
For that committee to reach its maximum potential it really required in its infancy a chairman who ought probably to have come from the opposition side or at least have been able to demonstrate a very objective point of view, one who could bring to that post many years of experience both in and out of cabinet as well as a reputation for objective judgment and the respect of all of his colleagues. At the same time, that person should enjoy a reputation for a sane and sensible hand on the throttle.
I think we have all been deeply fortunate that we found such a chairman in the Hon. Angus MacLean. I wish to express my appreciation and that, I know, of all members for this latter aspect of a career which has been a great donation to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 19, 1976


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure all hon. members would also want to know that, although Room 16 is not quite large enough to accommodate everyone at lunch, I have invited a few of the hon. members' close colleagues, the members of that Management and Members Services Committee, as well as some of those who toiled with him in the Privy Council when he was there, to join us for lunch immediately. Unfortunately, 1 cannot invite everybody but I thought all hon. members would want to know we are not letting the occasion go unmarked.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TABLING OF COPIES OF REFERENCES TO THE ADMINISTRATOR
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of references from the Anti-Inflation Board to the Administrator under subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 18, 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.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has been a member of this House for many years I do not recall a previous occasion when there has been such an outpouring of praise, and deserved praise, as that to which we have just listened. Angus Mac Lean served in my cabinet with distinction. Above all, however, as I look back over the years I see him during those dark days of war establishing a record, an Odyssey of gallantry and courage, that will be read by this and future generations with appreciation for what he did and the honour he brought to their country. It is on occasions such as this that this House rises to its greatest heights, when in the cathedral of devotion and appreciation we let those who have served know that they have that "something" that one can earn in the House of Commons, that is, the appreciation of one's fellow members.
Having said that, sir, it would be natural that I should refer to the events of yesterday, and I do so not having to gild the lily in any way. By-elections, such as that which took place yesterday, reveal something that was dealt with by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) during his very able and eloquent address; namely, that members of the Liberal Party do not have to conduct a post mortem as to the reasons for what happened. They do not have to say "Who killed Cock Robin?" All they have to do is look at the empty seat.
I am in a particularly kindly humour today, Mr. Speaker. I am going to quote Humpty Dumpty with slight changes. I am
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker not going to say "All the king's horses and all the king's men cannot put Humpty Dumpty together again" because that might annoy the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-the reference to the monarchy-so I will not do that. I therefore substitute: "All the multitudinous public relations men, speech writers, staff workers and $3 million worth of servants around the prime ministerial throne will not be able to put the Prime Minister together again."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I recall a famous occasion when the cabinet met at Meach Lake, so that nothing would be revealed.
I can tell the government that nothing is less secret than such a secret meeting. I learned that over the years. The various ministers-the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and others-all said, "I am not to blame; I didn't do it; I am not responsible." They were of one mind but did not designate the one responsible. I submit that possibly the answer was given by the Prime Minister, on one of his peripatetic pilgrimages undertaken to restore his image and that of the government, when he said in New Brunswick, the situation is such that many Liberals are not as proud as they used to be to be Liberals. That's saying a lot- that is my observation. Finally, he pronounced as his considered opinion that a lot are running for cover; a lot are tired out, worn down, out of steam. You cannot improve on that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Now, Sir, I must say a word about the new cabinet, about additions to it and repairs to it. I must refer to one minister particularly-I am sorry he has left-the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) who now is President of the Privy Council. Sir, he is a parliamentarian of distinction. Just when he was getting used to his job and beginning to understand the intricacies of foreign affairs, he was demoted. I can hear him say with Cardinal Woolsey: had I but served God as diligently as I served the king, he would not have given me over in my grey years. Let me say this about the minister: It was not because of him that Canada is regarded by many countries as a fellow-traveller country. He maintained the principles for which this nation stood in the past, and I regret that he has given up the job. I know his genial successor will do his very best. He has a tremendous capacity for absorbing information and, in addition, for letting parliament know.
I was interested in the questions asked earlier this morning concerning secrecy. Mr. Speaker, the government opposite has an all-time record for concealment and equivocation. Although there is incorporated in the Speech from the Throne one of those generalizations concerning the expectation of the possibility of a hope for a change, I see not that repentance which should be evidenced by the government following the Rudnicki case. At one time those high in the echelons of the public service were servants of the people. They used to sign their

The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker letters, "I have the honour to be, Sir, your obedient servant." They do not do it any more. They do not tell the people that they want to be their everlasting masters. That attitude was revealed in the Rudnicki case. Somebody took a document and stamped it confidential. Why, if all the papers marked confidential by the present government were not to be seen by those outside the cabinet who have eyes to see, there would be a great reduction in the amount of paper work in this country.
I recall being bitterly condemned by those who were then in opposition for having produced a document which the Department of Trade and Commerce, under the St. Laurent administration, had hidden. It contained information showing how seriously the economic conditions of Canada were being undermined. I did not get the document from the department: a member of the press handed it to me. I was condemned in 1958 for the horrible conduct of revealing its contents. In 1976, we are concerned about the Rudnicki case. Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to appeal the decision; it is afraid to appeal.


An hon. Member:: It knows it would lose.


John George Diefenbaker: We have seen the end, I hope, of attempts by the government to cover up with a rubber stamp.
Sir, what can one say about the new members of the cabinet? I like some of them very much; I will not deal with them all. Have you ever seen such musical chairs? Around and round they go; where they stop only the Prime Minister knows.
I know how difficult it is for the Prime Minister to choose; but he will not have that difficulty in Winnipeg. I had hoped the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) would stay in the chamber. He was here a moment ago. Sir, there will be no difficulty at all in finding a successor to the former minister of national defence. It will be the genial member for St. Boniface who belongs, on the prairies, to a species rapidly becoming extinct.


An hon. Member:: Don't count on that, John.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to answer questions, particularly from those who are not dry behind the ears.
I am delighted the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) was made a minister. I have thought of him as a friend during these years. He was given the small business portfolio. If he had been given the Indian Affairs portfolio I could well have understood it; but, strangely, he was given the small business portfolio, he not knowing anything about small business. His first trip, I am told, is to be to the U.S.S.R. If he follows what they have done to small business he will be without a portfolio before he gets back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to see the way the Liberal front benches disappear when I speak. I regard that as a tribute at all times.

October 19, 1976
With regard to the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campag-nolo), I think I outdid the Prime Minister. About five weeks ago, as a parliamentary secretary, she spoke at Duck Lake on the one hundredth anniversary of the Indian Treaty. I predicted it would not be long before she would be a minister of the government. I am glad the Prime Minister took advantage of my recommendation, if he did. She is working under the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I would have dealt with him had he been here, but he is absent.
As far as fitness and amateur sport are concerned, it was a government that I had the honour to lead which brought in the first legislation-$5 million a year-to encourage amateur sport. When the Pearson government came in, it was not long before that was out.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not going to go across the whole field, but I want to say one thing about the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott). His father and I came into the House of Commons at the same time. I always looked forward with expectation to the son following in the footsteps of his father. If he does, there will be no secrecy in that department because that is one thing his father did not permit while he held several portfolios in the government of Mackenzie King.
Then, there is the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts). I have for him especially kind feelings. He has shown himself well in the House. Of the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), all I have to say is that at the rate he is going, it will not be long before Mackasey will be in again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), a young man whom I am sure will devote himself well to the problems he has, certainly inherits a position that requires on his part a great deal of effort to bring about responsible leadership in that department.
Having generalized in that way, I come to parliament because I never cease to wonder at this place. We saw an example today in the recognition given to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). I am very pleased to learn that television is going to be introduced-they do not say when, but they say it will be-because I had the honour of bringing that about in 1957 insofar as the opening proceedings of parliament were concerned. It was criticized at the time, but it has been followed ever since. Television in the House of Commons will increase the quality as well as the quantity of members in this place.
There is something to which I particularly want to refer. I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I am going to speak of him. We are approaching the Queen's twenty-fifth anniversary. We are getting ready for it.
I think of members in this House who have given tremendous service but have never sat in the Treasury benches. In the
October 19, 1976

United Kingdom, those who have become parliamentarians in their own right are honoured from time by being made members of Her Majesty's Imperial Privy Council, as it used to be called. I think that should be followed on this, the anniversary of Her Majesty.
I would like to see the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) made a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council in Canada. He would have been if he had remained premier of the province. All the premiers received it, and he was premier for years. He is a parliamentarian who has always given of his best with distinction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The leader of the Creditistes, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), has been in the House for years. Today, he is in hospital with a serious illness. I would like to see him honoured in this way because at the moment there is little or no hope of either a member of the NDP or the Creditistes being seated on the Treasury benches. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is listening, even though he is pretending not to be-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I think of the devotion he has given through the years to parliament. Sometimes he is difficult. Sometimes he leads us along a rather unusual course. He is a parliamentarian who has been here for a long while. He first came here in 1942. He had a little break in 1958, but he came back thereafter. That was his sabbatical of four years. I would like to see him honoured.
No doubt there are others in the House who deserve to be honoured likewise. In addition, in the United Kingdom when a person becomes leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, it is not long before the honour is given. It should not be long in the case of the hon. member who today leads the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: As far as the debate is concerned, I am not going to express appreciation to the mover and seconder. It is a course I have followed through the years. That was done by my leader and what he said in that regard is acceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Nothing could be more acceptable than appreciation. I have read the various speeches. I have not been able to be here. I need not say the reason. However, I endeavour at all times to be present, in particular when a speaker is making his or her maiden speech. I like to see young members come into the House. I was away on in years when I finally won. As long as parliament is able to mobilize outstanding young men and women in devotion to those things that will make Canada even greater, I will always honour constituencies that send them here. So much for preliminary remarks. I do not expect there will be much disagreement. The
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker minister himself is in the House, and I may say he is a politician for whom I have much admiration.
What about the Speech from the Throne? Well, it was a presidential one. In the United States they call it a State of the Nation Address. Mr. Speaker, in every part of this nation today people are asking: Why doesn't parliament do something? Is parliament simply a place in which the Prime Minister utters grandiloquent expressions which die as soon as they effectuate the result for which he hopes? Take the phrase "the just society". Do you hear it any more? Or "the land is strong". It must have been!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: "Participatory democracy". With whom? "Co-operative federalism". Now, there's an expression.


Walter David Baker: Gone. All gone.


John George Diefenbaker: What does it amount to? "If you don't agree to my bringing the constitution to Canada, 1 threaten you I will bring it back unilaterally." That is what the Prime Minister said one day. And a few days later he said he didn't say it. But I heard him. Here is another. "The opportunity decade". That's a pretty good one. Well, he will have to do it in two years and that will be the shortest decade in all history.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister described his government as a "government of the middle". There is a mistake. One vowel is wrong. It should be "government of the muddle". I occupy an objective position today. I hold no position in my party and I am therefore able to weigh governments of today against those which preceded mine. I have never seen a government so accident prone. If they don't get one, they create one. No one can deny that this is an absent-minded government. The more I watch it in action the more I believe the Prime Minister meant what he said-one time-when, asked what politician or political writer had guided him the most, he uttered the immortal words: The one I particularly admire is Machiavelli. All I can tell you is that Machiavelli said in effect: Fool people, deceive them, and then, from time to time, give them little gifts; but pursue your course and do not object to untruths. That is what Machiavelli said almost 500 years ago. But it is surely not a proposition to be accepted today. I am not going to discuss financial matters.
I want to deal with the constitution and with the reference to bilingualism. It is a strange thing. With this country in a position such as I have never known it in before-divided, fearful-with those who supported the Liberal party through the years deeply concerned and not afraid, when they write, to sign their names; in a year when above all else, leadership should be here in the House of Commons, we see vacation piled on vacation. I know it is very nice to have vacations. I only had two short ones. But when the captain leaves the bridge, what happens to the ship? It is always enjoyable to

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker travel on luxurious yachts away from Ottawa. I might say, however, this criticism does not apply to the Prime Minister presently being in Japan or on the way there. I think that is a proper course for him to follow. But it is not something new.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I was there. I was received most hospitably by the Prime Minister of Japan who became a close friend of mine and gave me his most valuable picture in the room where he had me sit with his cabinet. And the Emperor and Empress had Olive and me to lunch. I do not wish to digress but I always recall a story which indicates the sense of humour of the Empress. It had been reported that I was fond of hunting and the Emperor said to me through an interpreter: "We are going to take you hunting." I said: "What kind of guns do you use-what gauge?" He said: "We don't use guns, we use a net and as the ducks come in we pick them off along the canal." I said: "That looks all right to me. What kind of ducks?" "All kinds", said the Empress. "Mallards?" "Oh, yes." "Greenheads?" "No," said the Empress, "they are redheads; they originate in Siberia." Mr. Speaker, anyone with a sense of humour like that is worthy of being quoted.
I do not intend to deal with inflation except to say to the House that when I was prime minister we had the lowest rate of inflation in all the world-1.1 per cent. My authority for this is the former President Kennedy of the United States who was never one of my particular friends. One of the reasons was this. When it became known that a corporation was going to raise the price, for instance, of bread, the head of that corporation was communicated with and an explanation sought. Increased costs, and so on, he might say. Our reply was to this effect: All right, you go ahead. But as soon as you do there will be an investigation by the Combines Investigation Branch and if you are right you will be right, but if you are wrong proceedings will be taken. Believe me, they did not raise their prices very readily, though the action taken did not make me very popular in some quarters not too far from Ottawa.
What is the government's record on inflation? They can argue about it until the end of time, but I will simply quote from the record. After nearly a year of wage and price controls which were imposed to lower inflation, is the Canadian economy more competitive than its leading rivals in the world? Not according to the International Monetary Fund. A survey on world inflation was produced by economists at Citibank of New York. These economists suggest that Canada has not benefitted as much as most other nations from the break in inflation during the past year, and that its price performance is worse than in the years 1970-1975 while several other countries are doing better than they were. Such a report cannot be denied, Mr. Speaker.

I am not going to deal with agriculture except to say that the farmers of this country are aroused as never before. Ask the cattle farmers and the dairy farmers what they think. I am not one who believes in mobocracy; I would be the last to approve the treatment given the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) when he had a milk bath. Nevertheless, what happened gives him a position in history, that of being the only one since Cleopatra who has had a milk bath. She regularly had a bath but in goat's milk. And the analogy, Mr. Speaker, stops there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I want to say a few words on the subject of the constitution. Every time the Prime Minister finds himself in difficulties-and they are overwhelming today-he suddenly conjures up some system or plan-and this is a case in point-of pseudo-philosophical abstractions or threats. The constitution is not his private property. Nor should it be the political plaything of the Liberal party. It belongs to all Canadians. It was made by Canadians for Canadians, was sent to the United Kingdom, and they approved it.
Today the myth is constantly propagated by the Liberal party that somehow or other Britain is hanging on to what was determined upon as the course by the great leaders who brought about confederation. I am not going to go into what I believe should be the amendment formula, but I do say that any amendment formula should place all provinces upon an equal footing, regardless of population.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I opposed the Victoria charter for one particular reason, among others, namely that the premiers of Saskatchewan and Manitoba had agreed that Manitoba and Saskatchewan would never have an opportunity to voice their opinions or the actual determinations of their governments because provision was made whereby only two of the four western provinces with the greatest population have any voice. We in Saskatchewan will never have that, nor will Manitoba. As a result those two provinces, with the approval of the NDP, are placed in a secondary position.
Sir, I am concerned about what is taking place in my country. I do not have to apologize for this, and I thank the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for his reference to me the other day in this connection. All through my years at the bar and on the campaign trail I have pointed to the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that this is a nation with two cultures and that to endeavour to intimidate either of them cannot and will not be accepted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That was not popular at the bar and in 1921 or 1922 as a young lawyer I was warned over and over again. I undertook the appeal of the French trustees, Boutin and Ethier, who had been convicted of permitting the teaching of too much French in a public school. The case is reported and we were successful.
October 19, 1976

In 1957 and 1958 I told the people of the province of Quebec that they had not received their fair share of senior appointments, that the House of Commons, which is bilingual under the constitution, does not operate that way. It was my suggestion that brought about the simultaneous translation of the proceedings of this House. It was my recommendation and no one else's that appointed the first French Canadian governor general since Vaudreuil. 1 was criticized for that. Under my administration cheques and documents of that kind were printed in both languages. So don't start teaching me about the rights of the people of this country, whoever they are.
When I went into Quebec I said that the Liberals had preached over and over again how the Queen is of no consequence.


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I ask the right hon. member whether he intends to carry on at two o'clock? He has spoken for nearly an hour already.


John George Diefenbaker: That is for the House, Mr. Speaker. I should like to tell the House what my views are on the constitution; I do know something about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock the House will now adjourn until two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, before lunch I had come to the point where I was going to deal briefly with the constitution. I will deal with it at greater length on another occasion, as I have already spoken longer than I normally do.
Our Canadian parliament is made up of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. The one question that keeps recurring in my mind is why there is such an ungodly rush to patriate the constitution. Mr. King tried, Mr. St. Laurent tried, and when I was prime minister we had it except for two very small matters. We delayed for a couple of weeks and then there were objections raised on a couple of matters by the premier of Quebec and the premier of Saskatchewan. Then Mr. Pearson tried, without success.
What is the reason for this rush? Why not take a little time? Great Britain does not want the matter brought to the attention of parliament regularly when we require amendments, but we have never been able to agree as to what the terms should be. Until we do agree, what do we bring back? What will we have gained by unilateral action? The parliament of Great Britain might say that this statute is repealed, and then what will we have for a constitution? What will come back to Canada? It will all be repealed and we will have to start all over again. I do not think anybody wants that.
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
What is behind this? 1 am not one who normally wonders about these things, but I must say that I was greatly interested in a speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 5, 1976, before the fifth provincial congress of the Liberal party of Canada. Let me read these words from this portion of the speech that was not distributed very widely and which has never beert referred to. Let me read it without observation in order that I may conclude at the earliest possible moment. The Prime Minister said, and I quote from page 1:
-there is the division of powers that we have not been able to solve, there is the amending formula but most important of all there is what people call repatriation; basically this means that we are going to take away from England, the United Kingdom, this foreign country although it is a friend, the right to make laws for Canadians. It should not be very hard to come to an understanding on this point.
He goes on to say, after referring to Britain in rather unusual terminology, "this foreign country":
Do you think that the Queen of England will tell Bourassa: admit that Trudeau is right or tell me, admit that Bourassa is right?
I do not know how that arose. Then he rewrites history on page 2 by saying:
Every single Commonwealth country has done it. When the Westminster statute was adopted in England in 1931 it read exactly as follows: from now on the British Empire does no longer exist in those five countries, those five Commonwealth dominions. We will no longer make laws for them.
You were colonies before but in 1931 the English said: Well, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and Canada are now big enough to make their own laws. Canadians said no, we are not able to.
I am interested in the fact which he points out, that after the 1931 Statute of Westminster no longer were any of the countries colonies, and they were not at that time. He says they are now dominions, which answers once and for all the argument that the word "dominion" carries with it a connotation of colonialism. He went on to say;
What we are saying is that if we should not reach agreement, let us agree that from now on the English will not have the right to make laws for Canada. But this has to be done soon.
Then he said:
What we are trying to say is: Let us reach an agreement to bring back that constitution, let us do it without discussing the division of powers; we can always argue about it later; we do not need the Queen as an arbitrator, or Harold Wilson or the Pope for that matter. We are able to do it ourselves. This is what we are saying and I am adding, what if it did not work? You will have to make a decision and I think that there is even a resolution on this point. We should, perhaps, at that point, wonder if we should not do that on our own, if it will not simply be a matter of the Canadian parliament going to tell England: Stop making laws for us; we are going to discuss an amendment formula among Canadians.
The Prime Minister continued:
And I can see it coming, not too rapidly because we must not rush people too much but when we realize that it has been discussed for 49 years, I have the impression that we must not wait for another 49 years, because I will not always be there, at least me-

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Diefenbaker
Then he went on to discuss separatism. Ele pretended that the Conservatives do not agree with the government and he said:
-Or even if the Tories do not agree with us and want to guide their campaign by saying: The Liberals should have left the constitution in England, so that the British could have kept on making laws for us-
That statement is repugnant to the truth. I hope that people who want the constitution to remain in England for a time will not defeat the majority. There is no one in Canada who does not want the constitution patriated. Elowever, we still cannot agree on how it should be done. Then he said:
Now, since we are talking about England, I would like to say a few words about the Queen, as a transition, because next I would deal with the Olympic games-
Tie said he did not invite the Queen of England. Sir, let me say she is not only the Queen of England, she is the Queen of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He said he did not invite the Queen of England to open the Olympic Games; it was CO JO who invited her. In fact, it was not COJO which invited the Queen. The agreements among the various countries constituting the Olympic organization contain a provision that the head of state opens the Olympic Games, and the head of state in Canada during the Olympics was Her Majesty the Queen. Then he said:
It is not Pierre Trudeau who invited her. But I would not have been ashamed to invite the Queen, for she is the head of the country.
Now we come to the key sentence, in which he said:
If, one of these days, we abolish monarchy, she will not be the head of state any more, it will be someone else, in this case, Jules Leger, it will be someone I will appoint.
This is a very fine dissertation, and I read it to those in the Liberal party who can explain this clearly and definitely.
He said, in effect, l'etat c'est moi. Louis XIV was never more impressive than was the Prime Minister of Canada who said, "it will be someone I will appoint". He went on to say:
It does not mean, according to the present constitution that he or she will be better than the Queen, but it will be another constitution, it will not be a monarchy any more, it will be a republican parliamentary democracy-
Now you see what the rush is all about. Through the years from 1940 to 1976 his dream has been that there is something wrong with the Queen of Canada. Indeed, two years before he became Prime Minister he said, pay no attention to the Queen; she is of no more importance to me than skating or snowshoe-ing. He has never denied that since, and I said this when he was here.
Let me read further from what he said:
-and instead of having the Queen as head of state, we will have Jules Leger in Ottawa or Hughes Lapointe here-
He meant, in Quebec. Then he went on:
I do not think that it would change very much our legislative methods but I do not want to enter this subject now. I only want to state clearly that 1 am not the one who invited the Queen ... The COJO invited the Queen.

I could read a great deal more. These words cannot be interpreted in any other way but that when the constitution, or whatever remains of the BNA Act, comes to Canada, he will be in a position, not someone else, to appoint a president.


An hon. Member:: Peter the kingmaker.


John George Diefenbaker: All I say is that I want to hear an explanation. This part of the speech did not receive the widespread circulation that the rest of the speech received. I will pay this tribute to the Prime Minister, that he distributes regularly transcripts of everything he says. I read them with interest and file them as a former prime minister would anything in the nature of historical documents of that kind. I want this to be explained. He said he will be the Prime Minister who will appoint a president. He said it will be a republican parliamentary democracy, and that instead of having the Queen we will have Jules Leger or Huges Lapointe.
I should like to know whether this is one of the reasons the former minister of national defence-who has not told the whole story-apparently found it necessary to resign. It would be very nice if the government would table this speech in the House, because it is clear and definite. The Prime Minister said this transition will take place soon and that he will make the appointment. Is that the reason for his ungodly haste to bring back something that some people regard as a document that can be carried back? You cannot take a thing like that back. It is either a statute of the United Kingdom or a Canadian statute. We all agreed to that at the time of confederation, and it was the French Canadians who insisted on a monarchy in 1867.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to hear the applause, because they are worthy of it. I want to know the government's interpretation of this speech. Are we to have a revision of the revision, as we have so often when statements are made and they arouse public opinion, and then the Prime Minister says he never made them? If all the denials of statements he made were factual, no member of the press gallery would have the right to lift his head, because every one of them has somehow or other recorded what the Prime Minister has said, only to find out that he did not say what he did say.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great occasion for anyone who rises to speak after the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). We extended his time so that he could express his views about the constitution, but he came back and read from a speech and asked all kinds of mysterious questions. He did not have any answers. I would like to point out to the right hon. member that I was really shocked a few months ago when a member of his party criticized Her Majesty the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

October 19, 1976


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not know why, but after the Queen delivered a great speech in Montreal on national unity, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), a member of the same party as the right hon. gentleman, dared to criticize the Queen after she had performed magnificently in Canada during the Games.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 hope that some day the right hon. gentleman will sock it to the hon. member for Leeds for his discourtesy do the Queen. A Liberal member would never dare do such a thing. I am surprised that, in an effort to cover up, the right hon. member would rise today and try to appease the monarchists in Canada because some people on his side are giving a hard time to Her Majesty the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The right hon. member spoke about the trips of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I appreciate that the right hon. member spoke of the need for such trips, because it was a bit discourteous on the part of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to make bad remarks when the Prime Minister of this land is doing his job, going abroad to represent the best interests of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is the big question, is he doing his job?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very pleased today to go back into history, as the right hon. member likes to do. I see many happy faces opposite and hon. members wearing blue carnations. They are rejoicing because they won two by-elections. As Louis St. Laurent used to say, it is more important to win elections than by-elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That was a Liberal saying.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: A few years ago a great man, a one time finance minister and justice minister, once considered a potential prime minister, who after 13 years of Liberal government felt it was time to return to the practice of law, gave up his solidly Liberal seat and a by-election was called. There was a resounding victory for the Conservative party. It was a real shot in the arm for the new leader of the Conservative party and a great disappointment for the Liberal party. The right hon. member will remember very well that that minister was the late Hon. James L. Ilsley, a great minister. A little while later the Liberal government suffered a disastrous defeat in a by-election, this time in its stronghold in the province of Quebec. In the next general election the people of Canada were called upon to judge the two major political parties and what they had to offer to the country. The Liberals were returned with 192 members and the new Conservative leader, George Drew, and his Tories were crushed.
The Address-Mr. Chretien


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is all history.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am sure the same thing would not have happened if at the previous convention the Tories had elected the right hon. member for Prince Albert rather than Mr. Drew.


An hon. Member:: They are all blushing.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We very much like the right hon. member. Of course, we would have preferred his speech to be a little bit shorter, but it is always a great pleasure for us to hear him express his views. I am just puzzled that with all his experience he is not able to enlighten us on his ideas about the constitution a little more than he did, because with regard to the patriation of the constitution we on the government benches wanted some of his views. When he was prime minister of this nation he tried to patriate the constitution.


An hon. Member:: With the co-operation of the provinces.


Mr. Chr6tien:: I do not know why this would be a less urgent matter in 1976 if it was an important matter in 1961 when the Conservatives tried and almost succeeded. Almost succeeded! However, that is one of the problems of the right hon. member for Prince Albert; he always almost succeeded. He did not manage to patriate the constitution, but I hope that he, like me, wishes the constitution to be patriated now, and if it is patriated it will not change the fact that Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada. If some day the people of Canada want to change that system, they can. I will not be arguing for that. I think that Her Majesty often teaches Canadians great lessons.
I was honoured to be with her when she came to Montreal for the opening of the Games. She did a fantastic job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I invite every hon. member of this House to read the speech she gave in Montreal in which she praised-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Did you write the speech?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not want to get into that topic or to pretend that someone would force the Queen to say something. That is very insulting to Her Majesty the Queen.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It would be very improper for me to be so impolite to Her Majesty the Queen, and I hope that the right hon. member for Prince Albert will discipline the new member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is a very insulting course of action.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Governor General did not ljke the Speech from the Throne, either. Who wrote that?

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Chretien


Mr. Paproski:: Poor Gaby had to say a few things she did not like to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) has the floor.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know that hon. members opposite do not like to be confronted with real facts. I am glad they rejoice so much at by-election results. We are better at general elections, and I would not be surprised if the new leader, who was so jubilant this morning, will carry on the old tradition of Manion, Bracken and Drew. I did not name the hon. member who managed not to be part of that tradition, the hon. member who spoke before me. His situation was very unusual.


Mr. Lefebvre:: He is still the best one they have.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think they would be well advised to take him back.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should go back and speak about my new responsibilities. I am honoured to see one of my predecessors here to listen to me. I am pleased that he has taken the time to come here. I hope to be as flamboyant as he was, but more successful. This new job is not an easy one, as we are faced with many problems. Some of these problems are due to the fact-


An hon. Member:: That we have a Liberal government.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, because we have been successful.


An hon. Member:: In what?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One of the problems is the level of salaries in Canada, and another is productivity. We are having problems because in the last three years we did not go into a recession as they did in the United States. A recession did not come because of our management of the affairs of the nation, but unfortunately our success has led some people to believe that we in Canada can afford just about anything. That is one of the problems, Mr. Speaker. In the last two years we have been free of recession, so people in many industries think we can pay any type of salary. That is one of the most serious problems confronting me in my new portfolio. Some industries in Canada are paying higher salaries than in the United States.


William Heward Grafftey: Because of inflation. We have to keep up with the inflation caused by you.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get into an argument with the hon. member. Nobody can deny that in the last three years Canada has had less unemployment during the winter than the United States. For the first time in years we achieved that position, but now we are paying the price. Canadians had better realize that if they do not discipline themselves we will have to pay a high price in terms of our export position. The situation has improved in the last month,

of course, and I think we will have a good export position. If we exclude the financial transactions we will be in a favourable position, but we will still have a big balance of payment deficit because in Canada we need a lot of capital for development. We need it because we want to build hydroelectric power projects, we want to build pipelines, we are looking for more oil and we are looking for more gas. We have all sorts of big programs and projects for which we will need more money.
To counterbalance that, Mr. Speaker, my department will take action and make decisions. I think it is very important to abolish form-filling and red tape, especially for small businesses. The Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Mar-chand) will have something to say about that. I think that in the last ten years the bureaucracies have asked small businesses to shoulder too much red tape. My colleague, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo, is working with me and I have given him the task of looking into that matter. I hope he will be able to accomplish it in a speedy manner.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I found the remark of the right hon. member, in relation to the Minister of State for Small Businesses, somewhat improper when he commented on the minister's forthcoming trip to the U.S.S.R. later this month. I cannot go on that trip, so I think it is quite proper that he replace me as I have some very urgent matters to deal with at home at this time.


Mr. Dick:: So has small business; urgent matters.


Alexandre Cyr: He works with me, and he is very good.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The minister of small businesses?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, but he works with the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If the hon. member were not so ignorant he would know that sales abroad will bring more business for the small firms in Canada.
The hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo, who is the first Indian in the cabinet, will be a very good administrator for small businesses. He comes from a town where there are a lot of small businesses, and to his great credit he has been very close to them. When I had the privilege of visiting Kamloops earlier this month, I found how happy they were that one of them had been appointed minister with special concern for small businesses. His responsibility within my department is to help in my endeavours, including export business, but in the internal workings of'the department he will have special concern for the problems of small businesses. Sometimes we look at the picture in broad terms and forget the effect upon the small people.


John George Diefenbaker: Why did you abolish the small business department that we set up?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think I am entitled to finish my speech, Mr. Speaker, and I cannot relate what the hon. member said to what I am saying. I am speaking of the role of the Minister of State for Small Businesses, and I hope he will be able to make a contribution to the debate later in the week.
October 19, 1976

One of the reasons I decided not to go to the U.S.S.R. at this time is that I am very much preoccupied with the creation of jobs in Canada. When the Prime Minister asked me to take over this portfolio, I asked for a minister of state to help me because I think the job is big enough to be shared with someone else. My previous associations with the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo were good and I knew I could work easily with him. He will be doing some travelling.
My main preoccupation will be the creation of jobs in Canada. We have to develop a strategy to achieve this.
[ Translation]
First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that as early as next spring I intend to launch a big campaign for promoting exports across Canada. Hopefully it will be an education and information program for Canadian businessmen by the officials of my department, who are specialists in foreign trade. We hope that the best among them will be able to hold conferences across the country so that the very competent officials working abroad might educate Canadian businessmen and initiate them in foreign trade.
I think that the hon. member who has already been Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did a somewhat similar job when his party was in power and I should like to insist on this because I think that at this time Canada has an extremely favourable potential in this area. Ours is only a small country with no extra-territorial ambition but on the other hand, we have a modern technology, which is acceptable in many countries. I must also say that, after my first contacts with the ministers who visited Ottawa since I have been here and after the tour I made in South America, I am convinced that such a program for initiating businessmen in exports will certainly be very useful and that it will have great results.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to be particularly interested in the great projects which are being carried out in the world at the present time. When I visited Venezuela a few weeks ago, I realized that we Canadians are too often very timid when it comes to those so-called turnkey projects, that is extensive and comprehensive projects.
Too often in those projects, there is a lack of coordination and sometimes of government intervention. What is happening in today's modern world? Very often major decisions such as the great Venezuela railway or other projects of the same nature in Iran or Sandi Arabia are made by governments, and we are not adequately organized here in Canada. And if the department or even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not intervene we often run the risk of missing our chance. That is why I would like to consider the possibility of establishing-and I have not yet submitted the project to Cabinet-some sort of corporation to deal with that problem and also form within the country many consortia that could really offer comprehensive projects entirely acceptable to interested countries.
There is another problem I would like to deal with, Mr. Speaker. Often in our domestic trade, businessmen do not always think in terms of the best interests of Canada and they cut their throats-if I may use that expression-in certain
The Address-Mr. Chretien
countries trying to get one another out of a contract. I think it might be necessary in the future for the government to decide on its own which Canadian businessman is better equipped to do a certain job.
In the records I have examined over the four weeks I have been in charge of the department, I realized that we often have three, four, five or six Canadian businesses vying to get a contract abroad while our competitors-be they English, French, German, Spanish or Americans-have only one in the race. And the fact that we have several Canadian competitors somewhat discredits the representativity of our businessmen. It might be appropriate in certain circumstances to take our responsibilities unilaterally and tell our businessmen: Don't go and cut your own throat abroad, think of the good of the country, and compete one at a time in different projects.
I would also like, Mr. Speaker, concerning those major projects-
I want to speak about certain turnkey approaches, and I should like to hear the views of the opposition on this subject. The government will need to encourage the inflow of more risk capital in order to stimulate the Canadian economy. We are suffering from huge balance of payment deficits and we must export much more aggressively. We need huge amounts of capital in order to develop oil and gas reserves, including the tar sands and hydroelectric power projects like the ones at James Bay and Labrador. We shall need huge inflows of capital, but if we want this country's economy to remain stable we need to export more of the products we make in Canada.
When I was in Venezuela I learned that Canadian technology can be applied more usefully in that country than can certain types of European technology. An example was the Venezuelan railway system. We are experts at building railways over rough terrain. We have built railways across the most difficult terrain in the world, in the Rockies, in the marshes, in the north. We know better than anybody how to build such railways, and the Venezuelan authorities with whom I talked recognize this. They want, in Venezuela, the type of railways we have in Canada. They do not want a fancy railway that travels fast; they need one that is ruggedly built, reliable and able to carry heavy loads.


An hon. Member:: And slow.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is better to go slowly and get to your destination than go fast and run off the rails on a bridge. The Venezuelans realize this. I am putting these ideas forward because I think they are in Canada's best interests. We need to sell more aggressively. Our sales should counterbalance the inflow of capital which we need, because, Mr. Speaker, we in Canada will always need capital. Ours is a huge country, extending 4,000 miles east and west and almost 4,000 miles from Windsor to the North Pole. This huge country cannot be developed with capital derived alone from the savings of

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Chretien
Canadians. We need capital, but we need the proper climate in this land in order to attract it.


An hon. Member:: That would be a change.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, we can always improve. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Bawden) knows that a great deal of capital is entering Canada.


An hon. Member:: And a lot is going out, too.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Some is going out, that is true, but on balance capital is entering this country. This year we have a $5 billion deficit in our balance of payments to cover. Money is coming in; the trouble is that most of the money is coming in in the form of bonds and not as risk capital. A few years ago I heard members of this House saying that we should not encourage the entry of too much risk capital and foreign managerial talent; we should encourage more capital in the form of bonds. Now some hon. members take the reverse position. I say that we need risk capital in this country. Sometimes we obtain the benefit of managerial talent along with risk capital.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Any capital coming into this country, even as bonds, under this government is risk capital.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member will have his chance to make a speech.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I found it difficult to understand the hon. member. I stayed in the House for one hour, although not obliged to do so, to hear the right hon. gentleman opposite finish his speech. I had a cabinet meeting to attend, but postponed it to do the right hon. member the courtesy of remaining to hear him. I hope the hon. member opposite will allow me the courtesy of finishing my speech. I want to do my job well, but have not learned anything from the hon. member.
I consider my new job a great challenge. I was happy as President of the Treasury Board. I did not have to travel too much, I dealt mainly with ministers and members and did not receive nearly as many delegations as I am now called upon to meet. It is very pleasant to receive delegations five or six times a day, but it does interfere with your work at times. Still, I am carrying out part of the communications policy of this government and, as I say, I consider my new job a great challenge.
We can improve our situation. Canada has been fortunate in the past. We are an exporting country. All the same, during the last month I have been obliged to make drastic decisions in certain areas. For example, I had to impose quotas in order to protect this country's textile industry, and I have been criticized.


William Herbert Jarvis: Trop tard, deux ou trois ans trap tard.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Perhaps it is a little late, but 1 have been the minister responsible for only four weeks. I was forced to make some decisions in the first five days of my new responsibilities. The government has imposed import quotas on beef. The people of Canada must realize that we cannot be a free trader

and impose quotas at the same time. I often go out west; I am welcomed in the west, even in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: You bet.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I'm always welcome in Alberta. My mother comes from Alberta; everybody knows that. There are some in this House who always talk about free trade, yet in the same breath they ask us to impose quotas on beef and veal. Well, we have done it. Some traders abroad were abusing our good will; we were being flooded with imports from Australia and New Zealand, and when the Americans imposed restrictions last week I had no choice but to act. As soon as we knew what the picture was, we moved very quickly. We knew there would be a price to pay. We knew we could not win on both fronts at the same time. We had to be very careful. This is a free trading nation. We export a great deal and would like to export more. At the same time, however, we have to protect Canadians in productive occupations, such as textile workers and beef producers. It is better for Canadians to continue working in the textile industry in certain areas than to remain idle. However, Canadians must realize that in order to do this we must impose a quota and therefore run the risk of some of those goods being a bit more expensive. I am willing to take that kind of risk.
If hon. members have concrete proposals and ideas, I hope they will pass them on to me. I would be delighted to listen to them. I ask hon. members on all sides of the House to help me in my new job, keeping in mind our common goal-the well-being of this nation.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in today's proceedings, a day when we have honoured one of our members who has been here for 25 years-a quarter of a century of service to parliament, to the country and to his constituency. Of course, it is always a pleasure, at least on this side of the House, to hear the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he rises to address this chamber.
I want to begin by extending, in a very non-partisan manner, my sincere congratulations and best wishes to members opposite who have been successful in obtaining new offices. I firmly believe, however, that those members, along with their colleagues, had better gain maximum enjoyment from their current activities as I rather suspect, along with the apparent majority of Canadians-particularly on the basis of the byelection results of last evening-that they will not be holding those offices indefinitely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I want to indicate that I will be moving an amendment to the Speech from the Throne at the conclusion of my remarks.
This throne speech, delivered in a most excellent and graceful manner by Canada's first lady, in complimentary terms can
October 19, 1976

only be viewed as a vague and feeble attempt to revive the increasingly sagging fortunes of this government. It attempts vainly to repair the irreparable. It sends messages off in all directions and to all regions, but fails totally to offer any concrete solutions to the problems which it addresses, problems which for the most part have been accrued, and indeed have been caused, during this government's time in office.
Given the record of this government and the current mood of Canadians, which has been mainly fostered by the performance of the government, unfortunately I have come to the conclusion that the content of the throne speech is simply meaningless. In other words, it does not matter what the government now says; people simply do not trust the words or the print of a government which has previously deceived us and has provided such ample evidence of its worth that our citizens have developed an entrenched mood of dissatisfaction and disenchantment. You cannot, under any circumstances, hope to maintain the trust of people by completely ignoring their problems and wishes, or by continuously taking the attitude that governments are always right and the people are always wrong.
This throne speech adds insult to injury with respect to the agricultural industry. Like the last budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), it deals with one small agricultural item-unbelievable and unacceptable but, given the record of this government, understandable. There is only one paragraph announcing one commitment to agriculture, namely, "Measures will be introduced to make more farm-stored crops eligible for advance payments." This legislation is not new; it was promised by the minister over a year ago. It has simply been promised again. Let us hope that it does not turn out like the other few agricultural bills-introduced, given no priority at all, and finally passed months or perhaps a year later. Other references to agriculture in the speech are simply an example of the rhetoric. One is:
The Government will also work with the provinces and farm organizations to strengthen the structure and productivity of Canadian agriculture.
In reality, this government will more than likely pretend to work with the provinces and farm organizations but will, in fact, accomplish next to nothing as it continues to mismanage the structure, to discourage productivity, to perpetrate instability and to generally shrink the scale of the agricultural industry. Farm input costs have increased so much in the last few years that credit is not only needed for long-term farm goals but is required for year to year cash flow. A few examples of these increased input costs include a rise of 47 per cent in fertilizer prices between 1975 and 1976, an increase of 17.6 per cent in building replacement costs, according to Statistics Canada, a 24.6 per cent hike in the cost of petroleum products for farm purposes, a 13 per cent rise in the cost of farm labour, and a 16.2 per cent increase in the cost of electricity.
Yet against this type of background farm credit has been reduced. The funds available to the Farm Credit Corporation in the current 1976-77 fiscal year have been reduced by the Minister of Finance from $300 million to $280 million. It is
The Address-Mr. Wise
expected that gross FCC loan commitments will only total about $370 million this year compared with $641 million in the previous fiscal period a reduction of almost 50 per cent. This situation is having a disastrous effect among young farmers who cannot obtain the required credit sources. Is this the kind of action you would expect from a government which professes to care about agriculture?
Perhaps one of the main reasons for the low priority treatment given to agriculture is the obviously declining influence and importance of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). Until fairly recently, farmers generally were pleased with the minister. Given the fact that farm income has nearly always, characteristically, lagged behind others, and given the fact that input costs have risen beyond even the wildest imagination, they rejoiced to hear the minister tell their story. It made for great entertainment in hundreds of rural community halls and secondary school auditoriums across the country. But what is the situation today? The smiles have disappeared and the laughter has faded as farmers begin to realize what has been obvious in the House of Commons for months, that the minister cannot translate his wishes into legislation, nor can the minister act when he wishes to act. I believe he has even less influence in this government than he had a year ago. The federal dairy policy, which has created more unrest, instability and financial strife within the industry than ever before, is a prime example. In spite of all opposition warnings, the minister, or rather the cabinet, overreacted to the dairy surplus problems of the past year. Surely the minister must be aware that the dairy cow cannot be turned off and on with a toggle-switch.
Deficits and surpluses have existed before and they will exist again. We are still desperately in need of a long-term program. Where do we see any mention of such a program in the Speech from the Throne? My hon. friend from Joliette (Mr. La Salle) will deal with the dairy situation in more detail later today. The minister has failed to produce any kind of program for cow-calf operations. He has refused to implement a Canadian meat import law. He has done nothing about the unfair Canada-Australia-New Zealand meat agreement. What about the report of the beef inquiry commission? When is the minister going to act or, perhaps, more realistically, when will he be allowed to act? My hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) will later be offering some good advice to the government on this subject.
The stabilization payments for the 1975 apple crop amounted to a clear indication of cabinet interference with major agricultural legislation since they constituted a departure from the main thrust and intent of existing law. Because of the total failure of federal policies we are now seeing massive intervention programs by the provinces to bail out their own producers; for example, the recent program in Saskatchewan, at a cost of $30 million, and the program announced not too long ago by the Province of Alberta for a cow-calf program to which the provincial government had to contribute some $40 million.

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Wise
Witness, too, the Quebec dairy subsidy of $33 million. The question of federal and provincial jurisdiction has arisen and we may soon face yet another jurisdictional clash. The provinces, however, are acting only to protect their own industries from almost certain ruin. The very fact that these programs have become necessary amounts to the ultimate condemnation of abortive federal policies.
I have made statements before in the House on the subject of federal income tax and the capital gains tax as they relate to farm ownership and farm transfers, but as yet I have received no significant response either from the Minister of Finance or from the Minister of Agriculture. Present federal regulations clearly discriminate against the transfer of family-owned farms incorporated or organized in partnership, or other kinds of family organizations. Since this discrimination seriously threatens the transfer of such farms to succeeding generations, I propose that the rules governing such transfers be the same, regardless of the type of organization, as long as the farms are family-owned.
As has been previously stated both by myself and by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the government should also consider the exemption from capital gains tax of the income received by a farmer or family-owned corporation where the money is invested in another farm within two years. This would allow a farmer, if the need arose, to buy one farm and sell another for the sake of a more efficient operation. Similarly, moneys from all forced sales should be given at least a two-year exemption provided they are reinvested in the industry. The utter disregard shown by the government for proposals in favour of reforms such as these has clearly demonstrated to Canadian farmers that the federal administration cares little for them and their needs. Small wonder that the popularity of hon. members opposite has fallen so low.
Over the past few months we have heard rumblings about a comprehensive new food policy for Canada. It was indicated in the Ottawa Journal of May 8-and this has been verified in ensuing investigations-that the key department in the development of such a policy is not the Department of Agriculture but the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Mr. Speaker, this situation is totally unacceptable. It is an insult to the Department of Agriculture and to the industry generally. If Canada needs a new food policy, its proper place of origin and development is within the Department of Agriculture, though let us, by all means, take account of input from all sources, particularly those representing the consumer.
The present and future livelihood of producers is totally dependent upon an equitable policy, and in these circumstances their advice and counsel on any such venture is imperative, particularly when it comes through their respective commodity groups. When we hear that policy papers have already been prepared for cabinet consideration, I fear for the future of agriculture, especially in view of the government's past record of secrecy and deliberate confrontation. We in the official opposition are working hard to overcome the distrust which has been built up, largely because of the actions of the government, between producer and consumer groups. We will

not subscribe to proposals which will pit producers and consumers against each other. There has been too much of that. The present government has set a bad example. We intend to set a good one when we on this side come to power.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to interject a few words on behalf of the maple sugar and syrup production industry, most of which is centred in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Darling:: Don't forget Parry Sound.


John Wise: I shall not forget Parry Sound-Muskoka. One could perhaps forget the riding, but never the member who represents it. In spite of the fact that many countries show a keen interest in importing this sweetener, production has declined by almost 50 per cent in the province of Quebec during the last 20 years. Increased prices have been insufficient to provide healthy revenues to existing producers or attract newcomers to the long-time tradition. Maple syrup production in 1975 was about 1.3 million gallons, 21.7 per cent less than in 1974 and 950,000 gallons less than during the years 1956-60. I hope I can prevail upon the government to check this decline and save this traditional and valuable industry. I would be very interested to hear what the government intends to do regarding this vital matter.
The pork producers, as represented by the Canadian Pork Council, constitute another group within the agricultural sector which remains unimpressed by government performance. They are still very upset over the tariff cuts on pork announced last May by the Minister of Finance in his last budget. I might say that the importation of pork and pork products increased by 110 per cent in 1975 as compared with 1973. Mr. Elder, president of the Canadian Pork Council, has been quoted as saying:
Our pork prices are now set on a North American market basis. The cutting of tariffs as proposed will simply put an additional downward pressure on Canadian pork prices and further shake the confidence of Canadian hog producers, many of whom are currently considering whether to increase, or even continue in production. Producers with the support of a number of provincial governments are currently working in many ways, and at considerable expense through stabilization and marketing schemes to increase production following the recent production decline.
He went on to say that this cutting of tariffs will be interpreted by many producers as a further indication that the federal government is not concerned about the development and stability of the industry.
During the past two years I have spoken out on many occasions on dairy policy, particularly on the question of cheese imports into Canada. On this particular issue agriculture has been fighting a losing battle with industry, trade and commerce and likely the trend will continue. It is interesting to note, with all of the chaos and unrest that exists in the dairy industry today, particularly among the industrial milk producers in the province of Quebec, that statistics indicate that importations of dairy products have increased some 83 per cent in 1975 compared with 1973. This is only one example,
October 19, 1976

however, of increased strife within the agricultural industry caused by ever-increasing amounts of agricultural products.
Let me take a look for a moment at the Statistics Canada figures on imports; I have them before me and 1 also have the percentage increases in 1975 compared with 1973. Berries, 370 per cent; apples, 58 per cent; honey, 211 per cent; jams, 74 per cent; chicken, 289 per cent; canned hams, 33 per cent. I think the largest and most significant percentage increase of an imported product is tobacco. The subject of tobacco is not only very close to my heart, because I have a large acreage in the riding of Elgin, but I know my colleague who represents the riding of Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) is also extremely interested in this product. The increase in tobacco imports in 1975 compared with 1973 is a whoopping 1,086 per cent.
It is obvious that some restrictions, or at the very least increased tariffs, are required. Instead, the government is removing tariffs, such as that on sugar. This effectively removes any possibility of the revival of the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario. I regret that the Minister of Agriculture is not here because I would have been very interested to hear his comments regarding the removal of the tariff on sugar. I wonder whether he supports this measure, particularly when he has campaigned election after election on the promise to re-establish the sugar beet industry in southwestern Ontario.


An hon. Member:: He only does that at election time.


John Wise: That is true. Two production areas that are being adversely affected by the import situation are those of chickens and soybean production. In 1974, total importations of U.S. chickens into Canada amounted to approximately five million pounds, or less than one-tenth of one per cent of Canadian production at that time. In the same year, Canada exported to Cuba nearly 12 million pounds of Canadian-produced chicken. By 1975, imports of U.S. chicken had escalated to over 12 million pounds, and with literally no export of Canadian chicken this represented an increase of 250 per cent. Up to June, 1976, U.S. imports of chicken continued to swell and now total 22 million pounds, live and dressed. This in just under six months. At this rate, Mr. Speaker, imports may reach 50 million pounds this year, an increase of over 400 per cent compared with 1975, and represents 7 per cent of our total Canadian production. Since the vast majority comes into the province of Ontario, this represents 25 per cent of Ontario's total production and is ever increasing. Chicken producers are not happy with this situation, but to date the government has turned a deaf ear to their protests and representations.
Producers of broiler chickens are equally concerned about the increased importation of American broiler chickens. It has cut into the production quotas of Ontario broiler producers who were hoping to get back to regularity after having quotas reduced last year to 85 per cent of capacity in order to avoid a surplus or overproduction. There is a further danger, of course, that the broiler producer will be forced to accept a reduced return because of the necessity of cutting prices in order to
The Address-Mr. Wise
compete with American imports, which due to climatic and other conditions can be produced at less cost, generally speaking at about 25 per cent less. This unfair competition is a serious threat to the Canadian broiler producer.
Soybean growers, too, are now facing the prospect of reduced returns for their product as a result of unchecked foreign competition. Mr. Otis McGregor, chairman of the Ontario Soybean Growers Marketing Board, said recently that producers can expect to receive substantially less for this year's crop. Much of this reduction is due to increased competition from the United States, which exported 2.2 million bushels of whole soybeans to Canada during the previous year in addition to soybean meal, oil and flour, for a total market value of $145.8 million. Canadian exports for the same period amounted to only $15.1 million.
A familiar and disturbing pattern is now obvious, one of increasing agricultural imports and decreasing exports. Tariff barriers are established by our competitors to hinder the export sale of our products, yet imports continue to flow at alarmingly unchecked rates into Canada. Our producers are not being adequately protected. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) is doing farm producers and the agricultural industry a disservice by allowing this situation to continue unchecked. The Minister of Agriculture is losing all credibility by failing to bring any significant influence to bear upon the government's position.
We know that farmers want to produce, Mr. Speaker, and they should be given every opportunity to do so with as little government interference as possible. By and large, producers will adjust and adapt to changing market conditions. Canadian producers welcome competition and can compete in any marketplace given similar circumstances. But Canadian producers cannot, and should not, be expected to compete in the marketplace against heavily subsidized foreign products and commodities. Farmers should be assisted by government to seek out and develop foreign markets. At the same time, farmers should be called upon to develop more aggressive sales programs, both here at home and abroad, for their produce. The quality of Canadian food production is the highest in the world and can fulfil, with no problem whatever, any advertising or promotion program.
Were some reference to any of the matters to which I have spoken included or even vaguely mentioned in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, I might have been able to find some sign of hope or encouragement from the pronouncement. But, as usual, the agricultural industry has been completely ignored by this insensitive and unthinking government. From the point of view of the agricultural community and of those dedicated to serving its interest, this throne speech is totally devoid of merit.
As I indicated when I began my remarks some time ago, Mr. Speaker, I feel a definite desire, indeed obligation, to submit the following motion, which is seconded by my colleague from Joliette:
That the following be added to the Address:

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Saltsman
"This House regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to support the productive sectors of the economy, and in particular have not responded adequately to agricultural problems such as the distress of the industrial milk producers, the excessive importation of beef from Australia and New Zealand, and the lack of effective co-ordination between federal and provincial agricultural authorities.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first, in my opening remarks to congratulate the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and wish him well. He is going to need all the good wishes we can offer if he is to do anything with his new department. I do not say that because I have less than considerable respect for the personnel of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the years I have been here, I have had many occasions to consult and work with officials of that department regarding various constituency problems, and I have always found the personnel most helpful and, in fact, a very able group.
The problem is not the result of the personnel or the department itself but, rather, because the department has to serve a government that has no conception of any industrial strategy or policy. The result is that the department has become kind of an Augean stable of the kind that even Hercules, like the present minister, was not able to clean up. Some of you may remember the story about the Augean stables which Hercules laboured day and night to clean, only to find the next day that it was just as filthy.


An hon. Member:: It was Ulysses.


Max Saltsman: Well, the minister doesn't look very much like Ulysses.


An hon. Member:: It doesn't matter, you are shovelling the same stuff over there anyway.


Max Saltsman: You are experts over there, so I am sure you have the right handle on it. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, for all his apparent enthusiasm for some of the ideas he intends to put forward and changes he intends to make in the department, will really wind up doing what previous ministers of trade and commerce on that side of the House have been doing for as long as I have been here, and that is jawboning. He thinks he can jawbone the department and its policies into success. It is quite obvious that as his hero the minister has picked the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), particularly as an example of effective jawboning, when that member held the portfolio in the Conservative government. The difficulty is, of course, that the present minister does not have the same effective jaw as the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings and should not, therefore, try to compete in that league.
If we consider some of the things the minister said in his remarks today, we must ask ourselves whether he really understands anything at all about his job and the problem facing him. First of all, he starts out talking about facing some

problems. Certainly that has to be the understatement of the century in terms of the problem facing this country today.
Let me put on record the kind of position we find ourselves in at the present time. Between 1968 and 1974 Canada experienced the lowest rate of growth in the volume of exports of any major non-communist, industrial nation. The latest 1975 figures have been excluded from this comparison since they are heavily influenced by the world's cyclical contraction. Over that period real exports rose by an average annual rate of 5.7 per cent in Canada, 8.8 per cent in the United States, 12.1 per cent in France, 13.5 per cent in Japan, and 7.1 per cent in Britain. Even in beleaguered Britain it rose 2 per cent more than it did in Canada. Moreover, only two other industrial countries aside from Canada saw the volume of their imports expand more rapidly than their exports. Over this period real economic trade trends were worse for Canada than they were for Britain.
Canada's trade balance, measured in terms of stages of fabrication, has over the past decade continued to shift in a direction politically unpopular at home. The merchandise trade surplus has expanded continuously in crude materials and fabricated materials. However, in the fully-finished end products sector-that is where the jobs are; the sector which accomplishes the bulk of manufacturing-the reverse has been the case. Canada's merchandise trade deficit on end products has widened in every year since 1968. Part of this deterioration may be traced to an adverse movement in auto trade, though growing deficits have emerged in other finished products as well. Even excluding the eight most important export commodities, Canada's trade balance in the remaining products has displayed a similar deterioration since 1968.
The point of some of these figures which I have gone over quickly is that we probably have demonstrated the worst expansion, in terms of trade among manufacturing or developed nations, in the world. We must ask ourselves how a country with the resources of Canada and with the people here could do so badly in trade. The minister summed this up by saying we are facing "some problems". When it came to solutions, the minister suggested he would welcome ideas from anyone. I suggest he will need ideas from someone else because he will not get them from that side of the House.
The Minister takes considerable pride in the fact that the government has appointed a Minister of State for Small Business. I do not oppose this; I think it is very nice to attempt to help small business, at least to the extent possible. That still does not deal with the central problem relating to our trade deficit. At best it is window-dressing, if you will, or public relations. Small business, like motherhood, is something that no one is against.
The government will not create jobs, in the kind of world in which we live, by assisting small business. Small business in many cases can perform valuable functions that often big business cannot perform. Those of us who know something about small business will know that these businesses are often heavily dependent on giant industry. Small businesses are not initiators, innovators or creators of the large number of jobs
October 19, 1976

we require. They are ancillary and very important, and should be encouraged, but I think it would be like burying your head in the sand to think you can create the number of jobs this country requires by stimulating small business. I think every country in the world has demonstrated the fact that we live in a world in which we must have large industry. We must have large industry in order to be able to carry out research and marketing as well as the many other things associated with being internationally competitive.
We have some fair-sized industries in this country, but we have never quite developed the coherent or comprehensive kind of Canadian industrial structure to cause a presence in international competition. This is partly because of the presence of foreign ownership.
It is interesting to note that, as hard as those responsible for FIRA have tried, we have not been able to reverse this trend of foreign ownership by getting more Canadian businesses going when others are put up for sale. That organization has attempted to transfer ownership from foreign corporations to Canadian corporations. In spite of the good intentions of FIRA, the fact is that when you get down to it, for some reason Canadians have not been in a position to take over these businesses when they have been put on the market.
There have been some successes where Canadians have participated in the take-over of foreign corporations, but they have often occurred as a result of the government intervening and supporting the take-over and transfer of ownership. It is difficult to understand why Canadian entrepreneurs are in such a weak position and why the risk-taking that is occurring in other countries is not occurring here. Perhaps if we look back at our history we will find we have never had that kind of capitalistic society in Canada and that in fact Canadian entrepreneurs, with few exceptions, have been timid and heavily dependent on government.
Many projects in this country might never have got off the ground had it not been for public involvement or the government stepping in and, in fact, assuming the bulk of the risk. What does that say for us? I suggest it says that unless we can change the Canadian entrepreneur and the financial institutions, then the government of this country will have to play a much larger role in the development of industrial production. That is the way it has been done in the past, and that is the way it will be done in the future unless the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce adopts an attitude different from that of the ministers before him, an attitude of wringing their hands.
We can dissipate these problems by jawboning, by going out and assaulting the markets of the world as though we were the only ones who wanted to go out and assault the markets of the world. You must have something to offer the markets of the world, and the truth of the matter is that we are not in a position to do that. All the super-salesmanship in the world will not change that.
The Address-Mr. Saltsman
Whenever we talk about our being uncompetitive, the only ting that comes to some people's minds is that wage rates in Canada are too high. There are many other reasons why we are competitive and why our productivity is not high. One is the way our industries are organized and the way they compete or do not compete with each other. Productivity is not so much a matter of the guy who works at the lathe; it is a factor of industrial organization. We are not as productive as we should be, and we have to be productive. How are we going to be productive? Hon. friends on my right are listening with some interest and 1 am pleased to see that. One of them seems to be on the verge of standing up and making a suggestion. Perhaps he would like to say that the way to increase productivity is to get the government's cotton-picking hands out of the pockets of Canadians and away from businessmen who will show you how to be productive.
I see by the glint in his eye that that is the argument he was about to put forward. I wanted to save the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) the trouble of exercising himself to rise and ask a question, so I asked it in a rhetorical sense. I say to him: Is it really true? Because in fact this government has been more generous in terms of tax benefits than almost any other government I can think of. What more do businessmen in Canada want? They get low rates of taxation. The effective rate of taxation in this country is not that high or that devastating. This is not the reason people cannot compete.
I have had some experience, as have my colleagues in the House, trying to find a group of Canadian businessmen who are prepared to take the gamble of trying to persuade the banks of this country to stick their necks out. Unless it is a safe risk, with guarantees right down the line, you do not have that group of indigenous Canadian capitalists to do the job. Perhaps we will develop them some day; I do not know. But we do not have them now, and the truth is that we have not had them, with a few exceptions such as the E. P. Taylors and the Lord Beaverbrooks. To show you what Canadian ethics are, we drove them out of the country. We could not tolerate the likes of Lord Thomson.


Mr. McCain:: You contributed your share to that.


Max Saltsman: I did not. In fact, 1 made a speech in the House in praise of Lord Thomson, if not for his tendency to accumulate money, at least for his integrity in admitting that that was the sole purpose of his endeavours. The man is gone now, but I have no animosity for Lord Thomson. As a matter of fact, I found him to be a rather nice fellow on those occasions when we met in London; so let that be on the record.
I think we are in the kind of position where jawboning, exhortations and launching assaults on foreign markets will not do any good. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is indulging itself in a fantasy. The truth of the matter is that the minister, whatever his good intentions may have been today in putting forward this program and speaking of the kind of things he is going to do, in fact does not have the power to do them. The reason he does not have the power to do them is that the government is without a policy, without a
222

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Saltsman
strategy, nothing is co-ordinated, everything is ad hoc. If you are going to make your economy competitive, you have to take a systematic look at all the factors that enter into being competitive, the factors that enter into the reasons you cannot trade and others can.
I was curious to know what the minister meant when he spoke about the export business and said that very often in export contracts Canadian businessmen compete for a job, and that that is very bad. I always thought the Liberal party thought competing for a job was a good thing. Now they are saying that when you do it on export contracts, it is a bad thing. Therefore, he as minister, and presumably his government, will have to decide which business is best for the job, to quote him exactly. If there is an overseas job to be done, instead of having a number of Canadian companies competing for the job, the minister will make a decision and say, "We think A should go rather than B".
As I sat in my place listening to the minister, I kept trying to figure out exactly how he is going to go about doing that. Is he going to sit down with them in his office and review the kinds of bids they are making, and say to them, "Look, fellows, you really should get together. Your bid should go, but the other two should not". If that is the case, I am sure the combines people would be very interested in such conversations, even though consortiums for export purposes are exempt from the provisions of the combines legislation.
If we are going to bring people together on that basis, and if the minister really thinks he can get them to collude and combine for export purposes and there will not be some kind of carryover arrangement for the domestic market, that is the company turns out to be reasonably successful in selling on the export market-I do not think it will be, but at least successful to the point that it will get a higher price than it might otherwise obtain-will there not be a spillover? Will someone not come to the conclusion that if it works there, why should it not work in the domestic market? I think they came to that conclusion a long time ago. The minister underestimates the amount of collaboration that takes place in domestic and foreign markets.
What is there about the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that makes it so ineffective? I have pointed out in my remarks that I think they have some excellent people. My experience with the department has been good. When I come to them with a problem, I find people who understand, and more than understand. They are willing to really move on the thing. It is not often you can call a deputy minister on a Sunday and get some action from him, or have civil servants working halfway through the night on a deal because they know it is urgent and important. But that does not seem to be the problem. The problem is that the rest of the government's policies make it impossible for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to be other than the Augean stable to which I referred. It is just a stable where they throw all the junk, saying that they have to try to compensate for all the disastrous policies they have in other areas and come up with some money to bail out an industry here, make a grant

somewhere else, and do all those things which make up for the deficiencies in the policies of the government.
Let us consider some of the things which happen in this country. First, the government-and not only this government but also governments before it-can never make up its mind whether it has to concentrate on the manufacturing industry, agriculture or the resource industry. Perhaps governments have not wanted to make up their minds because that would have involved making a value judgment or decision. Governments have never really done that. They say they will concentrate on everything, manufacturing, resource industries, agriculture and fishing. They want to please everybody, and let the investment go where it pleases.
There have never been any conscious investment policies. What is the effect of that? The effect is that Canada is a very attractive resource country, and if investment in Canada is left alone, by and large the bulk of that investment will go to the development of resources. That is a natural thing, particularly when many investors are foreigners, with plants in other countries, who are looking for iron ore, asbestos or other raw materials to satisfy the needs of their manufacturing facilities. That is what has happened.
The consequence of this large influx of investment has been to raise the value of the Canadian dollar. The raising of the value of the Canadian dollar and the maintenance of high interest rates which accompany that-and sometimes interest rates are used to stimulate investment coming in-has virtually killed the manufacturing industry. It makes imports cheaper, and exports dearer. Even if our productivity were as good as that of every other country, this policy of maintaining a high value on the Canadian dollar would be disastrous enough. However, when our productivity is not as great as that of other countries, the consequence of maintaining the Canadian dollar at a higher level than the value of our chief competitor, the United States, for example, is virtually to ensure the destruction, or certainly the crippling, of the manufacturing industry in this country.
Our dollar is based on productivity and, after all, that is what a floating exchange rate is supposed to do. A floating exchange rate is supposed to reflect the differences in productivity between one country and another, and on that basis our dollar should be in the region of 90 cents to 94 cents to the American dollar, certainly not at a premium to the American dollar.
The hon. member who preceded me pointed out some of the difficulties with which he is familiar in the agricultural sector, and what has been happening to some agricultural producers. Surely part of the problem, in terms of what he was describing from his experience, also arises from the high value of the dollar. Whether we talk about chickens or machinery, it is the same kind of thing. If our dollar is higher than the American dollar, it is cheaper to go to the United States and buy chickens there. Certainly the Americans will not buy chickens from us, all other things being equal, if our dollar is more
October 19, 1976

expensive, if they have to pay more for it or if their currency does not buy as much in Canada. Yet the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is expected somehow or another to go out and sell Canadian products and have nothing done about the value of the Canadian dollar. That is an impossible thing to do. Little wonder they have to go back to the stable the next day and find it just as full as the day they left it. We have this kind of policy.
The Minister referred to his concern for the unemployed, and I am sure his concern is genuine. But how is he going to achieve full employment in Canada, with the kind of policies this government has been creating? He made one reference which I thought deserved at least a tag line or a credit line for the NDP. He said something along these lines, "We did not go into a recession. We have done better than other people." In my view, the only thing that saved this country from one of the most serious recessions we have ever had-certainly, one which would have been more serious than in the United States-was the fact that over the years the NDP has had some influence in forcing some welfare policies on the government. Without those support programs in this country, without unemployment insurance, without the various grants which are available, and without old age pensions, we would have been so flat that we would have made the thirties look like a picnic. Those are the only things that saved the government-not its cleverness and not its policies.
It is the fact that we have instituted support programs which maintain purchasing power when the inadequacies of the government show and it is not able to do anything about developing an industrial strategy and creating jobs. Unfortunately, while that prevents some of the worst hardships falling on people, it is not what this country wants. The people of this country want jobs. The result of operating these kinds of policies is that we have perhaps avoided a desperate recession, but at what a cost! We have spent money on unemployment insurance and on welfare policies, and lost dignity in many cases. All this could have been avoided by the creation of jobs and the adoption of adequate policies.
One has to ask why, in the face of close to one million unemployed in this country, the government maintains two measures which by everyone's judgment contribute to the loss of exports and the diminution of jobs. The two measures I refer to are high interest rates and the high valuation of the Canadian dollar, which are government policies. Those things do not happen by accident; the government wants it that way. Why does the government do this? I presume it is because it has come to the conclusion that we might have a little more inflation than we have now if we were to move the other way; in other words, in order to have full employment we might have extra inflation. However, now that this whole business of inflation has-become less of a real issue than it has become a political issue, the government has brought in its measures under the Anti-Inflation Act. It is quite clear that the AntiInflation Board has had a very minor effect, if there has been an effect at all, on prices in the industrial sector.
The Address-Mr. Saltsman
The figures which show that our inflation has decreased are related to what is happening internationally, but more particularly they are related to some stabilization in the price of energy and a very considerable drop in the price of food. Those are the significant factors in the drop in the increase in the cost of living. If we move away from high interest rates and from a high valuation of the Canadian dollar, one of the initial consequences, because we import so much from the United States, will probably be to raise some prices in this country. I say some prices, but in my view, if it is done in a determined and phased way it should not have any significant inflationary effects. However, we have a government which is scared and whose whole life, if it still exists, seems to hang on success in demonstrating that it has licked inflation or brought it down significantly.
This government is terrified to make any kind of trade-off in favour of creating employment in this country, getting jobs for people or improving our export potential, because these things might show up as a percentage point on the inflationary scale. They have tied their success so much to the Anti-Inflation Board that they are willing to jeopardize every other policy in order to make it look good. I think it is disastrous for this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and may I thank my friends and colleagues in the House. I shall only take a few moments to conclude my remarks.
I take the minister at face value. I have known him for many years and I have no reason to doubt his sincerity. He has said that we really have to do something; that he is going to welcome ideas and he is going to welcome proposals. I do not pretend, and 1 am sure no other member of the House pretends, to possess the kind of expertise that the minister may have in his department. But what we do have is a kind of overview, and ability to look at what is happening over there. It is our job to be critical, to try to understand what is happening-because everyone is deeply concerned over what I think is a disastrous record in terms of job creation in this country.
There may come a time when we do not have to worry about job creation. It is said that in the 1980s the big boom will be over and then we can turn to capital-intensive industries. At the moment, however, this generation needs jobs-now. At the same time, the government has to make a deliberate choice with regard to creating those jobs. It is going to cost us in some other areas; it may mean that some large resource developments may have to be deferred. So be it, if that is what has to be done.
80001-lS'/2

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Collenette
The greatest service the minister can offer in his new capacity is to bang the table in the cabinet room and say that his department cannot operate unless it gets some kind of plan, some kind of industrial strategy, some kind of industrial outlook which puts all the policies together in such a way as to improve our competitive position.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I think you can see, by the show of supporters here for myself and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), that despite our minor setback of yesterday we are indeed a united party, undaunted and willing to follow the leadership of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) into the next election to battle hon. members opposite. Before I get to the meat of the matter, Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a moment to congratulate Your Honour upon your appointment. From knowing you for many years, I know you will pursue your duties with the utmost diligence and impartiality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: It is really a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon. The Speech from the Throne and the legislation to be enacted in this session of the thirtieth parliament will, to be quite candid, make or break the Liberal party, the party I represent, the government I have supported for two years and the government I will continue to support.
There has been much rhetoric in this debate concerning the evils of inflation, the anti-inflation program, the problems of implementation of the Official Languages Act, the continuing energy crisis and countless other problems that afflict Canada. In my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like briefly to lay before the House the facts as they pertain to the economy and then relate those facts to the political climate which I believe has caused a great amount of uncertainty within the country.
It will be my contention, Mr. Speaker, that the basic problems facing Canada are not overly economic, not necessarily social, not even necessarily linguistic, not cultural, but political. I shall fly a trial balloon for restructuring the parliamentary system as we know it, then conclude with some remarks on the question of national unity and bilingualism.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us take a quick look at the economic situation. With the introduction of the anti-inflation program, the inflationary psychology which gained significant momentum in late 1974 and 1975 has, at last, been broken and therefore one can say the policy has been a success. There are those on the other side, especially members of the New Democratic Party, who contend that the anti-inflation program has not been successful in bringing down the rate of inflation but, rather, the huge slide in food prices has been the main reason for a drop in the consumer price index from over 10 per cent to a 6'/2 per cent annual rate, based on the August figures.
These critics argue that food prices do not fall within the purview of the anti-inflation program and, therefore, the program has had little real effect on the inflationary rate. This is false, since transportation and distribution costs, which do fall under the program, are built into the cost of food products at the retail level.
I think the main success of the program so far has been, as I mentioned earlier, the breaking of the anti-inflation psycholo-
[Mr. Saltsman.J
gy. The exorbitant wage demands that we saw manifesting themselves over the summer of 1975 have, of course, been drastically affected by the program. These labour costs would have worked their way through the pricing system and resulted in huge price increases in 1976. As a result, the rate of increase of retail prices has been significantly curtailed, but not enough, Mr. Speaker, for us to say that the program should be abandoned at this particular time.
The Prime Minister talks about continuation of the antiinflation program until 1978. I am not so sure that we can wait that long, because the main advantage of any statutory program of wage and price controls is its immediate shock value and as the program bites into more and more sectors of the economy and into personal incomes its popularity diminishes. In addition, any protracted period of controls will drastically restrict business expansion. The program should be wound down over the summer of 1977.
I think it is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that over the past two or three years, when every industrialized country in the world has been beset with the problems of rapid inflation and high unemployment, Canada has weathered the storm as well as any other nation, with the possible exceptions of West Germany, Sweden and Norway. It is true the economy has not grown. It is true that Canadians, for the first time since the depression, have seen their living standard remain at a standstill. But there has been no decline in the standard of living in this country such as that which has been witnessed in Great Britain, France, Italy and Japan.
Economic recovery is under way and I have no doubt that within two or three years, as the Speech from the Throne indicates, Canada will once again achieve prosperity, although the rate of growth of Canadian prosperity will in no way match the doubling of disposable incomes that we have seen in the past 20 years. Those days, I believe, Mr. Speaker, are gone forever. However, the Canadian people should be told that there is hope for a more gradual betterment of their life in both a material and a spiritual sense. This is borne out by the economic projections we have before us, not only from domestic bodies such as the Economic Council of Canada but also from external agencies such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
While the standard of living in this country has been marginally affected by inflation and unemployment, we have seen the terrible eruption of many social problems and a trend toward general disrespect for the traditional values and institutions of Canadian society. I think it is not an exaggeration to say that there is great hostility in the land. Much of this hostility is directed toward government at all levels but, of course, is more noticeable in the hostility toward the federal government and the leader of that government who is our Prime Minister.
This is something of which we on this side of the House are fully cognizant. Liberals are engaged in an exercise of searching among ourselves and among our ideas so as to put into proper context the degree of criticism that faces the Prime Minister and the government. We are trying rationally to analyse the reasons for the government's unpopularity and to bring forth concrete policies which respond to the concerns and the frustrations of Canadians.
October 19, 1976

It appears, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) does not have the inclination nor perhaps, if the truth be known, the ability to apply himself rationally to the issues which are causing disquiet among Canadians. As we saw in one of the most cliche-ridden and transparent speeches this House has heard from a party leader, certainly in my two years here and perhaps a lot longer than that, the Leader of the Opposition shows a complete lack of insight as to the forces which make this country tick. He talked of Canada as being, and I quote:
-above all, a partnership and the essence of a partnership in this country is to establish a basis of mutual respect and trust. That is broken down in Canada. It is not an accident that it is broken down. It is not due to impersonal forces from abroad, it is broken down because of now nearly a decade of the practice of this government of taking unpredicted unilateral actions and unilateral decisions.
How facile! What rubbish!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Really!


David Michael Collenette: However, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that mutual respect and trust in the government of Canada has broken down. But it results not from the unilateral actions of the Liberal government; rather, it is, 1 believe, due to the failure of the parliamentary system as we know it in this country to operate effectively.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What not blame the weather, or moon spots?


David Michael Collenette: Not only is mutual respect and trust breaking down but, indeed, I believe the country is in danger of breaking up. It is breaking up because this House is not truly a representative one. The concept of a representative parliament on the British model has served this country well for 100 years. But the pace of social and economic change and the regional diversities of the country have led to a situation where parliament, this body of which we are all honourable members, no longer reflects the will of the people.
We, as Liberals, have argued with some pride that we have been the one and only national party in this country. It has been clear for a long time, and I believe the Prime Minister gave official recognition to this point in his speech in Toronto a few weeks ago, that our party can no longer make that claim. Our condition in western Canada is feeble-that is being polite.
By the same token, the Progressive Conservative party is Still principally an English-speaking party with scant representation from the province of Quebec and, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, unlikely to increase that representation at any future election. Yet 25 per cent of those casting votes in the province of Alberta in the last federal election voted for the Liberal party, and 19 per cent in the last federal election voted for the Progressive Conservatives in Quebec. The resulting number of seats gained from that vote distorts the real meaning of democracy. So in this House we have two large parties that are not really national at all, and two minor parties-the Credi-tistes with almost all of their support from Quebec, and the New Democratic Party which is made up of a few industrial seats in Ontario and British Columbia, and a small rump of agrarian radicals from the prairies.
The Address-Mr. Collenette


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Fancy calling Stanley Knowles an agrarian radical.


Stanley Howard Knowles: By "agrarian", the hon. member means down to earth.


David Michael Collenette: There have been many, both inside and outside this House, who have said that the Senate should be resurrected-that is, if it ever was alive-so as to reflect the more regional points of view. One suggestion is that lists of nominees for Senate appointments be prepared by provincial governments. This, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, would handcuff the administration of national affairs in Canada much as it has in France, the United States and Australia where bicameral legislatures exist. I believe it is essential for the efficient government of a country that there be one national decision-making body-in our case, parliament. However, I believe the method of election of members to parliament could be radically changed to reflect the true sentiments of the people of this country.
There have been many arguments over the years for a system of proportional representation in government. 1 believe that is perhaps the one answer to solving present Canadian problems. We have to overcome the dilemma of, in effect, having a one-party state as a result of an electoral system that creates a terrible bias by the "winner take all" theory in each constituency. West Germany could, perhaps, be used as a model for any mixed or proportional representation system.
I would put before the House the following suggestion. When the British North America Act is patriated, it should include structural change to the parliamentary system which would continue to allot seats to each province in proportion to population as we now have it, with the same constitutional guarantees that were made to Quebec and to Prince Edward Island, but stipulate that only half the seats in any particular province would be filled by direct election. The remaining 50 per cent of all members in each province would, as in West Germany, be elected by means of a preferential proportional voting system. For those who wish to pursue this idea in depth,
I would like to draw attention to the excellent summary of Geoffrey K. Roberts in his book entitled "West German Politics."
It is precisely because parliament does not accurately reflect the views of all parts of this country that regional frustrations have tended to be expressed by the provinces, and with this expression of regional frustrations the power of the provinces has grown inordinately, so that there is much duplication of government in addition to a tendency toward distortion of national fiscal policy by wanton provincial borrowing both from domestic and foreign sources. The notion of equal strength of provinces and the central government as expressed by the Leader of the Opposition and by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) is contradictory. Any continuing devolution of federal powers, whether it be to Quebec or to Alberta, will fracture this country beyond repair, and in only a very few years. I urge and challenge the Leader of the Opposition to come to grips with patriation of the constitution, to put aside his parochial views and, if he can, try to think of

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Collenette
the national perspective. This may be difficult to do, because the Leader of the Opposition often appears but a mere handmaiden of rabid provincial interests who pull strings from Edmonton.
Finally, I want to say something on the question of national unity, bilingualism and the encouragement of French immersion courses in English-speaking provinces.

Mr. Speaker, many English-speaking Canadians born in Canada forget too easily what a minority group is up against. Simply ask a newly-arrived immigrant in Toronto if it is easy to be accepted by the majority. Put the same question to some of our Jewish friends. The answer will be a loud No. New Canadians must suffer hardships by reason of their language and cultural differences; they face discrimination by reason of colour or religion.
Generally speaking, immigrants accept those hardships. They feel it is the price to be paid for acceptance in this country. But the same does not apply to French-speaking Canadians. They are more than a minority, they are part of a minority ranking as an equal partner in this Canadian nation. This is a hard fact of Canadian life, recognized by all parties in Parliament
-except the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his friends.
However, moderate Francophones who are the majority in Quebec must constantly fight on two fronts. They have to fight the separatists whose arguments appeal to the emotions of their fellow citizens. They also have to fight Anglophones who, imbued with a racial superiority complex, make little effort to acknowledge the French fact in their daily lives.
Recent developments have been helping the Parti Quebecois and the separatists.
The Official Languages Act is the mortar that binds this country together. Within its terms is enshrined the legal right of Canadians of both languages to be served in their own language by their national government throughout the country. Whenever possible, I feel it is the people's wish that the government provide that service. This was the crux of the air traffic control conflict. If safety and bilingualism are compatible, why deny the implementation of bilingualism in that sector?
A majority of citizens in my riding, and certainly in this country, react favourably to the linguistic and cultural dilemma faced by our French-speaking partners. Only those who are misinformed are unable to accept the inevitable, namely that our country is made up of two founding peoples with two official languages.
[English)
The initiation of French immersion courses in Ottawa, with significant federal financial assistance, has achieved a measure of success almost embarrassing to the government of Ontario, which has substantial jurisdiction over education. The success of this and other programs across the country probably

prompted Mr. Spicer to advocate increased bilingual education of young Canadians in Canadian schools.
Following Mr. Spicer's sensible recommendations, and in keeping with the sentiments expressed in the Speech from the Throne, I have a suggestion to make to the newly appointed Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) who, incidentally, is sitting in this House now. He will, I believe, make a tremendous contribution to national unity in his new office. When federal-provincial authorities this winter discuss the renewal of agreements whereby the federal government pays a share of postsecondary education, I believe the government should make, as a condition of its financial support, the requirement that those seeking entry to all university degree programs should be proficient in a second language. The second language need not necessarily be French or English; it could be Italian, Greek, Ukrainian or just about any second language.
This would encourage the children of new Canadians whose mother tongue is other than French or English to pursue their cultural heritage. At the same time, they would be credited with skill in another language for purposes of university entrance. The children of English-speaking parents would, I believe, opt almost exclusively for French as a second language, and children of French-speaking parents would opt almost exclusively for English studies.
I have noted in Toronto during the past few years, on the radio and the other media, expressions of hostility aimed at the Official Languages Act and the undeniable fact of this country's two founding languages and cultures; yet English-speaking parents, especially those in the largely defined middle-class, are among the first to demand French immersion courses in their children's schools. In metropolitan Toronto there are waiting lists of English-speaking students wanting to get into French immersion schools. It is noteworthy that the Ontario Minister of Education, Mr. Wells, recently said it was his aim and the aim of the government of Ontario to ensure that French immersion courses are offered by every school board in Ontario where there is a demand. That is certainly a start.
[ Translation]
The time has come for the moderate people, who are the majority in Canada, to come forward and speak the language of reason. This is not the time to remain silent.
Particularly for the Anglophones.
What is at stake is Canada as a nation. It is also the principles of justice and democracy which have served us so well for more than a century. For myself, I do not intend to remain silent.


Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin by commending the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the throne speech, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), on their forthright comments

October 19, 1976

and, in particular, their brevity in speaking. That was surely a most worthy example for all of us in this House. Also, I wish to record my deep and sincere appreciation for the courage and determination shown by their Excellencies the Governor General and Madam Leger in their very able presentation of the throne speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: It is my intention this afternoon to make some very specific remarks relating to our Canadian cattle industry. Before doing so, I hope it will be appropriate to make a few brief references to my home constituency of Medicine Hat. Approximately half the population of the federal constituency of Medicine Hat live in the city of that name and in the nearby industrial town of Redcliff. The mayor of Medicine Hat, Ted Grimm, recently announced a new population figure of 33,220, an increase of 17 per cent over the past two years. He said that in his opinion this rapid rate of growth had peaked and that the city was now in a consolidation phase of more modest growth.
At the same time, the mayor of Redcliff, Alf Dutton, can rightfully be proud of an annual population growth of 10 per cent over the past six years to a current total of 2,991 at the June census. These are satisfying growth figures. I should know, because after many years of no growth or, indeed, periods of population shrinkage, these figures are indeed satisfying to those of us in my constituency. They are mainly the result of our recent petrochemical and fertilizer development which is just now coming on stream.
The petrochemical industry is very important to the joint communities of Medicine Hat and Redcliff. The day after the throne speech was presented, Premier Lougheed of Alberta reminded all Canadians of this fact. In a brief reference in his state of the province speech, the premier made it very clear, and I quote:
Petrosar is a reality but one thing it won't be is an approved purchaser from the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission.
He also reminded us that this Alberta position was clearly spelled out on May 16, 1974. Last weekend, at our Quebec City caucus, 1 had a most interesting conversation with a Quebec lawyer on provincial resource development. We were generally agreed that Alberta and Quebec held somewhat similar views as to the development of non-renewable resources within our provincial boundaries. As I said, we were agreed on this. However, just as we parted company my Quebec friend said, as a very profound afterthought, "The only trouble is, you people in Alberta have too much."
It is not my intention today to make any apologies for my premier or my province. However, 1 do suggest that the rough justice of the 1930s on the prairies has finally been somewhat tempered two generations later. I also suggest that our at-home non-renewable resource development is necessary to compensate for the present-day transportation inequities. Our resources must be developed wisely. We in Alberta are very conscious of this and we will be ever mindful of the non-partisan wisdom all of us were privileged to hear last night from my
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
colleague, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean). After all, land and its resources are not something you inherit from your parents; they are things you borrow from your children. We should never forget that.
During the summer recess, at various meetings, visits and travels in my constituency the topics of conversation raised by my constituents nearly always involved at least one or all of the following topics: the obvious bilingual issue, the international political footwork of the government during the Olympics, the capital punishment, peace and security package of legislation, and the government's controls policy. There were very few purely local issues raised with me, just these very serious national and international ones. It should come as no surprise to all members that there were the usual salty comments about the decline in popularity and credibility of the Trudeau government. Running through all these constituency chats was a distinct undercurrent of suspicion and distrust of the direction in which Canada is heading.
Finally, after four years, the left of centre emphasis on legislation that began in the two-year minority parliament is being seriously questioned, if only because of the staggering costs that are now so apparent, surely, to all Canadians. Yesterday's by-elections' results must surely be the final proof, if any were needed, of this personal assessment.
I now wish to turn to agricultural matters and to the Canadian beef cattle industry in particular. No Speech from the Throne in recent memory contained less reference to agriculture than the one now under debate. Only 42 words were used to discuss strictly farm matters. It seems "consultations" are finally to be held with the provinces and farm organizations to "strengthen the structure and productivity of Canadian agriculture". Surely the major disappointment must be that Canada's beef cattle crisis was completely ignored, and this in the face of continuous and massive offshore beef imports and another pending beef war with the United States triggered by President Ford's beef quota announcement on October 9.
Let us examine our current cattle situation. The two major components of our cattle industry, cow-calf and the feeding sectors, continue to be seriously depressed with market prices well below actual costs of production. Fat steers have been losing from $50 to $125 per head since early spring. The same situation generally holds true in the U.S.A. An expected upturn in fed cattle prices in both countries did not develop because of three factors-abnormally high steer numbers in the beef pipeline, the excessive level of beef imports from Australia and New Zealand, and continuing high domestic feed grain prices which contribute so much to sustained high costs of feed lot gains.
The North American beef cattle industry is in serious trouble, essentially because we have too many cattle, especially cows and steers. There is only one outlet for this abnormal production-consumers in the United States and Canada. The cost of moving surplus beef offshore is prohibitive and only

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
accentuates the truth of the fact that no other country in the world can afford to buy North American cattle or beef even at today's depressed producer prices. We must continue, literally, to eat our own surplus on this continent. I must add that we are doing a pretty good job of this. Canada's beef consumption, per capita, is up by five pounds compared to the same period last year.
After a seven-year build-up in cow numbers-43 per cent for beef cows-our national breeding herd began to decline in the fall and winter of last year. But last year's record high calf crop is still in the beef pipeline. Cow numbers will continue to decline this fall and winter, but there is no indication of any shortage of breeding cattle or, of course, feeder cattle. Last August, the U.S. Beef Industry Council summed up the whole situation very succinctly by saying:
Everything comes down to having 10 per cent to 11 per cent more beef production this year than last... we have to work extra hard to move this large supply.
There are two issues currently before our Canadian cattle industry. Each is highly political and their successful resolution is indispensable if the present cattle crisis is to end. First, there are the offshore beef imports from Australia and New Zealand. I consider this issue to be the most important one in the short term. Second, there is the Canada-U.S. cattle and beef trade which I consider to be more important in the area of long-term policy determination.
While these two issues have an obvious common denominator-cattle-they are separate and distinct and must be discussed separately. With regard to the offshore imports issue I would say this: in the face of current record high supplies of North American beef, the last thing we need is a massive increase in imports of beef from "down under." Accumulated imports for the first nine months of 1976 are now up by approximately 55 per cent over the same time-frame in 1975. Some 145,118,000 pounds of frozen carcass and boneless beef entered Canada as of the week ending October 2, 1976, an increase of about 50.9 million pounds compared with 1975.
With the unlimited access to our markets presently enjoyed by Australia and New-Zealand, year-end totals will make up approximately 10 per cent or 11 per cent of total Canadian beef consumption. Further complicating this issue, such imports have been priced 15 cents to 25 cents per pound below the prices of equivalent imports into the U.S. markets and right now they are still coming in up to 15 cents below those prices in spite of the one-sided "six cents under" rule agreed to by Canada on June 11 last.
Why should a pound of Australian or New Zealand beef be worth less than a pound of Canadian beef? This so-called "six cents under" rule was a sell-out by our Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and its minister at the time. Apparently, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was a party to the deal.
My questions in the House on July 7 and July 8 stated the cattlemen's position in no uncertain terms, and the former minister of industry, trade and commerce said he would take them as notice "to find out the basis of the conclusion which

was drawn". Of course, the minister never did respond in the House to the questions I raised. On July 16, in anticipation of this lack of action, I wrote a personal letter to the minister asking for a proper explanation. Two months later he did respond in the course of a lengthy letter which sought to justify the "six cents under" rule. He said, in part:
During recent years the Canadian boneless beef market has been based on an export equivalent, a term with which you, as a cattleman, are familiar. The price for boneless beef and cows in Canada has been determined by the level at which boneless beef, cows, or both, could be sold in the United States.
I am indeed familar with the term "export equivalent", but I am amazed that the minister's senior staff would be so naive as to advise him that Canadian market levels are always at this export equivalent. Our boneless beef market is determined by the dominant U.S. market, but in actual practice it floats between a Canadian export floor and a U.S. import ceiling. Our minimum boneless beef price will be the United States price less tariff, less freight, less other expenses, plus or minus the dollar exchange. Our maximum price would be the United States price plus tariff, plus freight and other expenses, plus or minus the dollar exchange. This means, of course, that depending on the relative domestic supply situation in each country, our prices can be above or below United States prices.
There is no reason that Canada should always operate at the export floor level. The "six cents under" rule simply means that Canadian producers are paying the tariff and transportation charges on equivalent volumes of Australian and New Zealand beef imports. This is a considerable amount of money. Hon. members may be familar with the current round of questions in the House on this issue.
In spite of the statement by the Minister of Agriculture as reported at page 103 of Hansard of October 15, that no beef or veal would be allowed into Canada after Sunday night, October 17, unless by permit, one fact remains clear: nowhere has the minister stated he intends to restrict, reduce or, hopefully, temporarily stop Australian and New Zealand beef imports into Canada. The minister's individual permit device is merely a diversion which indicates no intention whatever of "federal action to protect beef markets", to quote the heading of his news release of October 13.
The Canadian cattle and beef market continues to remain the only major market in the world without protection against offshore imports. United States cattle producers have their meat import law and we saw how effective it was last October 9. The minister refuses to consider the counterpart of that, a Canadian meat import law; he says that our Export and Import Permits Act will accomplish the same results. But nowhere has he acted to use this legislation that is presently on the books. I say to this House that it is completely irresponsible for the Minister of Agriculture to suggest that these imports do not compete with our fed cattle markets. He has said this consistently all through the summer.
While our frozen carcass imports generally supplement our domestic cow-beef supplies, these frozen, boneless cuts do compete directly with our grade A fresh beef supplies. Witness
October 19, 1976

last week's sudden market strength in the United States that was due mainly to a sympathetic reaction by U.S. cattlemen and the entire industry to their prompt quota action on offshore imports. The same market increases could occur here if similar action were taken with respect to offshore imports of beef.
Before leaving this item, Mr. Speaker, it should be pointed out that in 1975 Canada had a deficit trade balance with Australia and New Zealand of some $113,034,000. Historically, Canada has been a net exporter in its trade with these two countries until the last few years. Our main export commodities to Australia and New Zealand are manufactured products. It now seems highly probable that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is deliberately using this trade deficit as a trading lever for further manufactured goods in our trade with these two countries-at the expense, of course, of our Canadian cattle industry.
I should now like to deal with the second major cattle issue, the Canadian-United States cattle and beef trade. As I intimated earlier, this is the more important in terms of long-term policy development for Canada's cattle industry. Recent developments in our cattle and beef dealings with the United States have become headline items, starting with the firing of United States Secretary Earl Butz and the subsequent imposition of meat import quotas by the United States. This, of course, is recognized as a highly political issue in that country, with both parties trying to attract the farm vote in the final stages of their election campaigns.
Let me take a quick lodk at the cattle and beef trade with our trading partner, the United States. The following figures are from the Department of Agriculture's blue book of statistics on livestock marketing, and they are for the last week of record, October 2, 1976. These are the cumulative totals from January 1 to October 2, 1976, a period of some nine months. Canada's imports of beef amount now to 17.8 million pounds; one year ago the corresponding figure was 9.4 million. As for imports of slaughter cattle, which includes both cattle and slaughter calves, imports amounted to 147,804 head; last year the corresponding figure was 65,653 head.
Now the other side of the coin, our exports to the United States. We exported 71.8 million pounds of beef, compared with only 14.5 million pounds last year. As for cattle, which includes four categories, slaughter cattle, feeders, beef breeding cattle and slaughter calves, we exported 231,936 head this year, compared with 34,065 head in 1975. It is of interest to note that during the last week of record, ending October 2, 5,837 head of slaughter cattle and calves were imported into Canada. I repeat, that was in one week, Mr. Speaker. Most of these cattle came into either Ontario or Manitoba. The point is that right now, in spite of heavy imports of United States fed cattle, in our total trade balance with the United States we have a substantial positive trade balance in dollars, number of head and pounds of beef. We should not forget that at the negotiating table with the U.S.A.
Several weeks ago our agricultural minister made some statements on CBC radio concerning offshore imports. He
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
took the occasion to sort of brag about this healthy Canadian trade balance with the United States. Surely, in view of recent developments, this was not a very prudent thing to do-to rub it in, if you like, or to flaunt it in the face of United States cattlemen and politicians in the heat of their presidential campaign. Canada cannot afford even remotely to consider another cattle and beef war with the United States. Our memories cannot be that short.
While I have always strongly supported the concept that we must remain a vital part of the North American cattle and beef market, I quickly add that this concept must be fair both ways. Right now, the United States meat import law and their 10 per cent ad valorem duty on our processed meat exports gives a clear advantage to the United States at the negotiating table. 1 suggest that Canada's cattle industry is much better off in the North American market, even if we have to negotiate these unfair items, than risking the total loss of the United States market which must be considered inevitable if our cattle industry moves in a supply-management direction. Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, the 100,000 Canadian cows that were absorbed by the United States market in 1975, or what they would have been worth in Canada without that market.
Yesterday afternoon unofficial United States sources suggested that our U.S. quota will be 80.4 million pounds of beef for the whole of calendar year 1976. I stress that this figure comes from an unofficial United States source. This, of course, is considerably short of the minister's figure of 90 million pounds. With the actual figure now approaching 74 million pounds as of today, it becomes more important than ever that Canada act immediately to restrict Australian and New Zealand imports before our own surplus starts to back up when the United States quota is filled, perhaps early in November.
I have been somewhat critical, Mr. Speaker, of the government's direction, or lack of it, in our cattle industry, particularly under the agriculture and industry, trade and commerce ministers. I trust that the members of this House will recognize that these are truly objective comments, even if it is the way I see it.
In concluding these throne speech remarks, I wish to record, again as I see it, three short-term policy recommendations and four long-term policy considerations relating to our beef cattle industry. I shall deal first with the short-term items. First, there should be immediate and even retroactive action on the Australian-New Zealand meat import issue by the establishment of a Canadian meat import law or by making the import permits act really work. Second, if federal political action is necessary at the producer level, let it be limited to a stop-loss stabilization approach as provided for by the minister's own Bill C-50, but not a top-loaded plan.
Third, let those provinces already operating their own programs-they are British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec-continue until a federal stoploss policy becomes operative. You must remember that a number of these provincial plans are based on individual
230

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Hargrave
five-year contracts, so it would be extremely difficult to superimpose a federal program on them. At the same time, and in addition to the last item, let us have an announcement now as to what the fed cattle support price is for 1976. Surely this is long overdue; it has been promised by the minister practically throughout the year.
Let me turn to long-term cattle policy considerations. First, we should not be recommending supply-management for Canada's beef cattle industry. If this development ever comes into being, it must be as a result of a request by Canada's beef producers only, and not by federal government promotion. Second, we should strive to preserve the North American market concept that recognizes the two-way flow of both live cattle and beef with nominal tariffs only between Canada and the United States. Third, we should recognize and eliminate the east-west inequities that currently exist-I am thinking here of transportation costs-resulting in a gradual but definite shift in Canada's feeding industry for cattle and hogs from western Canada to Ontario and Quebec.
Fourth, we should decide now that Canada can, and should, go all out to produce cattle and beef in vigorous competition with the United States, even if it means moving to a net export position. I am sure that is the position we now have in Canada. Finally, Mr. Speaker, surely our Canadian cattle industry has had far too many ill-advised, short-term, ad hoc government policies, both federal and provincial, with absolutely no clearly defined long-term policy objectives. The single exception here, of course, is the obsession of the Minister of Agriculture in respect of supply management for our cattle industry. This is an approach which I cannot accept. Surely the time is overdue for politicians to think and plan in terms of the next generation of cattle producers, rather than in terms of the next election. Promises of federal subsidies might win a few votes and lose our cattle industry.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Floods-Government reaction to petition for control measures on Rideau River; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Energy-Request for subsidy to Atlantic provinces-Government action; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Housing-Possibility of additional funds for rehabilitation of existing units.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Harquail for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. John Wise.
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne and the speech by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dealt largely with the problems facing this country and the choices which are open to the Canadian people, at a time when Canada no longer seems able to maintain a precarious balance between economic growth and the distribution of national wealth, through traditional means. My obvious interest in federal economic policies which has led me, ever since I was elected to this House, to sit on the Standing Committde on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, on the Standing Committee on Regional Development and on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, might also induce me to expound in this debate the principles of what may be the foundations of economic democracy in Canada today.
However the resignation of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) on June 30, the rulings by the Quebec Supreme Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal in the case against Air Canada, and more recently, the resignation of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) are issues which, to say the least, must be tackled. Therefore I feel I ought to deal exclusively with the first part of the Speech from the Throne, namely the part entitled "National Unity". In this connection, I must say that, because of the crisis Canada is facing today, this part of the official prose cannot be said to be erring on the side of audacity, still less by the boldness of major reforms which the problems our country is facing now would warrant, in my opinion.
Those who, at the time the Official Languages Act was adopted on September 6, 1969, believed for a while that bilingualism was once and for all with us, forever part of the Canadian structure, lost their remaining illusions when the former minister of national defence made public his letter of resignation. In this letter, he stated, quote:
... it seems to me that most Canadians would consider it prudent to continue for some time longer with the bilingual experiment before agreeing to entrench increased language rights, for all time, in the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing new in this statement; it is only the extension of a vision of this country which dates as far back as the Treaty of Paris of 1763, at a time when James Murray was cleverly administering the Test Oath, controlling British immigration and the imperial economy. This vision which the former minister is echoing again was more rudely expressed in an infamous report, both in its excessive and racist approach. Lord Durham wrote in February 1839, and I quote:
*
October 19, 1976

Do French Canadians constitute a nation? ... I do not know of any national feature which marks and maintains a more desperate inferiority ... It is to extricate them from their inferiority that I wish to give Canadians our English character... I want it in the best interest of educated classes whom language and custom barriers keep apart from the great empire to which they belong ... 1 am even more in favour of amalgamation in the interest of lower classes ... If those people try to improve their condition by speading out into the neighboring country, they will necessarily come into closer contact with an English population; if they prefer to stay put remain where they are most of them will become labourers working for English capitalists. Wrongs generated through hardship and dependance would simply be aggravated and increased by feelings of a jealous and rancorous nation which would separate the working class from the owners of wealth and the employers of labour. These people have no history and no literature. Their nationality prevents them from enjoying the pleasures and the civilizing influence of arts.
For the royal observer, French Canadians were reduced to a state of inferiority, poverty and dependence. To improve our lot, the British lord suggests that we become good English workers, working in English for English capitalists under English peace and English civilization.
Those words did not fall on deaf ears, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba's joining Confederation made it possible to follow that advice. Need I remind the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) how the French language lost its official status in Manitoba? A little more than a year was enough. All the steps which were taken from February 4, 1889 to March 28, 1890, coincided in fact with a number of others to close the French-speaking Roman Catholic schools.
On February 4, 1889, a report by the committee on the printing of the proceedings recommending that the Votes and Proceedings no longer be printed in French was adopted. On February 11, a resolution amended the rules of the House so that motions would no longer be put in both languages and the bills would not be printed in French. On March 7, it was decided that the notices concerning private members' bills would be published in the English journals only. On March 20, Bill 43 was passed to abolish French juries. On March 22, Bill 70 was passed. It was entitled "An Act to provide that the English language shall be the official language of the Province of Manitoba". Finally, on March 28, 1889, a second report from the committee on printed material was passed which recommended that minutes and statutes be printed in English only.
Strengthened by its success and the speed with which action had been taken in the case of the courts and the legislative assembly, the government of Prime Minister Greenway decided then to tackle the school system. Besides, according to the liberal philosophy of the times, cultural and linguistic freedoms were to exist only to the extent where they were supported by a majority. The French speaking group in Manitoba which represented half the population in 1870, had gone down to one third in 1890. Having dwindled to a minority, it was easy to abolish the French sector of the school system since, according to that same so-called liberal philosophy, the majority had all the rights.
Of course, at the time, the case went before the courts. An appeal was made to the Governor General who took the case
The Address-Mr. Joyal
before the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1894. The judicial committee recognized the claims of the French speaking group and sent the case back to the Governor General. But an ultimatum delivered by the federal government to the government of Manitoba in 1896 remained a dead letter. The Conservative government was defeated and Laurier came into power on November 19, 1896. A compromise was reached which left only a semblance of rights. In some cases, a teacher may teach in French and in English in those schools where there is a great number of Francophones. And with time, the number of Francophones in Manitoba went down gradually. In 1951, French was the mother tongue of 7 per cent of Manitobans. In 1961, 6.6 per cent and in 1971, 6.1 per cent. Hopelessly left to themselves, these Francophones are on the verge of assimilation. A projection of those figures over a longer period leaves no doubt as to the trend of the curve. In 1931, in Manitoba, the rate of Canadian-born Francophones adopting English as their mother tongue was 12.1 per cent. In 1971, it was 35.5 per cent.
Without batting an eye, the former Minister of National Defence goes on to say:
As years go by . . . bilingualism proves its merit, or disproves its worth, as a Canadian ideal.
There we are, 140 years after the Durham report. The member for Winnipeg South refuses to entrench the linguistic and cultural duality of Canada. Without blenching, he equates the rights of individuals with the programs aimed at having them respected. As far as he is concerned, the recognition of a right is inseparable from the administrative means of ensuring its respect. I ignore what concept of civil liberties is involved in the reasoning of the former Minister of National Defence, but how can we not recognize today that if there is so many problems to be encountered on the road to bilingualism, it is partly because certain provinces in Canada have contrived as early as 1870 to abolish all the rights of the French language, without realizing that one day the country might well be torn asunder unless the indefeasible rights of its citizens get to be guaranteed by law.
History, at least the history of Manitoba, shows that once the French language has been eradicated from public institutions, the rate of assimilation of the French-speaking community is greater and, as a consequence, its size tends to decrease.
So this is how some people with a certain amount of blunt straightforwardness see their responsibility with respect to the freedom and the rights of one of the communities which has been endeavouring since the 17th century in this country, despite difficulties, hesitations, half-successes, to build a society a little more tolerant, a little more pluralist, under conditions where the choice of values has to remain the responsibility of the individual and where the state must refrain from opposing diversity and dissidence either tjy constraint or by intimidation, or even less by omission.
But if Canada, as it is now, is to have a future, the absolute respect of the cultural rights of its citizens will have to be its unremitting task. Each of us is part of the natural or historical community in which he grew up. Each individual is a living
80001 -16%

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Joyal
system of behaviour, values, knowledge, ideals and dreams. The cultural right is the power everybody has to remain what he is, unadorned and unadulterated. Wanting to get rid of your origins is to kill your originality. Against the assault of a state, an economy and a dominating culture which levels behaviours and erase specific characteristics, the right to be oneself, to be different, the respect of diversity do not represent, whatever the former minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) might think, a threat for national unity throughout Canada. A nation which fails to formally recognize in its political structures the right to cultural freedom does deserve to survive and it is its citizens' duty to do their best to give themselves the political structures which will ensure their own protection, with all their limitations and yearnings. Absolute respect for cultural differences cannot break up or impede the growth of a state; on the contrary, abusive centralism can do more to create oppositions and tragedies.
If national cohesion must exist in Canada, it will paradoxically be a cohesion of differences, not similarities. This will be a country where the economy, peace and civilization will not be exclusively English. To think that French-Canadians can lend themselves much longer to bilingual experiments before they may be assured that their rights are definitely safeguarded in the Canadian political structure is to attach very little importance to the lessons that the French-speaking community is learning from the crisis in air communications and at Air Canada. A Canadian federal state which strives to be a "liberal" democracy must entrench in its Constitution the respect of the linguistic and cultural freedoms of its citizens.
The passing of the Official Languages Act in 1969 was a first step toward the explicit and formal recognition of the English and* French language rights in federal institutions. When one tries today to measure how far we have gone, one is surprised to find that the results are still so little and people are so reluctant. There were loud cries about French power, the invasion of the public service by French-speaking bureaucrats, the violation of the merit principle. What is left after all those denunciations and scarecrow frights?
In the Department of External Affairs, there are no Frenchspeaking bureaucrats in senior official positions. In the Department of Communications from 1974 to 1976, the number of French-speaking people at those same levels varied by eight tenths of one per cent. The percentage of Frenchspeaking technocrats in the scientific and professional category did not vary in three years. In the Privy Council, from 1974 to 1976, the number of French-speaking employees decreased in both categories by 2.4 per cent in senior official positions and 16.4 per cent in the scientific and professional category. In the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, French-speaking civil servants occupy 7.1 per cent of the senior official positions and 6 per cent of the scientific and professional positions. In the Department of the Environment, they represent 7.1 percent of the personnel at that level.
From 1974 to 1976, in the Department of Finance, the number of French-speaking senior executives dropped from 9.1 per cent to 7.1 per cent. In the Department of Industry, Trade

and Commerce, the proportion varies between 11 and 13 per cent. Even in the Department of the Secretary of State, in the scientific and professional category, in the last three years, the number dropped by 12.9 per cent.
As far as the Department of Transport is concerned, the number of French-speaking employees decreased in those two categories. It fell from 8.5 per cent in the executive category in 1974 to 6.2 per cent in September 1976. In the scientific and professionnal category, it went down from 13.1 to 12.2 per cent.
Those figures show, Mr. Speaker, that still very few Frenchspeaking civil servants made it to the top. There is no way the progress made so far can be said to be preferential treatment; indeed, it has been so slow that one might wonder if in the present context it will be possible to create that "critical basin", that "cultural density" needed to channel present trends with regard to Francophone participation in the Public Service, so that the ratio of French-speaking civil servants will be equal to that of French-speaking Canadians.
To solve those problems a review of the first part of the resolution passed by Parliament in June 1973 is needed. Appearing before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, on April 29, 1976, the Commissioner of Official Languages made those comments and I quote:
OO)
As a ball-park guess, I would surmise that a good three-quarters of the money that goes for "bilingualism", in effect, protects the careers of unilingual Anglophones. When you look at double banking, language training, and, even, translation, much of it is to protect Anglophones. The one comment I would like to make to some people, who are not enchanted with the whole idea of language equality, is that one can criticize the program because one thinks it is unfair, or because one thinks it is a waste, but one cannot really do both at once ...
Language courses cost a lot of money, and, if you want to belly ache about discrimination and rumour monger about terrible scandals against Englishspeaking in the Public Service, then, get ready to pay for it. I think Parliament bent over backwards, in June, 1973, when it guaranteed that unilinguals would have exactly the same rights as bilinguals, in applying for bilingual jobs. That resolution of June 1973 was necessary politically. But I just point out, since we are all looking at a bit of cest-benefit and value-for-money analysis after the program has been going for 5 or 10 years, that sooner or later 1 think we are going to have to look at the long term payoff... The June 1973 resolution should not be considered as a permanent panacea.
We should therefore, Mr. Speaker, amend as soon as possible the provisions of this resolution so as to grant to recognized bilingual applicants only the advertised positions classified as bilingual, subject to competition. It is with such a reform only that we shall be able to create bilingual districts without at the same time suppressing the desired effects.
Mr. Speaker, three major factors have influenced the development of various linguistic groups in Canada. The most basic factor is of course the language spoken by the immigrants. But everything has contributed and still contributes to give the English language an ever increasing importance in Canada: the increasing number of ethnic groups who choose almost exclusively English as their spoken language; linguistic mobility and differences in the birth rate which prevent us from maintaining linguistic balance.
October 19, 1976

From 1871 to 1951, nearly 80 years, the French-speaking people made up nearly 30 per cent of the Canadian population. Today, they constitute 28 per cent only, and if the differences noted in 1971 between the mother tongue and the spoken language prevail until the year 2000, population experts foresee that the French-speaking people will then make up 23 per cent of the Canadian population and it is outside Quebec that the decrease will be more noticeable. Without drastic initiatives, there will of course remain centres of resistance in northern New Brunswick and the northern part of Ontario adjacent to Quebec, but elsewhere there will remain only marginal sub-groups.
Even in Quebec, the attraction of English is ten times that of French. In 1971, in Montreal, 66 per cent of the population was French-speaking. If the same conditions prevail, in the year 2000, only 59 per cent of the population of Montreal will be French-speaking. The assimilation rate of English-speaking people in Quebec is Five times lower than that of Frenchspeaking Quebecers. Even bilingualism has a marked assimilating effect among French-speaking people outside Quebec and New Brunswick. It will therefore be necessary for the federal government to define the elements of a demographic policy for Canada during the debate on the amendments to the Immigration Act announced in the Speech from the Throne. We cannot accept that a government supposedly anxious to preserve the stability of relationships between the main communities in Canada go on ignoring the effects of immigration on the linguistic imbalance.
At the same time, this population policy would only be successful insofar as it is supplemented by a much more dynamic policy of assistance to French-speaking minorities, a much better funded policy that acknowledges the fact that Francophones outside Quebec are in danger of being assimilated before long to the English-speaking majority. In the past 40 years, the assimilation figures have, generally, more than doubled. At this rate, 25 per cent of the Francophones in New Brunswick will be assimilated by the year 2000 and for all the other provinces, the percentage will exceed 60 per cent. This policy of increased assistance to Francophone minorities must be based mainly on a cultural policy which is tragically lacking.
The Massey Commission on National Developmnt in the Arts, Letters and Sciences submitted its report more than 25 years ago. At that time, that is in 1951, none of the great modern mass media had appeared on the scene: the CRTC, the CBC, cable television, none of these media which directly influence our personal values, shape our collective behaviors and social perception, existed then. Culture as we see it today is no longer restricted to the so-called classical arts. It encompasses even more every aspect of life in society and of the individuals which live in it.
Along with the conventional arts there are today the cultural environment, communications, regional development and popular culture, the economic aspects of culture, the cutural industry, its manpower and the whole network of influences and exchanges which the Massey Commission could not imag-
The Address-Mr. Joyal
ine in 1951. Twenty-five years later, we must try to define a cultural policy which takes more into consideration the linguistic balance that Canada tries to achieve and assigns a special role to communications in the definition and perception that the Canadian society may have of itself.
The goals of pursued by the federal government are not inconsistent with those of the provinces, especially those of Quebec, provided an attempt is made to steer clear of constitutional technicalities. Consequently, the government should set up without delay a commission whose terms of reference would be to define the terms and conditions of a cultural policy in accordance with the linguistic duality of Canada. Furthermore, the government should review the whole concept of the legal safeguard of linguistic rights. The Victoria Charter proposed to restore all linguistic and cultural liberties in the public institution that had progressively abolished them in the English-speaking provinces.
However, as its fate is still uncertain, the federal government should reaffirm its determination to see to it that English and French have equal status, rights and privileges in all institutions and in all matters under the jurisdiction of the federal government and Parliament. To this end, it must exercise its authority pursuant to section 91 (1) of the British North America Act and entrench in the constitution of the federal Parliament section 2 of the Official Languages Act. The federal Parliament has every power to amend the constitution but such powers are subject to the concept of power sharing, as set out in sections 91 and 92, to the office of Governor General and to the linguistic rights, as defined in section 133. Nothing in the wording nor in the philosophy restricts the power of the federal Parliament to provide a constitutional and a legal safeguard to the equality of both languages within federal institutions. This should only prompt even more the provincial governments to agree to append the provisions of the Victoria Charter on individual rights and liberties to a patriated constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore intend to urge my colleagues in the House to take part in the debate on the repatriation of the Canadian constitution, so that the linguistic and cultural rights of the two great Canadian communities be constitutionally and legally safeguarded.
The government announced its intention of introducing a Human Rights Bill. According to the text of the announcement, 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.
Well, as one can see language is not mentioned in the list of guaranteed rights. We strongly maintain that linguistic discrimination must be penalized and repressed in the same manner as racial discrimination; why prohibit discrimination on grounds of religion and not on grounds of language, whether it is Spanish, Ukrainian or French? Therefore we must make sure that adequate amendments will be introduced at the right moment. At the same time, is it proper to repress linguistic discrimination in national bargaining units.

The Address-Mr. Joyal
The government cannot assert on one hand they want to protect civil and public liberties while accepting on the other hand that their partners in the collective bargaining process openly indulge in language discrimination; the judgement made by the Public Service Staff Relations Board on March 12, 1976, following the grievances of Jean-Luc Patenaude against the Canadian Air Traffic Controllers Association creates a precedent which we must prevent from repeating. It is unacceptable that duly elected labour representatives, such as Mr. Real Vaillancourt, an executive member of Local 1751 of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, still have to resort to legal procedures so that their union may obtain the right to work in French in the province of Quebec, not in Winnipeg, but in Montreal itself, where there are still mostly French-speaking people, so far as I know.
As long as employees of the federal public service or agencies or Crown corporations will be discriminated against without any action whatsoever being taken against the people responsible, any hope of seeing both language groups work peacefully and closely together within the same working unit will be pure utopia. It will therefore be necessary to amend sections 39 and 42 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act in order to give language rights in staff relations the same protection as guaranteed by law to race, national origin, color, sex or religion.
On the other hand, in view of progress made and difficulties encountered since the Official Languages Act was passed, we must without further delay review, extend and adjust the legislation so it will reflect current conditions.
First of all, the studies which are made by the Official Languages Commissioner on progress and problems encountered by each department or agency trying to reach the goals defined in the act and which are submitted to the Privy Council, must be followed up by Parliament. Too many annual recommendations from the commissioner have been laid to rest and too many departments have given more priority to administrative efficiency than to the fulfilment of this obligation. We therefore suggest that any report to Parliament under that legislation be referred to a Commons committee for study and recommendations to be tabled within twelve months.
It is essential to find procedures for reviewing and implementing the recommendations given to Parliament by the Commissioner of Official Languages. The present situation of Air Canada gives us an example of the shortcomings of the legislation in that respect. Each year for the last five years, the commissioner has issued recommendations which unfortunately fell somewhat short of being likely to bring the operations of the company to the level of equity sought under the statute. Therefore we must now proceed to the following stage and reinforce parliamentary control.
On the other hand, the fabric of public services in Canada is such that its exploitation must be left partially to the private sector, as is the case for telecommunications and air transportation. This situation has its advantages but requires special

controls and monitoring from the federal government. This is why our system has organizations which are responsible to see that these undertakings-which are part of public services or manage them and constitute, de facto or in right, a sort of monopoly in a region or even in the whole country-conform to the same standards of linguistic equity as the one being imposed on corporations and Crown companies.
Why should Air Canada have to enforce the Official Languages Act on the Montreal-Paris flight while CP Air would not on the Toronto-Milan line? CP Air and Bell Canada operate monopolies under the guarantee of organizations responsible before Parliament. These concerns have licences to operate in the public interest and in return for profits. Strangely enough the Official Languages Act does not apply to these undertakings and yet the linguistic rights of our citizens must be protected, whoever administers these services.
It is only fair therefore to restore the balance and extend enforcement of the Official Languages Act to monopolies which in fact or in their own right operate or offer public services. So we will move an amendment to the law, which will ensure that the same quality of service and equal access be readily available to both linguistic groups.
The one goal of these reforms, amendments and initiatives is to buttress an overly delicate balance, restore confidence among the majority of French-speaking people-particularly in Quebec on the eve of elections-through determination of Parliament to establish firmly in the political institutions of the country the conditions without which this debate night very well end up in an open conflict.
Court proceedings had to be initiated to secure implementation by a federal corporation of an Act that was meant to be the foundation of the Canadian political structure, and the distinct safeguard of the linguistic rights of French-speaking Canadians.
The concepts nurtured by the various parties to the proceedings against Air Canada and the Federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in recent months are best described in the ruling made by the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court on April 6, 1976, in the case of The Protestant School Board of Greater Montreal vs. The Minister of Education of the province of Quebec.
Justice Jules Deschenes wrote, and I quote:
This event (Canada's change of allegiance from the French to the British Crown) has been labelled a "transfer" by overly modest French-speaking historians, while English-speaking historians, undoubtedly more realistic and relying on military facts, called it a "conquest".
For two centuries our two communities have been pursuing on our common territory the conflict of these two concepts of history. The Official Language Act is just another episode. The battle was transferred from the Plains of Abraham to the National Assembly and then to the Court of Justice: the stake is still the same . ..
We are indeed going through a major turn in Canada's and Quebec's history. There are no longer any winners and losers, vanquished and conquerors, but two communities called upon by an historical accident to permanently share one part of America. Each has its own traditions and culture which it is determined to preserve. A majority here and a minority there, either of them knows the delight of power and the fear of intolerance. The only difference is that among
October 19, 1976

French-speaking people, the latter has been a longer experience while the former is still a new one almost with the appeal of the unknown.
The Hon. Jean Marchand's resignation, the responsibility which my colleague, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), and myself have assumed in the current conflict, and on the other hand the views upheld by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) and his supporters must be seen in the context of a situation where there is no future for this country if cultural and linguistic freedoms are not guaranteed in an intangible way.
Depending on the choice made by members of this House during the constitutional debate, we will have a measure of the will of the majority and of their belief in the rights and freedoms without which no political balance can ever be guaranteed in this country. Such is the lesson we must draw from the history of Quebec and Canada.
The dissolution of the National Assembly in Quebec and the decision to hold a general election have given me an opportunity to review the role, responsibility and manner in which 1 can best at this stage help in defining and safeguarding in this country's political institutions the cultural duality which is particular to our society.
At a time when within the party and the caucus to which 1 belong some views inconsistent with my idea of the structure of our country have been stated by a resigning minister and at a time when I believed in the Official Languages Act to the point of handing my resignation to the caucus as the result of legal proceedings instituted to obey to the letter and the spirit of the law, 1 cannot resign my seat in the House in the belief that I could fight more effectively outside to protect the rights and freedoms of my fellow-citizens which the federal system is to provide if such a system is to survive.
Therefore, I will not seek a seat at the Quebec legislature in the next provincial election. 1 would like to thank the individuals who have shown their confidence in me and who have invited me to join their ranks during this campaign. 1 hope however that under the present circumstances, to be able to continue to cooperate with representatives of all the parties to develop those resources of tolerance and democratic spirit without which the essence of all our freedoms will be questioned.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish first of all to mention that the mover and the seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne carried out their duties very well. Their assignment was simplified due to the fact that the Speech from the Throne for this session is rather a summary of good intentions. Unable to spend lavishly, the federal government seems mainly determined to allay fears and do away with the sources of dissatisfaction. Apparently, it is trying to sum up all the criticisms which have been directed to it especially over the past year and to appease everybody. In this period of inflation and unemployment which often reach a record high, it was normal to direct the legislation towards a more equitable sharing of responsibilities.
The Address-Mr. C.-E. Dionne
The main objectives may be summarized as follows: Equality of opportunities (probably the only possible form of equalitarianism), national unity, the rights of the individuals and the function of the state, which are the main themes to come out of the speech which the Governor General of Canada and his wife delivered at the opening of the Second Session. I am pleased to join with hon. members who have preceded me in this debate to offer them my best wishes. These objectives of "national unity" and "equality of opportunities" are very praiseworthy, and all Canadians certainly share these aspirations. It will be important to draft legislation taking into consideration all the elements which in the past contributed to delay the realization of this "national unity" and of this "equality of opportunity".
I think it is in order to mention here that the concern of French Canadians is to ensure in French Canada the conditions which are necessary to its survival at a time when it is ever more urbanized, increasingly transformed to become the industrial and manufacturing community it is today. They are concerned about whether there will be real sharing of power between Canadians from both linguistic CQllectivities in all spheres of life in our country, in the business world, in government and in the public service or whether this sharing will only be symbolic.
I am glad to note that the government puts forward programs designed to teach both official languages in all schools in Canada, in agreement with the provinces. The hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) who is confined to bed in hospital, often suggested this means of understanding between Canadians of goodwill in this House. It would be advantageous to have in the provinces, both for English-speaking and French-speaking Canadian people who would like to benefit from this, French and English teaching facilities for youth at all levels and in every place where they are justified by school attendance.
It would also be beneficial for national unity to overcome the geographic barriers that tend to separate our two cultures by granting travel subsidies to serious artists, more generous credits to the National Film Board. From coast to coast there should be a comprehensive service of French TV and radio so that the million French Canadians living outside Quebec as every other Canadian may have access to French culture.
When there will be better understanding among people we shall be able to prevent control towers from becoming Babel towers to the point that some fanatics consider the use of French in the air as a safety hazard. It is absolutely ridiculous. The province of Quebec is not the only territory in the world where French is spoken. There have always been landings and takeoffs in several French-speaking countries such as France, Belgium, Switzerland to mention just a few. "The French aeronautical terminology is at least as rich if not richer than the American terminology in the same field." This opinion was not voiced by people in aviation but by Canada's ambassador in Paris, Mr. Gerard Pelletier.

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. C.-E. Dionne
1 am pleased to see that French Canada finally dares express its feelings and the rest of the country listens, still with some surprise but more and more carefully. 1 wish that French voices will not become too harsh and that English ears will become really friendly so that Canada will have a bright future.
Let us not forget that very few countries have, as their official languages, those that are among the greater vehicles of though in the world. Canada can consider itself as very privileged to use, as its official languages, two of the most international languages of our time. Obviously, it is as vital for our unity that Canadians may benefit from equal opportunity for individual and regional economic development. That objective of equal opportunities constitutes a whole program and if equal opportunities are really to be given, the government will have to get used to studying the problems of poverty, unemployment, debts and strikes in a slightly more realistic light, otherwise that allusion to equal opportunities will be no more than an illusion. In March of 1975, the Canadian Welfare Council published a report on the children of the poor in Canada. Several conclusions, though they are not new, deserve to be mentioned.
Canadians love to think that in our society all children have equal chances to reach as high as their aptitudes would have them. Though they start out in life in very different circumstances we deceive ourselves into believing that all children, rich or poor, can achieve success. The facts are altogether different. To be born in poverty in Canada does not mean that one will necessarily remain poor to the end of his days, but it does make it most probable.
To be born poor means that one's chances to finish high school are reduced, that the possibility of going to university are slight. To be born poor means that changes are greater that as an adolescent one will be considered a delinquent, that one will be sent to reform school. When one is poor, the die is cast: one will have to fight to go up in life. To be born poor is unfair for a child. Of the 6.76 million children under 16 years of age in Canada at the time of the 1971 census, 1.66 million were poor. That report describes those children. What kind of life do they have today? What can they hope for the future? How does one grow up deprived of food, toys, clothes and outings? How does one grow up branded by poverty?
It is important that we Canadians understand the effects of an unfair distribution of the national income on the unfortunate people who live below the poverty level. It is no less important to understand that the numerous hardships suffered by poor children can be removed. There is no reason for children to grow up in poverty in Canada, for there is no reason for poverty to exist in Canada.
Census data show there is a large number of children living in poverty in every Canadian province. The greater percentage is found in Newfoundland where nearly half the children (45.3 per cent) come from families who live below the poverty level. More than a third of the children in Saskatchewan (38.4 per cent), Prince Edward Island (37.3) and New Brunswick (34.9 per cent) are also living in poverty. Even in the rich provinces
(Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).J
of Ontario and British Columbia, with the lowest percentages, more than one out of six children come from families who live below the poverty level.
The chains of poverty which shackle poor children are the result of a long process which often starts even before they are born. A working paper on health prepared by the Canadian government in 1974, says at the outset: Health is the bedrock on which social progress is built. It may be true, but health and poverty seldom go together. As regards poor children, it would have been more relevant to point out that their future prospects are jeopardized because of their bad health.
You know very well that I could quote excerpts from a number of reports on poverty in Canada. I mentioned the report on poor children to show that there is much to do if we really want all Canadians to enjoy those equal opportunities mentioned in the speech from the throne. However, a part of the speech, held my attention, the one dealing with the assistance to small businesses. The area which I represent includes many family businesses which cannot expand normally for lack of funds to develop and update their equipment. Nevertheless, there is a supply of manpower made up of strong and vigourous young men of whom nearly 30 per cent are paralysed by chronic unemployment and who would much rather improve their standard of living and enrich at the same time with manufactured products or any other economic contribution the province of Quebec and Canada as a whole.
I did note also in this same speech that a job creation program is considered for the areas affected by chronic unemployment. I should point out that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) missed a fine opportunity to help the unemployed by providing under the 1976-77 LIP program enough money for the approval of more projects. Last year, in the riding of Kamouraska-L'Islet, an amount of $1,090,000 was appropriated by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, which enabled the members of the project selection committee to make it possible for a large number of workers to earn enough money to support their families, while carrying out useful community projects. This year, the amount appropriated is cut down to $427,000. It is easy to understand that the number of unemployed who want to do this type of work will be greatly reduced. This is a good opportunity to add that there will not be any equal opportunities for the large number of unemployed in our region.
1 also find there will be an information centre on collective bargaining. 1 hope the legislation will be amended so as to prevent an increase in the number of disastrous strikes that are prevalent nowadays. The last statistical report on strikes indicates that there were 238 work stoppages affecting 190,197 workers. It is time the government decided to amend the legislation to encourage the workers and prevent the economic disruptions resulting from strikes. Generally speaking, strikes are directed against those who pay workers a salary rather than against the system which deprives them of normal living conditions.
October 19, 1976

Economically speaking, labour unions seek salary increases and shorter working hours, but the cost of living goes up, nobody is much better off and the real losers are the pensioners, the underprivileged and other people on fixed incomes. Excessive salaries can even cause unemployment because businesses will have to cut their staff in order to maintain labour costs at a reasonable level. Between inflation and unemployment the governments of western countries never really had an option nor have they found a way to cope with that dilemma.
I was surprised to see that the speech from the throne did not mention improvements to the tough working conditions of a very large number of farmers, particularly milk producers. My colleague for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) mentioned in the House last Thursday, October 14, the depressing situation in which a great number of milk producers, of whom several are unfortunately headed for bankruptcy, find themselves. Production quotas were reduced and farm incomes were cut by more than 20 per cent while costs are still going up. The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) last Friday call the attention of the House to the causes of the hardships of milk producers, adding that the federal government was not the only one responsible-and I think he is right-but also many representatives of milk federations, and I would like to quote from that interesting speech as follows:
Provincial authorities and dairy boards must recognize their shortcomings and more particularly those who represent the milk producers on the various agricultural boards and agencies. The fact is that a number of these representatives, Mr. Speaker, were representing whole milk producers, which form an industry which is far richer far sounder and much better organized and which emphasized, in terms of quotas and subsidies, the benefits and interests of whole milk producers, and did so unfortunately at the expense of industrial milk producers.
And he added:
I believe that, in the interest of our dairy industry as a whole, we will have to give guarantees to all producers as well as the assurance that the past benefits they gained will be maintained. And by this I mean to say that I believe it to be vital for the federal government to take the appropriate action to give back to some dairy producers the quotas that they lost in the last few months and to reinstate them in the position that they held with respect to their production level of 1974-75.
I agree with the hon. member for Papineau and I hope that the government will try to find a satisfactory solution to that very complex problem.
In an article about the food crisis, I read about the fact that the scarcity of some products is due to so-called production planning and organization on the part of the government. Who benefits from such measures? I quote that article:
On the pretext that certain wheat stocks had not been sold in 1970-71, the government paid a subsidy of $6 an acre to western producers to make them stop growing wheat. Stocks were quickly exhausted and speculators had a field day. It is indeed from this moment on that consumer prices started to increase. We have only to remember that at that time bread cost 24 cents.
The meat price control ordered by Nixon administration is another obvious case of scarcity caused by so-called production organisation government action.
Since this control did not apply to the prices of products involved in the production of meat, the price of raw materials went up while the price of their product was frozen-several farmers found it less unprofitable to kill all young chickens, to sell their sows while they were expecting a litter and to get rid of
The Address-Mr. Martin
their young calves. The same phenomenon happened in Quebec in the fall of 1974!'
This price freeze provoked a scarcity of meat in the following months, especially beef.
If we consider how the price of a gallon of regular gas is split up, we note that one of the main reasons for the price increase has been federal and provincial taxes, since 31 cents out of the price of every gallon go to the federal government, 19 cents to the provincial government, 27 cents to the oil companies and 7 cents to the gas station operator. It is easy to conclude that the true oil sheiks are in Canada rather than in Arabia.
It is easy to see that the multiplication of all sorts of taxes in a corrupt financial system is one of the main causes of price increases. I hope that during this session, the government will prevent legislation aimed at getting back some order in the financial and fiscal systems.


Mr. Alan Martin (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend some time this afternoon discussing certain aspects from the four main captions under which His Excellency the Governor General outlined the program of the government for the second session of our Thirtieth Parliament. These are national unity, equality of opportunity, individual freedom, and the role of government.
First let us talk about national unity. This is a term that undoubtedly means different things to different people. For my part I intend only to discuss my understanding of what it is all about and the degree of importance that I see should be attached to the term.
The people who have inhabited that area of the North American continent that lies north of the forty-eighth parallel made a series of independent decisions over the course of the past 100 years or so that have had the effect of pulling together, in the process fabricating a nation that has become known as Canada. The first of these decisions was carried out in 1867 when Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia laid the initial cornerstone of the new country. The most recent decision was taken in 1949 when the province of Newfoundland came on board.
These individual decisions were not made as a result of victory or capitulation following the devastation of a war, but were made freely by the elected representatives of the people who inhabited the various semi-independent areas of this northern half of the continent.
The desire to unite was prompted, presumably, by the hope of greater ultimate benefit to be gained from the new potential that would be available through the mechanism of some form of national identity. At the same time unification was seen as a means of seeking a much needed degree of some protection through the close association of friendly and to some extent like minded neighbours for those aspects of their individual way of life that the inhabitants of each area most cherished.
In simple terms, I see that as the background of this nation, a genuine desire to forge something strong and meaningful yet

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Martin
something essentially different and distinct from the other great nation established 100 years earlier on the same continent.
In my view, the term national unity in Canada must be looked at in the context of what brought us together in the first place. National unity to Canadians may indeed be something different from what it may mean in the context of the United States of America and the citizens of that country or, indeed, the United Kingdom and its citizens, or even of other larger and more distant countries such as the U.S.S.R. and India.
National unity to me means first a national identity with which we are all proud and honoured to be associated as citizens and are also prepared to defend when and where necessary. Second, a national identity promotes and encourages diversification among its peoples in all aspects of their lives. After all, Canada and diversification must be synonymous simply by virtue of our vast geography, if for no other reason, spread as it is over the second largest land mass on the planet. Third, a national identity denotes a country where respect and privilege are accorded all its citizens in line with the understandings that have been incorporated into the very fabric of the nation. I speak specifically here to the issue of the two official Canadian languages, a basic tenet of our Canadian heritage and culture since the birth of the nation in 1867, and long before, a fabric which was reinforced at more recent date by the agreement of all political parties in the House of Commons through the passage of the Official Languages Act, an act which ensures the ability of Canadians of either official language group to be able to interact with their national government in either of the two official languages, an act which, I repeat, was passed and agreed to by all members of the House of Commons regardless of political persuasion-


An hon. Member:: Not by all members.


Alan Gray Martin: -an act introduced by a Liberal government to reinforce, 100 years after the birth of the nation, a basic provision of Canadian confederation.
The fabric of all great nations is tested from time to time. I could not help being impressed earlier this month during a brief visit to the city of Winchester in England, the original capital of that great land for a period of several hundred years until, I believe, the move was made to London some time in the thirteenth century. Wandering around the city I came across a very large statue of King Alfred, erected by the people of Winchester in 1901 to commemorate "1,000 years since the birth of the nation." My mind could not but reflect momentarily on the tremendous upheavals and accompanying difficulties of all sorts, including major internal and external wars which have faced and which still face the people of the United Kingdom. Yet the basic fabric has, somehow or other, held together, not for 100 years but for 1,000 years; ten times as long. It is interesting to note the strong but at times tenuous form of national unity which is depicted in the long history of that great country.

On the other hand, there is a country like India, a country I was privileged to visit one year ago as a member of our Commonwealth parliamentary delegation. In terms of its nationhood, India is barely a quarter of a century old. The pressures of diversity, highlighted in such areas as language- there are some 17 official languages-geography, culture, and religion in this young nation are so great, and are coming so early and at such a furious pace as to threaten the very ability of the country even to develop a fabric which could be termed national unity. Yet a sense of unity does prevail in India even during the present troubled times.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the fabrics of great nations have always been tested and will, I suggest, continue to be tested many times over in the future. Look at China at this very moment. Look at our great and respected neighbour to the south, the United States of America, which just two years ago was at the height of Watergate. Some say the Canadian fabric is being tested today, and perhaps this is so. I somehow doubt, however, that the rulers of India, the United Kingdom, or even of China would have much sympathy for our problem, if indeed it is serious enough to be called that in terms of the world-wide context of national internal problems.
If we do have a problem in relation to national unity in this country, what is it? The answer to that question would, I suggest, elicit various responses from individual Canadians ranging from a complete disclaimer as to the existence of any real problem whatsoever to the exaggerated and overly excited claim that the nation is about to fall apart.
Some western Canadians claim that Canadians living in central Canada, that is to say, Ontario and Quebec, do not understand or care about them; some central Canadians feel that western Canadians with their vast supplies of much needed energy resources lack an adequate degree of nationalist fervour in their handling of such resources; some Ontario Canadians wonder why other Canadians do not go along with their particular way of thinking and living; some Quebec Canadians cannot understand the inability of other Canadians to understand their particular problems and aspirations more fully in such areas as language and culture. Finally, some maritime Canadians long for a way to share a larger portion of the Canadian economic pie without at the same time disturbing their more genteel and unhurried way of life.
Incorporated in the problem faced by Quebec Canadians is the matter of language. Whether or not this is the most serious problem which faces us in the context of the testing of our national fabric being made at this time, I really cannot say. Certainly the matter of language rights is perceived by many Canadians of both language groups as being serious at this time. Indeed I suppose one could argue that it was the underlying factor in the by-election upset in the nation's capital yesterday. Some people seem to be fearful that their rights are being eroded; others seem concerned that their particular rights have never been adequately acknowledged and are thus effectively non-exercisable.
If language rights in this great country are really a problem, we should be so lucky, first that we are dealing only with two
October 19, 1976

official languages and, second, that such a golden opportunity is provided through our nation's fabric for developing a comprehension and understanding of two different cultures rather than insulating ourselves behind the closed doors of a single culture and tongue. Our task as Canadians has always been, and remains today, to take up the challenge and make the most of it. For 100 years we have pussy-footed around the education of Canadian children with respect to coming anywhere near an adequate level of teaching a proper comprehension of both official languages. As a nation we have hidden behind the provincial prerogative to determine what will and will not be taught our youngsters in all areas, including that of the two national languages.
Ten years ago we found ourselves in the ridiculous position of having to embark on a necessary but costly program simply to ensure that Canadians occupying key positions in the nation's public service would be able to converse adequately with other Canadians whom they are appointed to serve. And this was the situation almost exactly 100 years after the formation of the nation.
I am delighted to see reference in this Speech from the Throne to something which many of us have felt to be an urgent need for a long period of time-it was a fundamental part of my maiden address to the House some two years ago. 1 refer to the intent to use national persuasion tc encourage the provinces to give greater and more adequate attention in future educational programs to the teaching of the two official Canadian languages and the historical and cultural backgrounds which support them. Only in this way can we get at the guts of the issue and avoid similar discussions 100 years hence.
If language rights and usage are indeed impediments which are affecting the fabric and national unity of our country at this time, then I suggest the present government and the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are in a far better position to implement modifications in existing programs and to draw up new and more effective programs than would be a government under a Conservative banner which has had little experience and even less success in this century in dealing with this sensitive issue as a government in power, particularly since it does not include in its base any meaningful representation in terms of members from the 28 per cent of the Canadian population which is most deeply concerned.
I wish to express one last point on this matter of national unity. Regardless of our various interpretations of the term and just what it means to each one of us, I think most Canadians would agree that it continues to be an objective towards which we must strive relentlessly, at times experiencing setbacks of one form or another, as has been the experience of all great nations, but always possessing a sense of determination and perseverance that will make us the pride-not only of our own citizens-but also of those who even today watch us with such envy from various corners of the world. In my view we must mature in our sense of understanding of our
The Address-Mr. Martin
fellow citizens, whether or not we share the same street, the same colour, the same religion, or the same one of our two official tongues.
Next, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the second topic covered in the throne speech, that of equality of opportunity. A number of important thrusts have been indicated by the government in order to promote individual and regional economic opportunities. The first of these is to continue the program to bring the rate of inflation in Canada under control. I find it a completely unproductive exercise in October, 1976, to argue whether or not controls should have been introduced, and whether or not the Liberal or Conservative timing would have been the more appropriate. The essential point is that the rate of inflation in Canada has come down dramatically in the past 12 months and has exceeded the government's target for this first year of controls. I happen to share the opinion that this dramatic fall would not have occurred without specific government action this time last year.
I suggest that the vast majority of Canadian electors are supportive of government action taken one year ago to control the devastating effect of the inflationary curse that was prevalent across the country. Yes, some Canadians have felt the brunt more than others; there has been some inequality in the manner in which the burden has fallen. However, by and large, the Canadian people-as distinct from some national organizations with vested interests-look upon this example of government leadership with a sense of relief and general support. Something indeed had to be done or no equality of opportunity could possibly have existed for Canadians, and the entire economic future of the country would have become seriously endangered.
The opposition of the Conservative party to the controls program at a crucial time in the economic history of the country, after having advocated controls some 14 months earlier when the situation was far less serious, is indeed strange behaviour by a group of elected representatives who wish within the next two years to hold themselves out to Canadian electors as a viable alternative to the present government. No degree of double talk or fence shifting by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will get him or his party off that hook.
Some other specific thrusts in the throne speech include a welcome commitment to bring growth in the public service down below one per cent per annum from an annual rate of some 4 per cent over the recent 10 year period. Additional support is indicated for private industry in meeting increasingly tough international competition. Small business growth will be promoted. Job creation programs will be reviewed in order to provide more meaningful assistance in areas of chronically high unemployment. Improvements will be sought in labour-management relations. The Canada Pension Plan will be expanded to recognize more fully the working partner whose energies are devoted to the home. The goal of one million new homes over a four year period will be maintained as basic housing policy.

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Martin
In the area of individual freedom one aspect where I would have liked to see more attention is in the justice system. At the present time I feel that there is much too long a period between the time of apprehension of an accused and the commencement of the trial process. This works to the detriment of the Crown and society in cases where otherwise guilty persons go free, and also to the detriment of the innocent person who has an unwarranted charge hanging over his or her head for too long. Furthermore, I would encourage the government to consider policies that would render more concern for and assistance to the victims of crime and their immediate families.
I welcome the likely introduction of a bill to bring the duties and responsibilities of the Auditor General more in line with the needs of an organization now spending in the area of $40 billion per annum. In the area of adequacy of financial controls over government expenditures, I would urge implementation of the recommendation which came last year from the Auditor General for the creation of the position of chief financial officer within the public service.
I support the increasing trend toward making more government documents available to the public, and I look forward to the introduction of a human rights bill at the federal level. I believe a move to enable broadcasting of the proceedings in the House of Commons to take place would be most definitely in the public interest, whether or not many Canadians were to avail themselves of the opportunity to participate in our proceedings as spectators in their own living rooms.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the role of government in Canadian society. I tend to agree completely with the government's proposal to follow a middle road in this area between two extremes. Certainly a review of the United Kingdom situation today, where one recent media estimate placed the share of Gross National Product being directed to government at 60 per cent, is a clear indication of how far not to go. In our own case all levels of government in Canada are accounting for some 43 per cent of the Gross National Product, with the federal share at about 20 per cent. It is my opinion that all levels of government must collectively remain below the 50 per cent level in order not to discourage further new and innovative entrepreneurial activities. Consultations with provincial governments should include discussions designed to ensure that over-all government participation in the Canadian economy does not exceed a predetermined share of the Gross National Product over the long term.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a few words on the subject of leadership. Some Canadians express the view that there is little or no leadership being exhibited on the federal scene at this time. My only response is to ask these same Canadians to review the achievements of the government over the past two years, to examine the specific proposals contained in this throne speech, and to consider whether or not the state of the economy today would have been in as stable a condition as it is without the kind of leadership that has been so clearly demonstrated by this government and by this Prime Minister.

On the other side of the coin, Mr. Speaker, we have a group of elected representatives occupying the role of official opposition who are so devoid of policy and purpose that they sent their recent candidate out on the hustings with the message, "Simply elect me and watch some policy evolve over the next few years". It may have worked yesterday in Ottawa-Carleton in a by-election. However, it will never work in the next federal election when Canadians will want to look with a critical eye on those policies being placed before them by a party that is seeking their majority support as against the proven record of the government party in power.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the continuation of strong and responsive government over the next two years under the capable leadership of the Prime Minister will ensure his and our return with perhaps even a larger mandate for the Thirty-first Parliament. A viable alternative will simply not be available if the existing situation across the floor of this House is any indication. The memory rests long in the minds of Canadians of the last time the nation gambled; I refer to the period 1957-63. They are not likely to risk a similar move again unless we on our side drop the national ball completely-a most unlikely development in my view. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
[ Translation]
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like at first to take this opportunity to greet a personality who is a very close friend of mine. We have the pleasure of having in the gallery this evening the young and dynamic mayor of my parish of Crabtree whom I would like to greet at the beginning of my comments. He is a nice guy, Joe!


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I have no doubt.


Roch La Salle: He is surely one of the best, Mr. Speaker, surely one of the best.


An hon. Member:: The best.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the throne speech. I know that as usual it is a well meant statement. Since 1968, I have heard several throne speeches, but somehow I have the impression that it is one of the last such speeches presented by this government. That is indeed what some people have been saying today.
I noticed in the Speech from the Throne a word about consultation on matters related to inflation controls. I also noticed that funds would be made available for day care
October 19, 1976

centres, that greater efforts would be made to help the small, average and large farming business. However, there is something that greatly concerns us, I shall come back to that later. Amateur sport will benefit from new funds. I have a lot to say on this issue. There is also mention of good intentions on the part of the government concerning improvements to be made in the areas of unemployment insurance, immigration, external affairs and finally, constitutional independence.
I said a while ago, that since 1968, I carefully read and listened to speeches made in this House. I will not allow myself to be too critical of the throne speech since it is a book of intentions and I prefer to wait for the actual proposals that will be made by ministers.
In my own riding as everywhere, Mr. Speaker, people are concerned over the pitiful economic performance of the government. They talk about unemployment, inflation, confrontation, arrogance and the dairy industry which is having a very rough time at the moment. So, as I have said, in my circumscription and elsewhere throughout the country, people are worried and disappointed and no valid solution seems to be in sight.
During the last cabinet shuffle, attention was given to amateur sport and physical fitness, and a minister of state was appointed. I would have welcomed the opportunity to congratulate her and wish her the best of luck in her new mandate, considering her pleasant personality as official critic in amateur sport. I must admit I am looking forward to having excellent relations with her.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Beware!


Roch La Salle: I am aware and carefully measure my words!
May I add that I was very pleased to hear that statement: the appointment of a Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. As a matter of fact, I had made such a recommendation three years ago and later on asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a number of questions on the importance of creating such a department. I am therefore very glad that the Prime Minister saw fit to adopt these recommendations. He was certainly a little long in taking this decision, but what is done is done, and I am glad a minister of state has been appointed. Of course, I should have preferred the creation of a full-size department with a budget and all what this implies. This is nevertheless a first step in an area which is becoming increasingly more important in our society.
It is stated somewhere in the Speech from the Throne that in the aftermath of the highly successfull Montreal Olympics, and the gratifying results achieved by Canadian athletes, federal support for selected amateur sport and fitness programs will be further augmented. But what does this mean exactly? We shall certainly have the opportunity to obtain more complete information from the minister. In fact, I could never hide from you my interest in physical fitness and amateur sports, in view of the sort of life we are living today: shorter work week, longer vacations or more holidays, it is
The Address-Mr. La Salle
obvious that the people of Canada need healthy recreation. If we make a more in-depth study of some countries that went even further than we did it is also obvious that we were right two years ago to include in our electoral program the creation of a ministry of physical fitness and amateur sport. As recently as two years ago we committed ourselves to this and I can ensure Canadians that with the advent of a Progressive Conservative government, we will establish a national policy for physical fitness and amateur sport.


An hon. Member:: It has been done already.


Roch La Salle: If it has been done, precious little has transpired so far. I agree to give the benefit of the doubt to the minister of state involved and I hope that during the weekend she will have the opportunity to spell out her objectives. In any case I think it is urgent now to establish a real national policy for physical fitness and amateur sport. The responsibility of a responsible government is to establish a policy enabling every Canadian to practice a sport according to his taste and talents. The government should not be expected to steer Canadians towards any form of sports but should offer them the opportunity to practice the sport of their choice.
But to do so, we must first undertake a study of our institutions and facilities while keeping in mind the legal aspects of what comes under provincial jurisdiction. I remember that in answer to some questions I had put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) I was always told that it came under provincial jurisdiction. To implement such a policy I think that both the study of our present facilities and the motivation of the people concerning the access to a form of sports make us believe that there are provincial jurisdictions and that we should not interfere.
So if we pretend to be serious about a national policy, we must immediately consider-I hope the government will not hesitate to do so-convening a federal-provincial conference at that level and urge the provinces to attend. I suppose we could reach an acceptable consensus and then gather the provinces and make them aware that we expect full cooperation and generous assistance from them.
We know that a genuine national amateur sport policy must first be set at the primary level of our school, and we know that those schools fall under the jurisdiction of provincial departments of education. And to encourage, attract and interest the provinces, funds would have to be found to launch such a policy. The need does exist. Canadians are behind in the area of physical fitness.
If a healthy nation is a happy nation, we have a lot to do, and I dare hope that the government will not be content with reminding us that it spent a few additional million dollars during the Olympic games. Given the enthusiasm we saw last summer, the motivation we experienced in the past few years because of the Olympic games in Montreal, we must not stop there. And if we consider the marked interest that we wit-

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. La Salle
nessed last summer, we are already looking forward to Canada's participation in the 1980 Moscow games.
So we must prepare for it. We must use existing facilities to the maximum. And I think we could consider some sort of very special training in 1979 to prepare Canadian athletes for an absolutely exceptional Canadian representation in Moscow. All that is part of a strategy, of course, but first we need to implement that national policy here through this government and in Parliament. I now come back to the importance of cooperating, negotiating, consulting with the provinces and defining together what kind of policy could be implemented to use all our facilities to the maximum and secure the agreement of the provinces on the renewed interest which this government would like us to believe exists.
So on that I say once again, Mr. Speaker, how satisfied I am to see that they finally understood the importance of putting a person in charge. Not knowing what the funds will be, it is difficult to further commend the government but in the light of the statements that the minister responsible will want to make, I want to say to the House that they can count on our cooperation with respect to the setting up of a genuine amateur sport and physical fitness policy.
We know perfectly well that better physical fitness for Canadians means fewer sleeping pills, and I think we understand more and more the importance of physical fitness. There is no limit agewise, and I think Canadians, both young and old, would be very anxious to benefit from a well conceived policy which respects, as I said, the provincial jurisdiction over recreational activities planning. But for once, we will be asked to vote for credits for the provinces which have expressed their intent to do something in this field, and I would think that the federal government, if they really mean something when they talk about a real policy, will also be generous when the moment comes to give the needed credits to meet the needs of a society like ours today.
So on this matter, Mr. Speaker, I will limit myself to those few remarks to assure the government that we the members in the official opposition are prepared to act objectively and to be very positive on a matter of such vital interest as is physical fitness for Canadians as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help making some comments on the agricultural situation. Numerous farmers live in my riding and, following the dreadful effects of the dairy policy announced last April, again I have to return to the charge. I do not remember how many times I raised questions on this matter, how many times my colleague the official critic did, but we are still waiting for the government's answer; the 'situation has been unbearable since last spring. Last week I asked questions to the minister and to the Prime Minister. Their negative answers make me believe that the government does not intend to help, for the moment, a particular category of citizens, namely milk producers.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: It was done this afternoon.


Roch La Salle: The hon. member for Laval said that it was done this afternoon. I hope that tomorrow's newspapers will

bear good news for milk producers. And I look at my friends opposite who come from Quebec and who are all smiles this evening. I imagine the minister announced something very important.
I was not in the House this afternoon, because I had to attend other meetings; nonetheless I must say that this government let our milk producers suffer for too long. They put them in a situation bordering disaster. Unless this piece of news the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) gives me willingly is a short-term remedy, I do not know what the minister said this afternoon, and for that reason, I must deeply regret the failure of the government to act in this direction and to recognize that the situation has become unbearable for milk producers throughout Canada, and I hold the government responsible for that policy of reducing a production they encouraged three years ago.
Finally, I understand that the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Corriveau) does not want to hear anything about it anymore. He made himself enough representations and got so many negative answers that he must not feel like raising the matter again. But all the same, on behalf of the milk producers of my riding and of all Canadian milk producers, I must implore the government to be more humane than it has been up to now. I venture to think that we will get some answers on this matter, and if the government continues to implement the policy it put forward, it will be a real disaster for an entire group of Canadians and it will cause the disappearance of one of our main agricultural industries.
Mr. Speaker,-


An hon. Member:: What is your policy?


Roch La Salle: What did you say?
The policy is to remove immediately the penalty imposed upon the milk producers and to remove immediately the levy on milk powder exports. Both measures have burdened our dairy producers, and I think the hon. member who is asking me this question knows it. I know that members of the Liberal party have made representations to the government which turned a deaf ear.
I must say it again, I must call for a short-term solution, and I think that the hon. member for Laval agrees with me. But like many others, he could not get a positive answer from his own government, and I have every reason to say that this government is responsible for the present situation, for the present disaster and for the unbearable situation of our dairy farmers. I will restrict myself, Mr. Speaker, to saying the simple truth in this House. I know that my time is running out.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Would the hon. member for Joliette allow me a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) accept a question at this time?
October 19, 1976


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to lose any of my time; so, if the hon. member for Laval wishes to ask me a question when I am through speaking, I shall be pleased to answer him then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette has the floor.


Roch La Salle: I say now that I shall be pleased to answer any question anyone wants to put to me then.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette has the floor and I would suggest we listen to him.


Roch La Salle: To my mind, Mr. Speaker, at this point in time, it will not be difficult to answer my friends across the way because we have asked for answers for a long time now without getting them.
I shall now speak of a most important matter, Mr. Speaker, that of bilingualism. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) made a brilliant speech last Friday. Should I remind some of my colleagues in this House to read again the important speech he made and his rebuttal? It answers fully the question of bilingualism. So, I have no wish to take up any of the time allotted me to repeat the remarks, which were very much to the point, made in this House by a very competent man.
But 1 should not want to close my remarks without asking my friends opposite who seem to want to put questions to me and who wonder today: How come two by-elections were in our favour last night?
I cannot help repeating the criticisms levelled at the government in my constituency. In 1974, when the government went to the people and tried to make us look ridiculous because we favoured price controls in an attempt to check inflation, the leader of the government before us today promised that they would never resort to such a policy.
Mr. Speaker, I say today that this government was elected in 1974 under false pretences. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the people of Canada have now lost confidence in the government, it is because they blame it, with good reason, for having deceived them. You cannot deceive a people and deceive businessmen as the government did, and you cannot deceive labour as the government did in 1974. Today, Canadians are starting to wonder. I know that my friends opposite are asking themselves some questions today. They are unhappy and I understand them. When a government makes such a promise in order to get elected and makes an unacceptable reversal six or seven months later, the Canadian people know what is going on. What we have witnessed last night, Mr. Speaker, will be repeated throughout the country, because the Canadian people
The Address-Mr. La Salle
did not like being deceived in this way. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the government has lost the confidence of the people, it is losing a minister every three months, and it is losing every by-election. I say to this government that if it holds by-elections, we shall defeat them one by one each month. They should stop asking: What is happening to us? They should stop trying to review a particular policy and to make believe that the lack of popularity of this government is due to some division in the country on the bilingualism issue. The terrible economic performance of this government and the fraud of 1974 are the two causes of its lack of popularity, and I think that the public did the right thing last night in the Ottawa-Carleton consitituency, as well as in the riding of St. John's, Newfoundland, and, a year ago, in the riding of Hochelaga, which was an uncontested Liberal stronghold at the time; this drop in popularity started a year ago and we expect this government to have enough of a sense of honour to resign. We are ready to face the challenge of running Canada properly.


Marcel-Claude Roy: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member for Joliette now accept the question from the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)?


Roch La Salle: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Joliette would allow me a question regarding the elimination of that levy, I would ask him how he would dispose of milk powder surpluses which are now piling up in warehouses?


Roch La Salle: I am pleased to answer such a question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is asking me how milk powder surpluses would be stored. If the hon. member for Laval would consider what happened, he would recognize that his government was too weak to compete with the European Community, and in order to secure new markets for all kinds of products, the European Community was allowed to subsidize their producers on the European side to force our dairy producers to pay for storage and milk powder. We never accepted that, and this government, in order to save the dairy industry, must store these stocks and develop a long term policy for a period of three to Five years because it is unthinkable to develop short term policies in this area. Therefore, had the government taken their responsibilities, they would never have applied to dairy producers the milk powder export levy. They would have acted as the Americans did five years ago. They would have supported dairy producers and we would now have a healthy dairy industry. Again, I blame the government in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


Max Saltsman: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. La Salle


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House which state that a question of privilege should be raised at the earliest opportunity I should like to raise a question of privilege particularly now that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) is in the House. My question is in regard to the debate that took place this afternoon in which the minister intervened and took some exception to my pointing out that it was Hercules who cleaned out the Augean stables. He insisted that it was Ulysses. I have had a chance to check Greek mythology since that interjection. The records show that I was correct and that the minister's knowledge of Greek mythology is somewhat deficient.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Standing Order 17 states:
(1) Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately or at a time appointed by Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member for Trinity.


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn) on a question of privilege.


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Speaker, this is the time to bring up a question of privilege. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) raised his question of privilege which you heard and you were correct in that. I should like now to hear the minister's rebuttal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Trinity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, if there are any more interruptions I think the time should come off the Liberal side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Trinity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity has the floor.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in joining in the debate on the Speech from the Throne I should like to limit my remarks to issues directly concerning the labour force.
For most families the single highest expense concerned with being employed is the cost of child care. This was recognized in the last budget when income tax deductions for the cost of child care were doubled. The announcement in the Speech from the Throne that the government will help provide more day care services by encouraging provincial governments to adopt a new system of income related fees carries this thrust
further and is an important step in adapting to the changes in Canada's labour force.
From 1971 to 1974 the number of day care centres in Canada doubled and the number of spaces in centres more than tripled. Nevertheless, in 1974, fewer than 3 per cent of the children of working parents under three years of age, and fewer than 9 per cent of the children between the ages of three and five, attended day care centres. Alternative types of care, such as matching the school hours of children with the working hours of one or both parents, relying on another adult member of the household, or the brothers or sisters, or neighbour or friends, or leaving school-age children alone after school-are estimated to provide for about four fifths of the care of children of working mothers. While some of these arrangements are undoubtedly adequate and may even be preferable to paid care, there is no doubt that there are many parents who would choose a professional day care service if it were available and affordable.
The measures proposed by the government to increase the availability of partially subsidized professional day care will also give parents more choices and options in the care of their children.
The measures announced in the throne speech and described yesterday by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) to improve labour management relations and industrial safety, are urgently needed. Canadians are very concerned, and rightly so, about the loss of productivity due to strikes. What is not generally realized is that more work days are lost as a result of industrial injuries than strikes. Canadians concerned about productivity, and particularly about our competitive position in world markets, generally think in terms of time lost from work stoppages due to strikes and lockouts. Certainly these figures give cause for concern, 1,183,080 days lost in June according to labour Canada's recent report, or 62 man days per 10,000 days' work. It is important to find ways of ensuring peace in the life of a labour contract as well as more effective ways of negotiating contracts, but it is also important to keep in perspective that time lost because of industrial injuries still exceeds time lost because of strikes and lockouts.
The proposed collective bargaining information centre with its emphasis on providing clear, useful information, in the context of the state of the economy, including comparisons with other countries, particularly Canada's major trading partners, should go far to remove one very basic cause of conflict between labour and management. It is natural that labour and management will have different views on dividing up the pie, but now there is often disagreement on the size of the pie, with labour and management each bringing in different figures and neither believing nor accepting the other party's figures. If at least there is agreement on what is possible, there is a more appropriate base for negotiation.
The causes for industrial conflicts, strikes, and lockouts are usually complex; wage demands are seldom the only issue. Questions of general working conditions and unsolved griev-

October 19, 1976

ances are often extremely important and may in fact be the more serious underlying cause of a dispute apparently about wages. It has been a great disappointment to me that, since controls were introduced, labour did not make more use of the opportunity to bargain over non-monetary issues. One Canadian survey of employee job satisfaction in 1968 reported that nearly 20 per cent of those surveyed expressed low job satisfaction for reasons connected with pay or advancement, but nearly 30 per cent expressed low job satisfaction for reasons such as recognition, use of skills, etc.
Inflation certainly introduced new tensions into labour-management relations. There has been a trend toward contracts of shorter duration; there have also been more instances where union members refused to ratify contracts negotiated at the bargaining table. As inflation is brought under control, and as people begin to have more confidence in the economy, these problems should be reduced.
Compared with other industrialized countries the number of strikes in Canada and the percentage of workers involved is not high, but the length of time needed to settle conflicts is excessive. When measured by the average number of working days lost per worker, the figure is over 17 days during the 1968 to 1972 period, or more than triple the time lost in some western countries.
One factor in labour unrest seems to be the extraordinary duration of negotiations. Of major negotiations in the past few years, only 15 per cent were settled within three months and 20 per cent required closer to one year of negotiations before settlement was reached. The duration of negotiations would be less of an irritant if settlements were achieved close to the expiry date of the previous contract-in fact opening negotiations at an early date often eases the situation by allowing issues to be resolved in a calm, orderly way. But the tendency toward protracted negotiations long after a contract has expired understandably creates frustrations and often contributes to the bitterness of disputes. The measures announced by the Minister of Labour last night to improve arbitration services and improve training for conciliators and mediators may be important measures in restoring labour peace.
Some of the conflicts we have seen in recent years have occurred in situations where collective bargaining is relatively new and where the parties lack experience. The proposals for labour education may help reduce the problems inherent in this kind of situation.
But, important though it is to improve the collective bargaining process, we still have to deal with the fact that far more days are lost as a result of industrial accidents than as a result of industrial disputes. A chart published by the Occupational Safety and Health Directorate of Canada Labour shows that since 1969 the number of man days lost due to strikes and lockouts has been considerably lower than the number of days lost due to work-related injuries. In 1969 a United States Department of Labour survey indicated that 71 per cent of all workers considered occupational safety and health a higher priority than wages. With changing economic conditions since 1969, the priorities of workers both in the United States and
The Address-Miss Nicholson
Canada have probably shifted, but I am under the impression from talking with workers in many fields that concern about factors affecting health is at a high level now.
Government, management, and labour representatives working with health and safety professionals have made considerable strides in developing and furthering occupational health and safety. In the past century many obvious hazards have been eliminated. However, increasingly workers are exposed to potential hazards such as noise, radiation, vibration, ultrasound, and so on. Chemical usage has experienced considerable growth. Over 500,000 chemical products are currently used in industry and each year, in the industrialized nations, 250,000 new chemicals are invented, or synthesized, of which about 3,000 are put in production. The United States has developed occupational health standards for only about 400 of these chemicals. Toxic research and information generally lag behind the introduction and use of chemicals in industry. Recent reports indicate that environmental carcinogens may be more numerous and ubiquitous than previously suspected.
Occupational health was identified as a priority area by federal and provincial deputy ministers of health in June of 1975. The important thing now is to find ways for all the interested parties, federal, provincial, and municipal health authorities, and labour and management, to combine their efforts.
Canada lacks universal reporting and recording systems and, hence, a data base for numerous aspects of occupational health relating to accidents, injuries, disease, and death. Development of a national code will be an important tool for planning further progress.
Finally I wish to congratulate the government on its courageous decision to include in human rights legislation the principle of equal compensation for work of equal value performed by persons of either sex. Between 1951 and 1972 the labour force grew by 70 per cent. A large part of this growth in the work force is due to the number of women working or actively seeking work. In July, 1974, Statistics Canada estimated the growth in participation for these years, that is, 1951 to 1972, as being 157 per cent for women, compared to 46 per cent for men. This influx of women has affected very little the pattern of women entering the so-called traditional female occupations. Even though women make up only about a third of the labour force, 72.2 pel cent of all clerical workers and 60.1 per cent of workers in service occupations are women.
The so-called job ghettoes, that is, the jobs done rqainly or only by women, have traditionally been badly paid. There are many reasons for this, but perhaps it is more profitable now for us to look at solutions and corrective tools than to deplore history. When the principle of equal pay for work of equal value is established by law in the federal public service, Crown corporations and so on, they will have to do their job evaluations differently. I know that many senior public servants fought hard against the inclusion of this principle, but really the technical difficulties that it presents in terms of updating

October 19, 1976
The Address-Miss Nicholson
and modernizing job evaluations are not insuperable, and the benefits in terms of greater mobility and job satisfaction for both men and women surely outweigh the difficulties.
The Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations prepared by the Department of Manpower and Immigration in consultation with Statistics Canada aims to provide:
-a standardized terminology of occupations and a code that can be used by employment offices in interviewing, counselling and placing applicants and by employers for recruiting, promoting, transferring and job classification purposes.
Universities, research organizations, and other institutions are also encouraged to use CCDO to obtain statistical data. Therefore this is a major work of reference.
It is a very useful work for industrial type skills which are easily measured. It is less useful when applied to personal service occupations, and these are the occupations which have a disproportionate number of women. For example, foster mother is included in the same unit group (6149) with butler, tattoo artist, child care attendant, locker-room attendant, and cabana boy. The DPT code (data, people, things) for grading occupations according to the skill content required in dealing with data, people, things, uses a digit from 0 to 8 in each of the three categories (data, people, things) to indicate the skill required with 8 being "no significant relationship" and 0 the highest requirement. On this scale a dog trainer's DPT number is 227. The implication is that the dog trainer needs a high level of skill to deal with data and people and a low level to deal with things, whereas a foster mother's DPT code is 637 which implies that she needs very limited skill in dealing with data, less skill in dealing with people than the dog trainer, but she is equal with the dog trainer in terms of handling things. One might well question even the last one as one thinks of the complexity of domestic appliances today. However, this is a rating which does not take into account the qualities of heart and mind that a successful foster mother needs to provide not only for the physical needs but also for the emotional and intellectual needs of a young child.
The discrepancy probably does not represent so much a downgrading of caring, nurturing functions so much as it represents difficulty in measuring. When a dog is sent to obedience school the criteria are clear and it is easy to measure whether the dog trainer has achieved results. It is much harder to measure a child's development.
The SVP in this dictionary is the specific vocational preparation. The code for a foster mother is 3. That code number indicates the training for the job is to be accomplished in a period of more than 30 days and less than three months. In other words the factors of life experience and suitability are not included in the SVP, which might be all right if they were included in the coding for general education, but a foster mother's requirement is not high there either.
I have dealt at some length with the example of a foster mother. However, it is merely one example in which personal service occupations are not highly rated.
Men who might wish to enter these occupations and who might find satisfaction in working with people are, of course, deterred now by the low pay and prestige. A more sophisticat-

ed evaluation of personal service occupations, especially the para-professional occupations in the health and welfare field, and some updating, would not only benefit the women now in these positions but would also make it possible for men with talents and abilities in these areas to move to them.
In closing may I quote from the Director-General of the International Labour Conference who said last year:
It can indeed be maintained that the success or failure of modern societies will depend on how they solve this key problem of the inter-relationship between employment, remuneration, working conditions and environment, education, health and leisure.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, since first being elected to the House of Commons roughly four years ago I have had the opportunity to take part in all three debates on the Speeches from the Throne. Therefore it gives me great pleasure to keep my record intact by once again taking part in this latest episode beginning the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament of Canada.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate two capable backbenchers on the government side, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), for moving and seconding the Address in Reply to throne speech. It is very easy for me to understand their enthusiasm toward a government Speech from the Throne oozing with promises, pretty phrases, and vague generalities aimed at perhaps not all segments of our society, but certainly at a great number of Canadians from coast to coast.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is, however, that if these gentlemen followed the progress of their government's legislative policies in respect to the throne speech, they will surely lose their initial enthusiasm only to have it replaced by wonder and awe at how their peers could have the nerve to stray so far from throne speech promises when introducing and implementing consequent policies.
I, too, was enthusiastic when I first heard a throne speech delivered with such majesty and tradition during my first days as a member of parliament back in January of 1973. It did not take long, however, for my enthusiasm to turn first to surprise, then to dismay, and eventually to anger when I realized that the promises made were mere political rhetoric with very little consequential follow-up. The fact is that nearly half of the promises enunciated in the last throne speech in 1974 never materialized.
For example, what happened to the new consumer credit legislation, including the disclosure by lenders of effective rates of interest on loans?


An hon. Member:: It's coming.


Otto John Jelinek: In every throne speech it is coming. Hopefully by the next throne speech there will be a new government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: What happened to the total revision of bankruptcy laws to help the consumer debtor, to the improvement
: [DOT]



October 19, 1976

of urban and inter-city transportation services, to the legislation to provide for an efficient port system, to the measures for government intervention in cases where a Canadian company may be prevented by its foreign ownership from fulfilling export orders, to the revisions to the Public Service Staff Relations Act, to the human rights legislation, or to the provisions to broadcast the proceedings of the Commons? 1 know the latter is back in the throne speech. What about the guarantees for the domestic control of uranium mining, and on, and on, and on? Promises, promises, promises! All of these were vivid, definite solutions proposed by the Trudeau administration in the last throne speech over two years ago, none of which were introduced, let alone materialized. Surely the government cannot say it has had no time to introduce legislation dealing with the great promises it made on that uneventful day in September, 1974.
We all know that the last session of parliament was the longest in the history of Confederation, and perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of popularity the government is experiencing today is that the Liberal administration did not see fit to make further futile promises prior to this last Speech from the Throne. I suggest, based on past performance, that anyone who believes the sincerity of the government's promises must surely be over-optimistic and unrealistic. I further suggest, again on the basis of past performances, that a great many of the government's promises to the public at large are made with the knowledge that it is intentionally misleading the electorate.
I hear snickering from across the way. What better example could there be than the now famous Liberal flip-flop on wage and price controls? Was that misleading in the 1974 campaign, or not? In an attempt to conceal the inefficiency of the government in this and other regards the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) now stirs up, by way of diversionary action, what I believe to be the most divisive issue in Canada, that of bilingualism.
I am all for bilingualism and the principle behind it. But why stir up this subject on a regular basis with phony issues? To me it is beyond comprehension. The principle of bilingualism was accepted by all parties in the House, and if it were left alone in the hands of the people the nation would be better off for it.
I should like to give an example of a nation which has more than two official languages. I am thinking of Switzerland. Do we ever hear of any problems relating to language issues in Switzerland? It is left in the hands of the population in that country. Mr. Speaker, I realise that members opposite on the government side are getting a little flipperty so I shall change the subject and deal briefly with a matter which members before me have already documented in some detail, namely , the cabinet shuffle and the continuing resignations from the cabinet. I should like to touch on the two new sub-ministries which I am certain have been formed in the hope of making a smokescreen to conceal the government's inability to cope with the massive problems relating to small business on one hand,
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
and physical fitness and amateur sport on the other. Ironically these are two areas with which I have been closely associated at different times as spokesman on behalf of our party.
It was nearly three and a half years ago, when government spending was at a far lower level and the inflationary cycle had not yet begun to spiral, that I recommended for the sake of a physically fit nation, as well as for a semblance of order leading up to the Montreal Olympics within the amateur sports world, that a sub-ministry for physical fitness and sport should be established. The response I received at that time from the then godfather of the Canadian Football League, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), was simply incredible bearing in mind the action taken by the government in these times of restraint. I believe he had just finished sticking his nose in where it didn't belong, that is to say, into professional football, when he found out about my suggestions, and recommendations.
Perhaps Your Honour would allow me to quote from a speech given by the minister to the Sports Federation of Canada on March 16, 1974, part of which was in response to what I had said. Talking about the lack of a fundamental amateur sports program, he said:
I am aware of the concern felt by the hon. member for High Park Mr. Otto Jelinek, concern for these very same matters. Unwittingly, I think there is a very strong recommendation for a Canadian Ministry of Sport. How surprising, to me at any rate, that a man with Mr. Jelinek's credentials as an accomplished athlete should be endorsing the creation of-and I say this with some trepidation because of my own experiences-what appears to be a rather relentless bureaucracy.
Consider for a moment such a ministry with all its possibilities. It is true that I have in my department two deputy ministers-one for Health, and one for Welfare-but can you imagine for a moment the problems for a minister of sport? He would need to hire a hall just to meet with his deputy ministers. There would be the deputy minister of ballooning, the deputy minister of bowling, the deputy minister of trotting and it would go on and on-


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Speaker, he is speaking, and I should like him to be more explicit about which minister he is speaking and why he is speaking-


An hon. Member:: Who?


Jacques Flynn: -on which sport he is speaking and to what he is speaking, because he is alluding to all different sports.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. That appears to be a matter of debate rather than a point of order.


Otto John Jelinek: I believe the hon. member could not have been listening to what I said earlier. As to what he has just said, 1 am sure the translators must have found it difficult translating the mish-mash that came out of his mouth.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Jacques Flynn: I do not think the hon. member understood what I said at all. I understood perfectly what he didn't say and I would like to have him explain now what he intends to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I do not believe an argument as to facts gives rise to a legitimate point of order. I

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
still ask hon. members to exercise restraint. I believe the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) should be allowed to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I see that not even the hon. member's own colleagues can understand what he is talking about. I was quoting from a speech delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This was in response to my recommendations to him some years ago when he was knocking the feasibility of establishing a sub-ministry of physical fitness and sports.
After these rude interruptions, Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue quoting the minister. The minister said:
There would be the deputy minister of ballooning, the deputy minister of bowling, the deputy minister of trotting and it would go on and on, and the way things are going now you would definitely need two deputy ministers of football, one for the offence, and one for the defence.
He concluded as follows:
My fears are that the author of the P.C.-Jelinek paper with this ministry of sport idea, at any rate, may be skating on very thin ice.
That, Mr. Speaker, is one more example of an absolute flip-flop by the government, and a typical exemplification of the arrogance demonstrated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A simple conclusion leads me to believe that the minister was either attempting to mislead the public or that he is losing seniority and the high regard in which he is reputed to be held by the Prime Minister. Indeed, I feel very sorry for the new Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) who has to work under the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is totally opposed to a sub-ministry for fitness and sport. A minister who spends over $2,000 on football speeches to make in the House of Commons in the midst of an inflationary cycle in Canada does not know what he is talking about.
We do not have to stop here when discussing inconsistencies by the government, and more specifically by this same minister. We know that in his former capacity as minister responsible for sport, which he knew very little about, he refused to honour a $500,000 grant promised by his department to the organizing committee of the 1976 Olympiad for the Physically Disabled because of South Africa's participation in these games which took place in Toronto earlier this year. His reasoning was his government's policy regarding apartheid in South Africa. Yet the inconsistency exists in the very fact that this same government has personnel within the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Africa for the sake of promoting trade.
Now, no one is arguing the merits of that situation, but it is the double-faced standard that upsets me no end and which the government is demonstrating by recognizing South Africa, on one hand, in respect to trade and not recognizing South Africa, on the other hand, in respect to disabled youth. Yet today in this House a double inconsistency, if I may use that
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
phrase, occurred when the House unanimously supported my motion to support and encourage current fund raising programs for the disabled in Canada as well as abroad, including naturally those in South Africa as well. Needless to say, I was most pleased with the results. However, one must take it that the government was either sleeping, or simply ignorant as a whole, or that it has changed its policy regarding apartheid in South Africa. I look forward to some specific policy coming from the government side in this respect, their having unanimously approved support for the disabled athletes around the world, including those in South Africa. I only hope that some semblance of consistency develops in this respect, and indeed in many other important issues that the government continues to confuse rather than clarify.
I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not at least touch on the subject matter that I am responsible for on behalf of my party, namely, a part of our economic process that must surely form the backbone of our economic way of life. I am of course referring to small business.
We all know that the small firms sector of our economy has been generally ignored and bypassed by all levels of government, and to this end I welcome the Prime Minister's decision to segregate the government's responsibilities to small business from that overwhelming Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce by creating a new sub-ministry responsible for small business. Again, I believe that the formation of this sub-ministry is simply a smokescreen by the Prime Minister to pacify the unsuspecting small business community which, as a result of its widespread individualism, lacks a strong enough voice in government.
We know that the government confers from time to time with such representative groups as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Canadian Manufacturers Association. All three organizations are exceptional ambassadors for their specific communities in respect to small business, but their representations alone are simply not strong enough. My suggestion to the small business community, for the sake of having a stronger voice in Ottawa, is that it rally behind the idea of having these and other interested groups approach the government as a unit on behalf of small business in order that they do not get trampled under in the stampede for power by big unions and big industry, which in fact represent only a minority of the working force in Canada.
When the government is in consultation with labour, for example, it is basically dealing with the Canadian Labour Congress whose membership totals somewhere around 20 per cent of the total labour force. And when the government is in consultation with business, it is naturally talking with the major industries and multinational corporations, which again represent far less than 50 per cent of the business community.
There is no doubt about the fact that the small firms sector is by far the largest and possibly the most important sector of our economy, responsible for employing well over 50 per cent of our labour force. This is the sector that has continually been bypassed by all levels of government while at the same time it
October 19, 1976

is taken for granted it will abide by the horrendous bureaucratic regulations established for big industry.
I believe it is time for all governments to allow small business the freedom it deserves while at the same time making the specific legislative changes that are required. Looking at statistics and our economy as a whole, there is no question that the government has not only failed to implement policies which would encourage a healthy and expanding small business sector in the economy, but has perpetuated policies and practices harmful to this sector. To this end I have just introduced a private member's notice of motion for consideration which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government consider the advisability of implementing programs to assist the development of small business in this country, consisting of such positive initiatives as:
(a)	Allowing tax credits for investment in small business:
(b)	Providing assistance in the formation of small business export consortia;
(c)	Changing government tender practices so that small business supplies a
portion of government purchased goods and services;
(d)	Reducing the government paperwork burden imposed on small business.
In other words I am asking for some form of comprehensive policy on small business. A small business sub-ministry has been established, but no small business policy has ever come forth from the government. The time has come for this to take place. Some of these proposals which I put in my motion are in existence in other countries; they are not new ideas. They work very well in Japan, the United States, Belgium, West Germany, and other countries. But our small business minister is not visiting those countries on his first trip abroad. He is going to the Soviet Union. Perhaps he is going to study the free market system, but 1 do not know what he is going to study in the Soviet Union as the government's representative for small business.
It is strange indeed to note that the government has failed to come up with any such policies in the past. As a matter of fact a Liberal policy on small business is non-existent. This forces the small business community to abide by the bureaucratic rules and regulations established for the sake and benefit of large, and usually multinational, corporations, corporations which are able to cope with such rules and regulations vis-a-vis the small businessman who is unable to do so.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I have said so often before in this Chamber, something that I believe is imperative for our democratic way of life to survive. If we want the small business firm sector to survive within our society, as indeed we all do with perhaps the exception of the NDP, then immediate action by the federal government must be taken. The small business community is what the free enterprise system is all about. It is what this country is built on and what this country can prosper by. Other countries which presently are more fortunate than Canada in respect of unemployment, inflation, productivity, and other areas by which the standard of success is judged, have all concentrated their economic energies toward their small firm sector within their industrial way of life.
The Address-Mr. Whelan
We cannot and we must not allow the Prime Minister of Canada to change the free market system in this country. If the Prime Minister believes the free market system does not work, as he so clearly stated a year or so ago, then may I remind him that if indeed free enterprise is having its problems in this country, that certainly has nothing to do with the system itself, but rather with the strangle hold that he and his government have had on that system for the past decade or so. Sending his newly appointed Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Marchand) to the Soviet Union as his first official trip abroad is not a step in the right direction toward preserving free enterprise.
Perhaps the federal government will finally take the necessary steps to reverse its trend toward centralization and make the legislative changes so vital to the survival of the free market system and society as we know it. If, however, the government is persistent in allowing free enterprise to suffer by its unwillingness to cope with the problems associated with it, which I believe to be the case as the government has had enough time to change its theories and philosophies, then I know the electorate as a whole will follow yesterday's trend in the by-elections and, at the next opportunity, elect the appropriate representatives who will be committed to preserving the traditions that have made this country the great place it is.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I do not take part in this debate to be strictly political.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: This will be the first time.


Eugene Whelan: I would be remiss if I were not just a little bit political. Some of the things that have been put on the record by speakers in the last couple of days have not been as factual as they might have been. I do not know where they got their facts, but-


An hon. Member:: Your colleagues aren't going to like this, Gene.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I have an advantage over most members of the House, Mr. Speaker, in that they are making the noise but I do not know what they are saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The throne speech made little direct reference to agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Some hon. members have made a tremendous noise about that. I think that is all you can say about it. Their contribution in the way of constructive criticism has not been very great judging from what I have read and heard. Agriculture continues to hold a very high position on the government's list of priorities.

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Whelan


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Even you don't believe that, Gene.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, anyone today who can read in either of the official languages, and the press releases from the Department of Agriculture are in both official languages, knows that the list of things we have done in the last year is this high, Mr. Speaker. These documents I hold are not lengthy but rather single sheets outlining what we have done for the different agricultural groups in Canada.


An hon. Member:: It's a good thing we don't have plumbing all across Saskatchewan.


Eugene Whelan: I would challenge anyone to point out a time in the history of Canada when a government reacted more to the needs of agriculture in this country than has this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Your press releases are used across Saskatchewan.


Eugene Whelan: As I said, we did not make a great play about agriculture in the throne speech. That was not an oversight or an omission because the facts speak for themselves. We should remind ourselves of the fact that in the last four years the farmers of Canada have been better off than they have ever been before in their lives.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You come out to Saskatchewan and tell them that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are beginning to talk like the Prime Minister,(Mr. Trudeau).


Eugene Whelan: Just ask all those lawyers who are members of parliament who own land in central Canada, eastern Canada, and western Canada, and they will tell you how much their land values have increased, and how well off they have become. They can tell you how much their share crop in respect of wheat has brought them. They can tell you about these things if you want them to do so.
During the last session there was a very heavy load of agricultural legislation. Those bills are now law and we are working hard toward their implementation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: It is obvious that food provides a tremendous amount of energy. Just listen to the amount of noise we are getting from the other side.


An hon. Member:: They are well fed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Due to the fine progress the House made on agricultural matters in the last session there was not much carried over into this new session.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why are you laughing, Gene?


Eugene Whelan: Following the 1972 election we did not hold up agricultural legislation like they did, yet they try to make out today that they are the farmers' friends. The records of this House show how friendly they were. Some of the statements put on the record in the last couple of days would indicate what kind of friends they are to agriculture. The people involved in agriculture in Canada know the real facts.
There was not much of a carryover, but that is not to say we will not be bringing forward agricultural legislation this session, because we will. The throne speech mentioned one important item, namely, measures to make more farm stored crops eligible for advance payments. This will make the cash advance system, which has been of great assistance to prairie farm grain growers over the years, available to farmers in other parts of Canada and in respect of crops other than grain.
When hon. members opposite were in power they made out they were friends of the farmer, but what did they do? What did they do about advance payments to make farmers equal across Canada? They did nothing at all about it.


An hon. Member:: Bring in the cheese.


Eugene Whelan: A true national cash advance system will go a long way toward completion of a comprehensive farm income stabilization plan for Canadian farmers. It will give farmers the opportunity to obtain cash against farm-stored crops rather than having to sell their crops at distress prices at harvest time, and that involves many crops right in the area of Perth-Wil-mot. The hon. member who represents that area should be concerned about that; he should not jeer because it will help an awful lot of farmers in his area. If we put the program into proper use and perspective, we will help him right out of this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: It Will ease the problem-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have heard our Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) trying to explain very carefully the many agreements we have made across Canada, but members of the opposition are not willing to let him tell his story. I think he has much to say and we should let him say it without interruption.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 19, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I wish to inform the hon. member that the minister has the right to make an uninterrupted speech.


William Herbert Jarvis: Do it straight this time, Gene, without laughing.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Eugene Whelan: -I had some reservations about coming into the House tonight-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: -but as I was saying, this program will ease the problems of farmers who need cash but cannot market their crops because the marketing system is temporarily clogged by everyone trying to sell their produce at the same time. As I said, it will round out the stabilization package which now includes the fully revamped Agricultural Stabilization Act, crop insurance, the Western Grain Income Stabilization Act, and the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Together with other legislation on the books, such as the Farm Credit Act, these measures are providing Canadian farmers with the finest legislative framework to be found anywhere in the world, and I challenge anyone to deny this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: This also provides consumers with the assurance of a continuing supply of high quality food at prices they can afford.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Especially beef.


Eugene Whelan: I will talk about beef a little bit later, but there is no denying that never in the history of the purchasing power of Canadians could they buy more beef and more food products-practically any food product that is available; you do not have to mention only beef-that are produced in Canada, for an hour's wages.
I mentioned the other legislation we have to protect farmers, legislation that was passed last year and in previous years by this parliament. The farmer needs this kind of protection even if some members opposite do not think that he does. Letters have been sent to my colleagues in cabinet from an association to which some people used to belong-I do not know if they still do-asking me, for instance, to withdraw beef from the stabilization legislation, to take it out of the act because farmers do not need it. That is what they said. That is not what they are saying now. When I had legislation last year to put import quotas on the United States, 100 per cent on the last year's average, and I had it on Australia and New Zealand, who in the hell asked me to take it off?


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


Eugene Whelan: The same people are saying to me now to put controls on Australians and New Zealanders. I ask them to ask their leader if he believes that we should not be part of the Commonwealth? If they want to condemn the Commonwealth, to throw it out and to say they are not members of GATT, they are not our trading partners and we should treat Commonwealth countries differently than the U.S., then let their leader say so. They are saying that the United States is closer to us than Australia and New Zealand; they are saying, "Abolish the Commonwealth." Get your leader to say it too. We are trading partners with Australia and New Zealand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I am not saying that everything has gone perfectly well with them, but when we lifted the quotas on the United States last year some suggested that we keep quotas on Australia and New Zealand, that we treat them differently than the United States because we are part of the North American beef trading market. But the North American trading market belongs to 37 other countries in the world, not just Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, as some of them tried to implant in the producers' minds, which I say is dishonest because that market never belonged only to the North American producers. They know as well as anybody that we have been deficient in processing beef for years and we have always had to depend on imports. They say we should cut off our trading partners. I am surprised to hear that from the good old Tory Conservative party. I am surprised to hear them suggest we should get out of the Commonwealth. That is what they are saying.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 think the minister will want to take the first opportunity to retract the rather unfortunate statement he just made with respect to the allegation that we want to get out of the Commonwealth. 1 realize he is making the point that beef is cheaper. Tonight we understand that bull is free.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This is more a point of debate. I suggest that the minister should be allowed to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Retract.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in my opinion, did not have a point of order. He only contributed to the beef surplus with a little more bull.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are a bunch of rabble rousers.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: There is the rabble. The minister is roused.


Eugene Whelan: I wish I had been in external affairs. I would know how to use those fine words a little better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Whelan


Eugene Whelan: Not like some former civil servants or bureaucrats, people who come to parliament to tell us old parliamentarians how to run the country.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are two comments which have been made, and I think the minister was responding a little bit too generously perhaps to some other comments which were being made.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think we are entitled to hear the point of order of the hon. member.


Donald W. Munro: First, the minister did not retract a completely untrue statement which was made.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Donald W. Munro: I think that ought to be done, if only to set the record straight. I think we are all prepared to accept that in the enthusiasm of the moment the minister could have overstated the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I wish to inform the hon. member that that is not a point of order. It is a point of debate, and I suggest that the minister continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I hope all these interruptions are discounted from my time.


Mr. Nowlan:: Your time was up as of last night.


Eugene Whelan: It could be that I will not have enough time because it is obvious that hon. members opposite do not want to hear facts or to hear what I want to say. I think I am entitled to put what I want to say on the record, but they seem to want to discourage democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: This old Minister of Agriculture and this old politician does not get discouraged; all he wants is his rightful time, even if it takes an hour tomorrow with all these points of order which are being raised.
In Canada we have a tough climate and widely differing soil conditions. We have enormous transportation problems caused by the great distances involved in getting crops to market. We must compete with farmers in other countries for export markets, and we must compete against the same foreign farmers for our markets right here at home. Our farmers need help and encouragement, and they are getting it from this government. That does not mean we are supporting inefficient farmers. None of our legislation is designed with such a purpose in mind. We have the most productive farmers in the
[Mr. Whelan.)
world, and we want to keep it that way. However, that does not mean we should stand by and watch our farmers wiped out by weather disaster, a sudden temporary surplus, or by competition from a foreign treasury. The aim of the government is that industrious and efficient farmers should have the assurance of a decent living in return for their labour and investment, nothing more, nothing less, and most of them ask nothing more and nothing less.
The young farmer should also have the longer term assurance that if he borrows the thousands of dollars required to start farming today, he will be able to make a living from agriculture for many years to come.
In some areas problems exist. Some of our agriculturalists who are well established say, "So what, let them be destroyed". This Minister of Agriculture does not believe that that should happen, and that is why we need the Agricultural Stabilization Act this year more than any other year in the history of parliament.
I am not suggesting that we do not have agricultural problems. There have always been problems, and there always will be problems. I attended a meeting tonight, and one of the delegates asked me how things are going in agriculture. I said that today we solved two problems but that tomorrow we will probably have three new ones. That is not uncommon in a country which deals in world markets, and so on. However, this is a country which is different from many other countries. I do not know of a country in the world which would not trade its problem for ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: As Minister of Agriculture representing this government and the farmers of Canada I have visited countries in different parts of the world. Sure, we do have problems, but they are very small when compared with the problems of farmers in other parts of the world. They are so small, they are hard to measure. There is hardly a ruler which would measure them. I am thinking of the problems of farmers in countries in the Balkans, in other parts of Europe and so on.
The only serious challenge we have is to do our job well, and because of that we end up with surpluses. We should count that as a blessing. I said last year in this House, and I will say it again, that if I were in the U.S.S.R. or in some other country they would not be saying that I should be fired; they would be giving me a medal because I would be the leader and the person responsible for the most efficient group of agricultural producers in the world, producers of surpluses and the envy of countries such as China and Russia.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: Some hon. members have great compassion for that great food machine to the south of us. That public corporation called the CBC, funded by this government to the tune of S400 million in subsidies, tells us what a great system the United States has, that F.D.R. and everyone since has poured billions and billions of dollars into agriculture, much
October 19, 1976

more per capita than we ever thought of pouring into agriculture in Canada. We are told about the great machine built by that great free system way back under F.D.R. Hon. members may remember that he paid farmers to kill pigs, not to grow crops and that sort of thing. This Minister of Agriculture and this government do not do that.
As I said, we should count these surpluses, as I count them, as a blessing to our country. Canada is one of only four or five countries in this world which are net exporters of food. We are one of four or five countries which do not have to depend on someone else to provide us with that most vital commodity, food.
The delegates who were here tonight informed me that they would be buying from us again this year to feed their people. Only 5 per cent of our producers is involved in agriculture. In the countries represented by those delegates one third of their population is involved in agriculture, but they cannot grow enough to feed themselves. Our surplus food provides billions of dollars and feeds thousands of people in the developing countries. We provide food aid second to none in the world. We are not even second to our big neighbour to the south, even though some of us like to brag more about them than about our own system. This country provides more food aid for needy people in the world per capita than any country in the world. So let them talk about the great food machine to the south!
For the Canadian consumer there is an assured supply of nourishment which is better than any other country in the world. The people have buying power here, and the social services in our country are second to none.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I can show hon. members letters about the beef problem we face. A little earlier I talked about how I was condemned as a trade restrictionist when I put quotas on imports. I did not hear anyone say that of the President of the United States or of the acting secretary of agriculture in the United States when they triggered their meat import law to protect the beef industry in their country, but by God, last year when I did, people said I was a trade restrictionist. Everything in the book was wrong in the beef industry, and all they asked me to do-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the Minister of Agriculture should be heard.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: I don't think so.


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


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


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the speech we have listened to would indicate that the minister has an ego
The Address-Mr. Whelan
bigger than his head, and in view of the fact that his remarks are so inflammatory, I think we have heard enough from him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is not a point of order. The hon. Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if the remarks I have been making are inflammatory it must be that truth makes fire.
In the production of food, surpluses tend to depress prices if they happen to occur in those commodities for which there is no possibility of international sales. It is also wasteful to produce food for which there is no demand. That is one very good reason for better planning of production. Energy is scarce enough without wasting it on unwanted products. Agricultural products can waste in the sun and waste in the cold. Without planning you can just produce them and hope somebody will buy.
When I speak about the supply management system, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that that is what the President of the United States is proposing for U.S. beef producers now. He had a quota system for them and he has triggered a meat import law. I should like to ask some of the hon. members if we have the opportunity later in this session, or perhaps in committee, what they think the President means when he says, "You can ship so many million pounds, and you over there can ship so many million pounds, and you down there can ship so many million pounds." If that is not a supply management system I should like to know what it is. He said, "Our market can absorb so much and no more". The President of the United States of America told us that if we shipped an excessive amount of beef to them they would immediately face us with that agreement we made between the secretary of agriculture for the United States of America and myself last December. I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker, there was no such discussion that took place before President Ford announced what he did this year.
Right now there are difficulties with the beef and dairy sectors. Both are in world surplus positions much greater than many people can imagine. When you attend meetings, as I have, as the representative of this government, with the Latin American ministers and listen to them tell how they were financed by the Latin American Bank and by world organizations to enter the beef business and now cannot sell a pound of their beef, you know it is a world problem.
To whom does the North American market belong? Not to the big farmers of Canada and the United States as a lot of our so-called experts and beef breeders would tell us; it belongs to North American farmers plus 37 other nations of the world.
Let us face facts, Mr. Speaker. This year in Canada we exported more beef than we imported. Our balance of trade is about 50 million pounds of fresh beef plus 67,000 head of cattle more sent to the United States than we ever shipped to them before. The balance is in our favour. When they wanted North American market prices-we still have North American market prices. We have market prices Omaha based that are still higher in Canada than they are in Omaha. Let them be honest. Let them tell the beef farmers that that is what they
254

October 19, 1976
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
asked for and that is what they got. Tell them that even with the imports of beef they received 10 per cent to 25 per cent more for their cows this year than last year when we did not have the imports of beef from Australia and New Zealand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if the minister could finish by ten o'clock we would be very pleased to allow him to continue.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if they want to suppress agriculture in Canada I am willing to let them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) was not up to the challenge of speaking a little longer to finish off his remarks but I am quite prepared to deal with some of the issues he raised. It is clear to everyone in this Chamber that the minister has failed miserably in carrying out his mandate as minister of agriculture and he will pay the price in the next election.
I want to start off in the traditional way by complimenting those members on the government side who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to Speech from the Throne. The mover was the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), and I think we would all agree that he is going to amount to something in this parliament. He is unique in that he is the only Liberal to be elected in a by-election during this parliament. We realize that from now until the end of this parliament no more of his party will be elected, so I want to compliment him and say that notwithstanding-[DOT]


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Speaker-


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


Jacques Flynn: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the hon. member I do not think our member was the only one elected in a by-election so he is giving incorrect information. This is a distortion of information and he should give it correctly. If he just got up to tell off the minister, he is wrong.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Hon. members will be recognized on a point of order but not for debate. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Kitchener (Mr. Flynn) apparently has a hearing problem. I said that the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. 
Harquail) would be the only Liberal member elected in a by-election during this parliament.
I should like to call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this debate is to move to another subject, one that I raised on the fourth day of this session of parliament. It concerns the flooding that has happened on the Rideau River and the efforts being contemplated by the government to combat the difficulties that residents in my constituency and elsewhere have experienced as its result.
On October 15 I inquired of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) if he had had an opportunity to review the petition sent to him by some 550 residents on the banks of the Rideau River concerning flood control, maintenance of water levels on the Rideau, whether he had had an opportunity to consult his officials, and what he intended to do about the problem. The minister indicated he had not seen the petition although I know it was sent to him. Perhaps he has seen it now, and he has received correspondence with respect to this matter.
I am talking of most serious conditions, Mr. Speaker. In the spring of this year thousands of dollars of damage was caused to those people who live along that river. I do not think one can say, and I am sure the minister will not say, that people built there, therefore they must suffer the consequences. I do not think the minister would say that, in the circumstances.
The difficulty exists, perhaps owing to the failure of the ministry to deal with it. The primary area of flooding that concerns us is the stretch of river between Burritt's Rapids and the Long Island locks. As the House may be aware, there was extensive flooding during the spring run-off period of 1976, resulting in the considerable property damage to which I just referred. In several years during the past decade there has been severe flooding on that river. The petitioners feel that this flooding could have been averted if the authorities had exercised proper river level management.
The residents of the area contend that the off-season water levels of the past few years have been left higher than in previous years. They contend that not only have water levels been left higher, but that there is a facility for controlling the
October 19, 1976

water at Long Island. They are as mindful as any of the importance of preserving the area's wild life and marine life. They live along the river. But they feel that since water levels have been lowered in the area north of Black Rapids, without damaging wild life and marine life, the same could be done in the area of concern to them.
They are asking for the maintenance of the water level, and for flood control on the river. They object to the high water levels maintained between the two areas mentioned, water levels which have resulted in the flooding to which I have referred. They contend that by lowering substantially the water level of a portion of the system, a greater catch basin could be created to accommodate the spring run-off.
A recently created federal-provincial-municipal organization known as COORTS has been brought together for the development of the entire Rideau-Trent-Severn system. People concerned about water levels in the area say that if those levels are to be controlled it is necessary to activate the provisions of the agreement and understanding arrived at, and apply them in the particular area of concern.
I have asked for an answer to my question and I brought it forward again for debate this evening because it is important to many of my constituents who have suffered damage as a result of the flooding. I submit that, in view of the history of the area, unless something is done similar difficulties will again arise. I hope that the representative of the ministry will be able to announce what steps are being taken. I also ask the parliamentary secretary, who has considered the matter, to bring to the attention of the minister the questions I have placed on the order paper relating to this matter, which is important to many people, many of whom have invested their life savings in homes in this area.
The Rideau is a beautiful river, Mr. Speaker. It can be made more beautiful, deepened and widened, not just for boaters, but as well for all those who indulge in recreation along the river. But when this is done I hope the people who live in the area and have invested their life savings in it will not be forgotten.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I like many who live in and around Ottawa, have always appreciated the value and beauty of the Rideau River. Many of my closest friends live along the river; as a result I am familiar with the difficulty to which he referred.
On October 14, 1976, a petition addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) was presented directly to the department. The petition contained more than 500 signatures.
The petitioners object to the flooding on the section of the Rideau River between Burritt's Rapids and Long Island which they state is because of the high water levels maintained on this section of the river during the winter.
Adjournment Debate
In 1976 the worst flooding on record occurred along the Rideau River between Smiths Falls and Ottawa. The break-up was very rapid due to abnormally high temperatures followed by rain. Considerable damage was caused, and officials of the department immediately began assessing what, if anything, could be done to alleviate the problem in the future.
The petition requests that the water be lowered to provide a larger "catch basin", and assumes that marine and wildlife would not be seriously affected. The petition also states that damage due to ice is increased by high water levels.
There has been insufficient time to review the petition as to what effect a lowering of the water level by three feet, as requested, would have on wildlife and the surrounding water table. It is known that in similar situations along the Trent when water levels were lowered for construction purposes, fish and aquatic mammals were killed and nearby wells have gone dry. The uplift of ice when spring freshet commences is often more severe with lower river levels and usually there is more damage caused to docks and bank protection. Officials have calculated that the amount of storage provided by such a lowering would have delayed the high water levels in 1976 by about a half day but would not have reduced the maximum levels reached.
The minister has asked that the petition be studied in detail. Game and fish authorities have already been asked to give their advice. An opinion has also been requested from an independent engineering firm as to what effect an all winter lowering would have on ice build-up. The clearing of ice jams in the Ottawa area is a municipal operation assisted by canal procedures to flush away the broken ice. Similar co-operation would be given the upstream municipalities if they wished to provide a similar service on a co-ordinated basis.
The control of water in a watershed has many ramifications besides maintaining levels for navigation. They have an effect on the water level in wells, fish and marine life, and the quality of the water itself. Departmental officials are constantly trying to improve the art to accommodate as many users as possible with minimum adverse effects. Precipitous action might have unexpected and undesirable results. It is for this reason that this complex problem requires detailed multi-disciplinary study.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The time of the hon. parliamentary secretary has expired and we should go on to the next question.


ENERGY-REQUEST FOR SUBSIDY TO ATLANTIC PROVINCES- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and delighted that the minister is here tonight to answer my humble question. I will leave aside the preliminary recitation I made to him and the answer he gave to me.
I was impressed, indeed shocked, that on an issue so vital to the people of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia the
80001-17%

October 19, 1976
Adjournment Debate
minister could couch his answer in such heavy layers of complacency and casuality. For many, many months the premiers of the two provinces have been presenting an urgent case for special action to provide some measure of relief for the people of Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
I know that the whole country, indeed much of the whole world, faces a grave energy crisis. But the situation in the two provinces is especially acute and painful. We have no great hydro-electric capacities. In Prince Edward Island our electricity derives from oil-fired turbines and one need not be an expert to know the effect of increasing oil prices.
In seven minutes I would not presume to attempt an in-depth discussion of the nation's energy problems. But it is beyond question that the Government of Canada is deeply involved in, and in large measure responsible for, our current energy crisis. I can and should, Mr. Speaker, draw to the attention of the House and the minister the very grave situation in which the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island find themselves.
I hear from constituents a depressing account of their difficulty in paying their monthly electricity bills. One lady says it costs her more for electricity than for her rent. Phenomenal increases seem the order of the day. In my modest constituency office in Charlottetown, the increase is revealing. In July, 1975, the bill for electricity was $2.86. In August of 1975 it was $3.23. One year later, July, 1976, it was not $2.86 but $11.88. The bill for September, 1976, was $27.05. This is a sizeable increase for a small office with dome lights. But think of the effect on our processing plants where our fine agricultural products are frozen or otherwise processed. With our transportation costs and other deterrents to which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is adding further problems, we have trouble enough already trying to compete. If the costs of energy are to be so disparate, what is our future?
What processing plant will locate in Prince Edward Island in the face of staggering energy costs such as these? How can we really move in the direction of economic expansion and overcome regional disparity? It is for this reason I was so appalled by the minister's lack of anxiety over the matter. My hon. friend from Egmont rightly pointed out that DREE cannot accomplish anything, let alone economic miracles, if other government departments work against its aims and objectives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Is it customary to remind hon. members that their time has expired?
Is it agreed that the hon. member may pursue his speech?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not believe I have exhausted my seven minutes. I think Your Honour is wrong in your calculations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I am sorry, and I wish to apologize to the hon. member. I was mistaken as to the amount of time available to the hon. member. He still has a few more minutes to go.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I appreciate that. I have been here for 20 years and have made many wrong moves, but I have never over-extended my time. I say to the minister, whom I like and respect, and for whom I still have hopes: what plant can operate in Prince Edward Island, processing our fine fish or our fine agricultural products, if electricity costs are so exorbitant as to drive it completely out of the Atlantic area? How can he justify those energy costs when our most important minister, the minister for DREE, is seeking to establish and consolidate these very industries? My hon. friend from Egmont touched recently on these points, as I have done for years. There is no logic in one minister dedicating himself to enhancing and supporting the deprived areas of the country if all the other ministers vote against him.
One of the principal contributors to economic disparity is the excessive cost of energy in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. In Prince Edward Island, or Charlottetown, the average salary is $8,100 and the average energy bill is $980, or 12 per cent of the earnings of a household. In Toronto the average salary is $11,000 and the average energy cost per household is $525, or 4.8 per cent. In Edmonton, that wonderful city in the west, the average salary is $11,000 and the average annual energy bill is $305, or 2.7 per cent. One more shattering statistic reveals that electricity cost per kilowatt hour in Charlottetown is $4.35, in Toronto $1.76, and in Winnipeg $1.58. We love the westerners and we love the Ontario people, but this is a disgraceful situation. With figures like these we scarcely need to dilate upon the question of regional disparity. The statistics are all too painfully eloquent and poignantly revealing.
I plead with the minister-and I am honoured by his presence here tonight-to energize himself and to listen to the two premiers, although I think in this case Mr. Regan is more aggressive than Mr. Campbell. As my own leader recognized some weeks ago, temporary aid is absolutely essential. This we must have, and beyond this some major long range moves are overdue.
There are a number of areas in which the Atlantic region can be assisted by the dominion government. The first, I would say, is to stop studying and to start doing something about the Fundy tides. As a Presbyterian and religious man I say it passeth my understanding, in an age when we talk learnedly about renewable and non-renewable resources, that the Fundy project is so casually regarded by the Government of Canada. It is the one great eternal source of energy. So long as the earth, the sun and the moon endure that energy is there.
But why do we want so long? The great French philosopher Montesquieu said that to govern was to foresee. 1 invite the government to show foresight and to do something lasting and effective in the struggle against regional economic disparity which has been a part of the confederation process and reality for over a century.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity of replying to the eloquent member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), a man who has entertained us and held us
October 19, 1976

spellbound on many an occasion. I wish I had the kind of budget that would solve the problem that he has set out for us tonight. I wish I could help everybody in all parts of the country. Although there is a tendency to see the problem solely in terms of Prince Edward Island-I do not kid myself; I realize it is probably more serious in Prince Edward Island than in other parts of the country-the problem of increasing electric energy costs exists in other parts of the country as well. Indeed, not so very far away from here you will find electricity rates which are comparable to those in Nova Scotia.
The federal government had a choice to make when the Arab OPEC nations increased the world price of oil. It could have gone immediately to the world price, as some European countries did and as Japan did, or it could have made the choice that it did make, which was to move up in measured steps toward the international price.
As a result of that, the taxpayers of Canada have subsidized very substantially energy users in Canada. In the maritimes alone that subsidy assistance by the end of this year will run very close to $1 billion since the oil price increase went through. More particularly, I think it is important to recognize that automatically, as a result of the last price increase in Canada, there was a shift from the federal treasury to the treasuries of the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and P.E.I. I am talking about the federal-provincial equalization payments. This automatic shift, which resulted purely from the increase in the oil price, is comparable to the increased cost of oil generation in the province of Nova Scotia-in fact it is a little below-and it is a little below but very close to the cost in P.E.I.
Let me go on to say, Mr. Speaker, that there are many who argue that a subsidy is not the answer, that we must look to longer term solutions. Quite frankly, that is where I am placing my emphasis. I would draw the hon. member's attention to the report of a speech that appeared in the Friday, October 8 edition of the Chronicle-Herald headlined, "Energy Subsidy Would Only Delay the Crunch". The speech was by Dr. Peter Wilson, director of the Atlantic Industrial Research Institute, Nova Scotia Technical College. He had this to say the previous Thursday:
A direct subsidy would also postpone the energy saving decisions which would inevitably result from higher prices.
I think it is important that we look at things like the Fundy tides. Indeed we are, and we are participating with the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I have seen the first stage of phase one, and the three different projects have been identified. I do not think we should kid one another. Is the hon. member saying that we want Fundy tidal power at any cost, or regardless of the cost, even if it is two or three times the cost of alternative sources such as hydro from Labrador, and nuclear power? I would ask the hon. member to look very seriously at that question.
The other point I want to make is that I am very much impressed with the initiatives of the Premier of Prince Edward
Adjournment Debate
Island in respect of renewable energy projects. I have them on my desk, I have been looking at them, and I have been out to see the sites. I think he is taking a very positive and constructive approach to this whole thing.


HOUSING-POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR REHABILITATION OF EXISTING UNITS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the Atlantic region as well, particularly Newfoundland. On Friday I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) a question regarding the rehabilitation program in two areas, one under NIP and RRAP, and the other under a special application for Newfoundland veterans presented to the minister by the provincial command of the Canadian Legion.
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program is, to my mind, one of the best projects ever devised by the government, but for some reason or other there are not enough funds going in to help the many thousands of people who need help. For example, in the province of Newfoundland in the rural areas there are 43,265 people in the lower income bracket earning between $5,000 and $10,000 a year who own their own homes. It is obvious that, with the cost of living and their incomes, their homes are going to continue to deteriorate. They cannot afford to maintain them, install proper heating, proper electrical systems, or the insulation in respect of which the government suggests we are saving a million dollars a year in energy.
The majority of people living in small Newfoundland communities own their own homes. Most of these are old homes built in accordance with the standards of the time. A great many of them are 30 to 50 years old and were built without any of the facilities that today are taken for granted. A high percentage of these homes are without inside water, inside toilets, baths or showers, without central heating and, indeed, with little or no insulation.
The provincial planning task force on housing in Newfoundland knows that with regard to facilities our housing stocks in the province lag well behind those in the rest of the Atlantic region. Many of those homes are owned by low income and welfare families who do not have the financial resources to make the necessary improvements or generally upgrade their homes to minimum standards of safety and comfort.
I have raised this subject on a number of occasions since the program came into effect. For example, last year with the number of homes that needed repairs in Newfoundland we only received $600,000 under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program in respect of rural and native housing. I understand this year there will only be $700,000. The number of loans has increased and grants have gone up to $3,750. They could be increased to $10,000, but what good would it do, as no one is getting anything as a result of a lack of funds? I hope the very fine parliamentary secretary will give me an answer in that regard.

October 19, 1976
Adjournment Debate
If I have a few more moments I should like to refer again to a survey done by the provincial command of the Canadian Legion on behalf of veterans, a survey which was financed by the government two or three years ago. The survey was done in an excellent manner. We found there were 2,075 veterans or widows who require repairs to their homes but because of the restricted allowances on their pensions they cannot afford them.
Yesterday I saw it reported in the newspapers that the government says it is saving $1 billion on conservation of energy. With the high price of fuel-to which reference was made in the previous question-the high price of electricity, the high price of heating homes, the many thousands of homes owned by Canadians in the lower income brackets, think what the saving would be in energy, fuel and the cost of heating oil if these homes could be insulated and repairs done, and think how much money these people could save, money which they cannot afford to put into repairs, insulation, and maintenance of their homes.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to throw more light on the subject and will be able to say more than was disclosed by the minister last Friday.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) has raised a question about the progress of the Residential Rehabilitation Program at an opportune time. I am pleased that he has done so since this is one of the most successful programs currently in operation under the National Housing Act. I might tell the hon. member also that this is of particular interest to my riding in which I can identify three areas falling under RRAP. We had some difficulties with the budget this year, but we succeeded in finding the money and solving most of the acute problems there.
The capital budget allocation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in designated areas and for non-profit projects for 1976, was set at $37 million early in the year. The performance of this successful program has been such that, by September 30, more than $29 million had been committed, or 80 per cent of the total allocation. Such has been the success of the program, in fact, that funds were reallocated to it at the beginning of this month.
The budget allocation for residential rehabilitation under the Rural and Native Housing Program is $12.1 million. Of this, $6.6 million had been committed by the end of last week.
Three years ago a grant under Part V of the NHA was made available to the Newfoundland-Labrador Command Royal Canadian Legion to provide financial assistance for a survey of conditions under which veterans in the province of Newfoundland were living. The survey was completed in May, 1975, and a report submitted to the provincial government and to the minister. A meeting was held in January between representatives of CMHC, the Newfoundland Housing Corporation, and the Canadian Legion. It was indicated at that time that, since a special NHA program is not available to veterans, about half the units surveyed could fall under the rural rehabilitation program. In September, a provincial order in council designated all areas in the province, except urban areas, for residential rehabilitation under this program. Negotiations are under way with the provincial housing agency for its delivery, and a meeting is being held in St. John's tomorrow morning to select the high priority areas in which the program would have immediate applicability.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, October 20, 1976