1976-10-25

VACANCY

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Mr. J. Roland Comtois, member for the electoral district of Terrebonne, by resignation.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issuance of a new writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Miss Sharon Bethune, daughter of longshoreman Roy Bethune, has been released from a Mexican jail after eight months incarceration, and in view of the fact that a Mexican judge has signed release papers showing Miss Bethune is innocent of any charges, I move:
That the Canadian government take steps to compensate Mr. Bethune for any funds he may have spent to get his daughter released from Mexico.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House before it could be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the inflammatory and derogatory comments made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning immigrants to Canada who, in fact, have made a very positive contribution to Canadian life, I move:
That this House deeply regrets the comments of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and urges him to make a statement on motions retracting his divisive comments on immigrants coming to Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 similar to the motion put forward earlier last week. I do so in the light of new evidence which has now come to hand as a result of the coming ashore yesterday of a life raft with six bodies of the crew of the MV Gabriella, which means that all the 13 people who died in that tragedy died as a result of exposure, not from drowning. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That the government order a judicial inquiry into the abandoning of the MV. Gabriella off the south coast of Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of the Standing Order there must be unanimous consent before the motion can be put. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!

October 25, 1976
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my motion relates to a matter which is an urgent one to many Canadians and that is the reason I ask leave to move it under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the government to bring in legislation that will establish pension rights for all homemaker spouses equivalent to the rights of those employed outside the home, and that the government commit itself to the taking of this action during the present session of Parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding that most unfortunate, foolish and unacceptable statement of his which he made to a Liberal meeting. I understand he indicated in a statement attributed to him that immigrants who may antagonize native born Canadians should not be brought into the country. On what basis could the minister make such a statement, and to which countries was he referring, keeping in mind that with that statement alone he has destroyed any credibility of this government respecting immigration, and in fact has almost destroyed the work of the joint Senate and House of Commons committee which travelled the country seeking the views of all citizens regarding immigration?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I would have thanked him a lot more if he had taken the trouble, as most members of the press did, knowing my attitude to immigrants, to check what I said before spreading across the country a false and malicious statement. I most assuredly did not make that statement and, as has been my experience in talking to any group, I make certain that everything I say is put down on tape.
[Mr. Speaker.)
I indicated that we had benefited in Canada greatly as a result of the immigrant population. In many cases these immigrants came here not only to receive the many benefits of Canada but they have in fact been beneficial to Canadians. I said that my predecessor, for example, had indicated we were now in the process of screening out some people who would take jobs that ordinarily Canadians could handle. The point I was endeavouring to make was that we would have them feeling antagonistic toward immigrants if we brought in large numbers of immigrants to take jobs away from Canadians, jobs that Canadians could fill. That would have the effect of making Canadians feel antagonistic toward them, and that is the last thing that I want to see happen.
Then, I went on to reiterate that in many, many instances these people came in as entrepreneurs, not to take jobs away from Canadians but in fact to create jobs for Canadians. If the reporter present on that occasion had seen fit to report all of my statement, I think this unfortunate report would not have received the publicity it did. I want to say that I am particularly appreciative of CJOH in Ottawa, which took the time and made the effort to bring a cameraman and crew to my house because that station did not believe this minister of immigration would make that kind of a statement. The reporters at that station at least saw fit to seek an explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF POLICY AND ASSURANCE NO CHANGE IN REGULATIONS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister this, so that I can have it on the record and we will not have to come back again in order to determine which way this government is going. The Speech from the Throne has this paragraph:
You will be asked to consider amendments to the Immigration Act, designed to promote Canada's regional and urban development... and preserve Canada's reputation as an open, tolerant society which welcomes the energy and cultural diversity of people from all parts of the world.
Would the minister give us his assurance that this is the policy that he will follow, without favour to any country? I just want that assurance from him.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, not only will that policy be followed, but actually I think for the first time in any piece of immigration legislation this will be incorporated into the bill as one of the objectives.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for that part of his answer which indicated that this will be incorporated in the bill. It is as a result of the probing and the statements made on this side of the House that such a criterion and principle with respect to reunification of families, non-discrimination and refugees is being incorporated in the preamble.
May I ask the minister one last question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's questionable approach and the state-
October 25, 1976

merits he said he did not make, will he assure us that there will be no further amendments to regulations under the Immigration Act? I accept the minister's statement but want him to come clean with the Canadian people. Will he give us that assurance?


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Author, author.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Why don't you go back to sleep. Mr. Speaker, will the minister assure us that no changes to regulations under the Immigration Act will be made between the present and when the new Immigration Act is introduced, unless notice is given to this House. Can he give us this assurance, so that we can travel on an even keel?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, to respond to the hon. member's question, I was rather hoping, for the sake of the future of Canada, that the stance and position we would take would be non-partisan. In my new bill I accepted something like 95 per cent of all recommendations which came from the special joint committee, which was made up of members of both sides of the House.


An hon. Member:: That committee had a Liberal majority.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thought the input came not from members and parties, but-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Please answer my question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -from Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Answer my question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member will relax his back and stop giving me a pain lower down on my anatomy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just answer the question.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be my old self, and when I hear that kind of language, I react. Frankly, I do not foresee any changes in the regulations which would cause the hon. member consternation. I want to bring the bill before the House with as many of the splendid recommendations which came from the SJC as possible. I want not only to include their recommendations, but those of other citizens across the country who were unable to be present at the committee hearings. 1 think it will be a forward looking bill. The objectives spelled out in the Act will, I think, meet with the favour of all Canadians. I hope we can keep partisanship out of it, and let us keep the arguments good.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COPY OF MINISTER'S SPEECH CONCERNING IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent that the pains are not only in the minister's lower back. In view of the importance of the matter, the context of the speech, the place in which it was made, at a Liberal meeting, and comparing it with the Speech from Throne, and
Oral Questions
bearing in mind the assurance the minister just now gave, is he prepared, he having said that his speech was being recorded in total, to table his speech in this House, to follow along the assurance he gave. I assure him he would have the consent of my party in order to do so.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thought the speech was great, but I am not certain it is the sort of speech one would want to have printed or tabled in the House. The point I am trying to make, if I may complete my answer, is that controversy arose as a result of the questions which were brought forward. I had anticipated writing to the press a letter indicating precisely what the question was and in what connotation those statements were made. I would be happy to send out copies of it. There is nothing secret or private about it, but tabling it in the House will not, I think, add much. I will certainly send the letter to the hon. gentleman, to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond who raised the matter under Standing Order 43. I thank him for doing that but I wish he had talked to me first. Most assuredly, my eminent critic who has a little pain and the opposition House leader will get copies, as well as any others who want them.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the interesting part about the exchange early this morning is that a Liberal party member said no to the very reasonable motion proposed earlier this morning under Standing Order 43. My question is this, and the minister has not answered it: Is he prepared to table that speech? Whether it is appropriate is not the question. Is he prepared to table that speech in the House, so that there will be no question about the context of the total speech, the minister having indicated to us that he took pains to insure that all his words would be recorded? Will he be prepared in those circumstances to table that speech? I am prepared to agree there probably are things in that speech given to a Liberal meeting which might offend the House, but it is quite important in terms of settling this matter once and for all. I think the minister would be anxious to do that.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to hide in that particular speech. I will discuss it with my House Leader. If he thinks it is the sort of letter which should be tabled I am prepared to table it. There is nothing secretive about it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the minister conferring with his House Leader, but I want to know the minister's state of mind in respect of this matter. Is he willing to table the speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.

October 25, 1976
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM ALLEGED EXCESSIVE INCREASE IN EARNINGS OF PROFESSIONAL GROUP-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct a question to the acting Prime Minister or the acting Minister of Finance. The annual report of the Anti-Inflation Board which has just been released shows that the average net income of those in the professional groups has risen from $35,700 to $40,600, an increase of $4,900 which is more than double the $2400 prescribed by the Anti-Inflation Board. I should like to ask the acting Prime Minister if this does not indicate a glaring loophole in the anti-inflation program and also what steps the government proposes to take in order to plug this loophole.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and I am sure the Minister of Finance will be happy to reply to the hon. member.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board has sought to explain this discrepancy by saying that undoubtedly some of the professional people worked harder during this year than during the base period, I should like to ask the acting Minister of Finance if it is the government's opinion that during the past year the engineers worked harder to the tune of $7,700, that dentists worked harder to the tune of $6,700, that lawyers worked harder to the tune of $5,100 and that public accountants worked harder to the tune of $4,200. If this is the basis upon which the government is allowing this very large increase in the incomes of professional groups would the minister undertake to provide the House with the data upon which they based their assumption and make that information available not only to the House but to the public.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give an answer to the hon. member. Of course, it would be rather difficult to measure the output of every individual who works in the professions. The rule was applied to them. Of course if someone last year had greater output than in the previous year he should receive more compensation, just like any one else who worked overtime. Of course he could have earned more money than in the previous year. I do not know about the mechanics to measure that. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that I cannot make any precise point about it. The only thing I am sure about is that Members of Parliament, while they worked harder last year, had no increase this year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about next year?


FAILURE OF SOME PROFESSIONAL FIRMS TO REPORT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there are some 40,000 professional firms which were ordered to report and there are only 23,134 which have reported which means that 16,866 have not reported. In other words 40 per cent of the total number of professionals who were supposed to report have failed to report as of September 17, 1976. I want to ask what action the government proposes to take to ensure that the professional groups, who already are getting more than the prescribed guidelines under the AntiInflation Board, are not allowed also to ignore completely these guidelines by not reporting at all.


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that organized professionals must report to the board. I fail to see what means the board will take to compel them to do so, but I am sure the law will apply to them as it does to others.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: My question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Can the minister tell the House whether representations have been made with a view to increasing the moneys allotted LIP so that other good projects, the so-called buffer projects, can be accepted? Could the minister also tell us whether he has asked Treasury Board for additional moneys so that more new jobs can be created since unemployment will be higher this coming winter?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, once again we have an initiative shown by the federal government which has turned out to be singularly successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: As to whether I have received representations on the amount of money being increased, I think the number of different constituencies involved is now up to 187. So, yes, I have been receiving representations.
[ Translation]


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Can the minister tell the House whether the study of the projects recommended to him will soon be completed and whether he will announce them so that the work on such projects as have been accepted can start in early November?
October 25, 1976


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The process is ongoing now. I am not too sure of the exact time when the statements will be made. I believe some are coming to my desk this week, however, for signature. I am not too certain of the particular areas in which they are.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce involving Statistics Canada. Will the minister state unequivocally at this time whether any authorization existed or exists from anyone in authority at Statistics Canada allowing employees to perform any job or duty not connected with their responsibilities in StatsCan which involved permission to use StatsCan data or computer facilities for their own purposes?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, no employee of Statistics Canada was authorized to use information he might have received at Statistics Canada. In the case recently mentioned in the House, I indicated what steps were taken and what penalties were inflicted. I could perhaps give a few more details. The chief statistician, at the time the incident occurred in 1974, notified the RCMP the very day she received the information, that is on a Friday, and the RCMP launched its inquiry the following Monday.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to clarify the statements of the former city of Ottawa planner, Morris Jacobsen, that moonlighting Statistics Canada employees were operating with the written permission of the then chief statistician Sylvia Ostry, in contrast to Dr. Ostry's fuzzy reply which seized upon the interpretation of the word "reformating" while indicating that this was not the case. Has the minister had an opportunity to discuss the matter fully with all of those involved, or does he find it as complex as Mrs. Ostry who is quoted as saying she read the Globe and Mail article three times and found it too complex to understand?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not talk to Mrs. Ostry because she is no longer in the same office. I had two or three conversations with the new chief statistician of Canada, and I intend to meet him again today or tomorrow to get more information on the subject. But I was pleased with the one I got up to now, and if the hon. member wants to raise other points, I will always be very pleased to clarify, for the benefit of the House, any controversial issue.
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE CHANGE IN PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE RELEASE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: When the minister is having this meeting, would he indicate whether he will consider measures to reclassify or change the format of Statistics Canada so that information which is truly confidential can be looked after in a more efficient way and information which perhaps ought to be released to the public could be released with some expeditiousness, so that this type of situation would not be so apt to occur again?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this technical problem. As the hon. member pointed out, I certainly share his view that confidential information provided by individuals to this government organization should remain confidential, so that the system may operate with the maximum integrity and confidence. I feel also that documents and information of a public nature should be released as soon as possible, so that an employee may not be faced with a dilemma, when in possession of information which, although already released to the public, remain apparently virtually unknown to the public as a whole. This is an extremely serious problem, but I repeat that Statistics Canada must operate without any outside interference and with maximum credibility, because this government agency has always enjoyed in the past an impeccable reputation, and it is essential, in the interest of all Canadians, that it continue to do so.


SUPPLYING OF HEAVY WATER FOR REACTOR IN PAKISTAN- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to ask the minister whether he thinks it was proper for AECL to supply heavy water to Pakistan for the repair of a broken reactor, given the fact that negotiations are still going on with that country about safeguards. More significantly and specifically, was this decision on the part of AECL to make heavy water available discussed with the minister?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think it was entirely appropriate for Canada to supply a very small amount of heavy water on a temporary loan basis while that particular reactor was in some difficulties. The question really amounts to this: if that heavy water had not been provided at that time, that particular reactor would not have been able to operate, which would have plunged one million or more people in Karachi into darkness. At the same time, the government has been trying to negotiate a new set of standards with the government of Pakistan. I am

October 25, 1976
Oral Questions
not at this time in a position to indicate the status of those negotiations, but they are going on. This particular amount of heavy water was made available without prejudice to those negotiations, and yes, that particular decision was discussed with me and, indeed, authorized by me.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my supplementary of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in his absence, I suppose I should ask the Acting Prime Minister. What protest did Canada make to France over its attempt to sell to Pakistan a process whereby the waste or the material from our reactors could be used for weapons? What protest did Canada lodge with France over its attempt to sell that technology to Pakistan?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I gather the hon. member is referring to the proposed sale of a reprocessing plant by the French authorities to Pakistan. Part of our negotiations with Pakistan has been to emphasize our opposition to its acquisition of a reprocessing plant, and undoubtedly the final result of the negotiations will be dependent upon what happens with regard to that particular item, although we have no indication at the present time that that decision has been altered. Our views on that question are well known to the French government, but 1 cannot recall whether a specific representation on the issue has been made to the government of France.


AGREEMENT WITH PAKISTAN FOR SALE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL-POSSIBILITY OF DEBATE PRIOR TO RATIFICATION
James McPhail Gillies: I am sure the minister is aware that the government of the United States did take official action in protesting that sale to France, but will the government bring to this House, before ratification, for debate and discussion any agreement it proposes to sign with Pakistan with respect to additional provision by Canada of nuclear material or reactors?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is
premature at the moment to decide or to contemplate that a successful negotiation will result. We hope that that will be the case, but it is not certain. Up to the present time, the government has taken the position that these agreements should not be brought before parliament for ratification before they are concluded. That has happened with respect to several others, and I think it should happen in this case.


James McPhail Gillies: After Argentina and Korea?


CRITERIA TO BE USED IN SELECTING EXPORTER TO RECEIVE GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but first I would like to congratulate him on being promoted to head by far the most interesting department in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: As the minister told the Canadian Exporters' Association on Tuesday that in future the government intends to back only one exporter bidding on important orders, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to advise the House what criteria will be used to choose the one exporter who will merit government backing, thus leaving all other Canadian companies wishing to compete for the business out in the cold?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that in some cases it could be that I will have to do that because sometimes we do not manage our affairs too well. For example, 1 know of one instance where two Canadians apparently were outbidding each other in Russia, and they left $2 million on the table at the end of the day. Everyone will be invited to compete, but it could be that in some instances when we feel that it is in the best interests of Canada, we will decide to pick one rather than have a situation where five or six Canadians will compete when there is only one British, French or German consortium. Perhaps I said that in some cases I would do that, but I did not say that in all instances I would do that.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister aware that after he finished speaking it was the very strongly expressed opinion at the Canadian Exporters' Association meeting that this country would stand a far better chance of landing these orders if the government advised all potential competitors for an order what assistance the government would be willing to provide and then let the interested companies bid for the order on the basis of price, quality, service and design? Any other procedure would create a bureaucratic nightmare which would do great harm to the exporting industry of this country.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am very surprised that the hon. member said that the people there were not happy with what I said because in all humility I have to tell the hon. member that they gave me a standing ovation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: The standing ovation was due to relief that the minister had finished his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: the export business of the country, will the government make sure that the criterion for selecting those who receive this government backing will not simply be proximity to the Liberal Party, as so often has been the case in the awarding of DREE grants and other government favours?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond.


MANPOWER
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the announced intention of the Sydney Steel Corporation to lay off another 200 employees, and in view of the fact that this will greatly intensify the already disastrous unemployment situation in the Cape Breton industrial area, will the minister give further consideration to extra funding through LIP grants, which were so badly slashed by his predecessor?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, there are areas in the country where this kind of thing has occurred after the figures were set. From time to time there is slippage in certain areas where all the money is not used or the programs end, and when that happens we try to help out in this way in regions which are in some difficulty. I cannot make a promise; I can simply indicate that we are aware of situations like this, and we do try to do some levelling out or to bring some equity to the situation.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-PROPOSED REVISION OF FORMULA TO GIVE MORE ACCURATE PICTURE OF UNEMPLOYMENT IN AREA
Andrew Hogan: My supplementary is to the same minister. There is an over 65 per cent discrepancy between the figures used under the formula devised by LIP officials and the local manpower estimates concerning unemployment in all three ridings of Cape Breton Island. Will the minister consider meeting with the members from that area and the manager of the manpower office serving these areas to get a more accurate picture of the unemployment crisis?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the formula used for the distribution of funds to constituencies was basically the same as last year, with some modification designed to ensure that the funds were directed to areas of highest unemployment. I believe, but I am not certain, that there is a question
Oral Questions
on the order paper, the answer to which will spell this out in some detail. The question period would not give me the opportunity to go through all the ramifications but we in fact receive our information from the same area, Statistics Canada, when they are making up their projection.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF ERROR IN STATISTICS CANADA REPORTS ON UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister know that the criteria in the Statistics Canada report is inaccurate and could be out by some 25 per cent and that the department recommended fundamental changes in the information gathering system? There is a gross distortion and two years ago the department agreed that this was so and said that reforms would take place. Unhappily nothing has happened in the interim.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the facts stated by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, but I do know that each time we endeavour to get into this particular breakdown of unemployment figures on a constituency by constituency basis there are difficulties. You might have an individual registering at a particular manpower office who could well come from the environs. That makes one area look as though it has high unemployment whereas in point of fact that unemployment is created in the regions around. More important, it seems to me that we should go back to the original system of having members of parliament in the area figure out some criteria or pooling arrangement. It seems to me that members of parliament are probably as well equipped to cope with this as anybody and maybe that is an area we should examine again. Every time we suggest this, however, we are accused of using patronage or trying some other system. 1 have enough faith and confidence-


Mr. Fairweather:: If you use all members it is not patronage.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Very definitely; all MPs, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the government secret lists of medical doctors to whom the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission must refer claimants when the opinion of an individual doctor is required in order to process claims?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the hon. member's question.

October 25, 1976
Oral Questions


Thomas Gordon Towers: I will repeat the question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government secret lists of medical doctors to whom the staff of the Unemployment Insurance Commission must refer claimants when the opinion of an independent doctor is required in order to process certain claims?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the members of the medical profession of this country of all political persuasions; they are all good. I would not have any hesitation in referring these claimants to any doctor in Canada.


Thomas Gordon Towers: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Apparently the minister did not grasp the significance of the question. Are such lists compiled in Ottawa and on what basis are doctors chosen? Would the minister be prepared to table the list of medical doctors to whom the UIC refers claimants?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, in the last week and a half I have been dealing with job creation and immigration. I shall undertake to look at this situation, however, and see if the member's innuendo is correct. If it is, I shall do what I can to correct it.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. On Monday, October 18, I asked the minister a question with respect to the withdrawal of hopper car services on branchlines of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Saskatchewan. The minister said he did not have knowledge of any general withdrawal but that he would look into the situation. Can he advise whether he has had an opportunity to investigate the situation and, if so, what steps he has taken to reinstate hopper car service on these branch lines?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into the matter and as I suspected there has been no general withdrawal of hopper cars from branch lines by the Canadian Pacific Railway. There were some lines where track is lighter than the track required to carry fully loaded hopper cars and because elevator agents were overloading those cars the railway found it necessary to withdraw the cars. There are specific lines where that happened and in those cases the hopper cars have been taken off the lines.


Douglas Charles Neil: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would indicate where he obtained that information. Early this summer I received information from the CPR to the effect that the withdrawal had been general on all branch lines in Saskatchewan.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, for one thing it would only relate to those lines where the track weight supports only 220,000 pound and not 263,000 pound carriage. Branch lines in the heavier category would not be affected. I am reporting to the

hon. member, however, the information obtained by my officials in checking, I presume, with the Canadian Wheat Board.


OIL-POSSIBLE USE BY UNITED STATES OF ABANDONED IRON ORE MINES IN NEWFOUNDLAND FOR EMERGENCY STORAGE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is prompted by a statement made in Washington last week to the effect that a decision had been taken by the United States government on several locations for the storage of strategic oil supplies within the United States. They were said to be considering the use of using the abandoned iron ore mines at Bell Island, Newfoundland as a site which would satisfy the needs of part of the eastern seaboard of the United States. It was reported that no decision had been taken, however. Since the minister has visited this economically depressed town as a result of the abandonment of the mines, may I ask if he has consulted or has he used the pressure of his office and the government of Canada to get a favourable decision from the United States government and has he encouraged a favourable decision?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, many years ago, before I was ever a member of this House, I had the opportunity to go down this particular mine so I have first hand knowledge of the enormous cavern it represents in terms of emergency storage. As the hon. member knows, emergency storage is one of the key elements in our energy strategy for Canada. Having first determined that the Newfoundland government would support this particular facility for oil storage, I raised this question some months ago with Mr. Elliott Richardson a member of the United States cabinet with special responsibilities for energy, and I also talked to Mr. Frank Zarb, federal energy administrator. I put the case to them that there is a great facility here which is more than Canada can use by itself but we would be interested in it if they were to decide that they could use it as well. I think this is perhaps an opportunity for Canada and the United States to share some of those facilities. I am happy to hear that press reports indicated a not unfavourable response from the United States.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if he has any means of expediting the decision of the United States authorities bearing in mind the fact that eastern Canada is just as vulnerable to another oil boycott by the Middle East and if the government of Canada, doing its part, will make a decision to store strategic oil supplies in this mine it could be the catalyst that would touch off favourable decisions elsewhere?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that the Canadian government would be interested in some kind of participation. The hon. member must realize that particular
October 25, 1976

mine would store something like 100 million barrels of oil or oil products or a combination of both. This is clearly beyond the economic ability of Canada to handle by itself but if the United States decided it fitted in with its strategic requirements I would hope we could negotiate for a portion of the particular facility. The hon. member would realize it would probably not be economic to go in with a very small proportion and that the only way it could be made economic would be if the largest part of the facilities were used.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Secretary of State for External Affairs but in his absence I will direct it to the government House Leader. It concerns Miss Sharon Bethune who was released last Friday from a Mexican jail after having been proven innocent of any charges. Can the minister advise this House why the Canadian consulate in that area would not use the two Mexican lawyers hired in the last months by the Canadian government but referred them to a Mexican lawyer who charged an awful lot of money to prove the girl innocent? Can the minister also tell the House whether the government is prepared to help Mr. Bethune with the excessive costs incurred in proving the innocence of his daughter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the details to answer that specific question. The fact is, as the hon. member has pointed out, Miss Bethune has been released. She has been re-united with her family. That is a positive step. However, in this and other cases we fail to understand the long delays that are occasioned by retention in Mexican prisons; in this case the long period of time with a finding of innocence is particularly disturbing.


POSSIBILITY OF A TREATY WITH MEXICO TO PROTECT CANADIAN CITIZENS
John Douglas Reynolds: When is this government going to start negotiating with the Mexican government in a similar way that the United States government has been negotiating this last while and are now at the point of signing a treaty with Mexico to protect American citizens while in Mexico? Is this government prepared to negotiate with Mexico so that these wrongdoings will not happen again?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the fact is these procedures that we find so unusual and so unacceptable are in accordance with Mexican law and practice. It was my experience as Secretary of State for External Affairs that we did make representations to the Mexican authorities through the ambassador and our embassy.
Oral Questions
We sought and received co-operation. The fact is, however, that these procedures are the result of a practice in Mexico. I doubt whether the American government will succeed in repealing Mexican law in any treaty. Certainly, we will secure the best possible treatment for Canadian citizens. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be making further representations on this particular issue.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the severely high unemployment rate in Cape Breton and, as the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond pointed out, the closure of other industries, layoffs in the Sydney steel plant and the prediction that 200 more will be laid off by the end of the year, are the minister and his officials working closely with Premier Regan in order to try to bring a new steel complex to Cape Breton Island? Is the minister in a position to give a brief but encouraging report on these efforts the federal government is making in this endeavour?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Premier Regan came to Ottawa a few weeks ago and met, 1 think, six or seven ministers and their officials to consider the project. Later on he met the businessmen concerned. We are now studying the proposition, but I do not think a decision will be made in the immediate future. However, we are very interested in the project of Premier Regan.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact the meat industry is entering its fourth year of operation at below the cost of production and there have been 29 ad hoc shortterm policy statements with no long-term meat policy, will the Acting Prime Minister recommend to cabinet that the Minister of Agriculture tender his resignation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

October 25, 1976
Oral Questions AUDITOR GENERAL


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF INDEPENDENT REVIEW COMMITTEE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of recent criticisms by the Auditor General with regard to the government's financial mismanagement and poor control practices, will the minister advise whether the government will be implementing any of the 47 recommendations contained in the report of the Independent Review Committee on the office of the Auditor General. These recommendations were made to strengthen the Auditor General's department.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered similar questions, but I will repeat and elaborate. When the House sees the Auditor General's Act which will be before it very shortly, it will be seen that great progress is being made to that end.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister advise the House at what stage the deliberations are concerning the so-called third runway at Vancouver International Airport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, some further studies of an environmental nature were seen as necessary before any final decision was taken. In the meantime, a certain amount of regular fill that is available without impact upon the waters nearby is being obtained and arranged for pre-loading in the runway area. That is being done without prejudice to a decision about the runway.


John Allen Fraser: Has a definite decision been made to go ahead with a third runway, the details of which are still to be decided?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary. I am saying that no decision has been taken to go ahead with the runway.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PLANT ON CAUSEWAY BETWEEN ANNAPOLIS AND GRANVILLE FERRY
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the minister is aware, a $3 million study has

recently been completed on the feasibility of establishing Fundy tidal power and the same three sites as previously recommended have been endorsed again for the construction of causeways and the necessary equipment required to harness this amazing energy. In light of the fact that a fourth causeway is already in place, namely the causeway which exists between Annapolis and Granville Ferry, and in light of the fact the Nova Scotia government has indicated there will be an increase of 65 per cent for electrical energy in Nova Scotia, is the minister giving thought to establishing a pilot plant on the causeway already in place between Annapolis and Granville Ferry? If so, will he give the House some indication of his department's plans? Will he throw a little light on the subject?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it would be premature to give any undertakings of that kind at this time. Phase one, which was a joint federal-provincial, Nova Scotia-New Brunswick-federal government study into the potential of Fundy tides, particularly the economics of the Fundy tides, has just been completed. Phase two will be starting very shortly. That should be concluded very early in the new year. The study which has been done has, I think, confirmed the technical feasibility. It has indicated a range of indexing, and I want to emphasize the word indexing, of the economics of a number of alternative sites. Out of some 37 sites looked at, eight seemed to have significant potential. As the hon. member indicated, three or four of those eight have been chosen for further work.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I wish to direct my question to the acting minister. In view of the fact that the Reed Paper Company and the province of Ontario are currently secretly negotiating the transfer of 16 million acres of forest land from the province to the company and considering that in this huge area of land there are seven major Indian reserves whose people have not been consulted about the proposed land transfer, I wish to ask the acting minister if the federal government has discussed this matter with the provincial government, especially with a view to ensuring that neither the treaty rights nor the livelihood of the native people in the area will be jeopardized?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In replying for the minister, Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that to the best of my knowledge there have been no discussions between the federal and provincial governments regarding this matter. However, I can assure him that the position of the federal government is that native rights, claims and interests are uppermost in our mind. If these are in any way threatened,
October 25, 1976

I can assure the hon. member and all other members that the federal government will become very active and involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Can the parliamentary secretary assure the House on behalf of his minister that the government will make representations to the government of Ontario on behalf of the native people and, if necessary, provide legal counsel and financial assistance to the Indians to prepare a case against such a huge land transfer.


B. Keith Penner: There are regular consultations between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Grand Council, Treaty No. 9. If such a development plan were to go ahead, the department would be active in a number of specific ways. Consultation will certainly continue, and if there is a request from Treaty No. 9 for legal counsel or other necessary services, we shall discuss the matter and provide the assistance where it is possible to do so.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-POSSIBLE ESTABLISHMENT OF PILOT PLANT ON CAUSEWAY BETWEEN ANNAPOLIS AND GRANVILLE FERRY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. In the light of the fact that the causeway is already in place and since there are gates in place to control the flow of water into and out of the Annapolis Basin, and all that would be necessary to harness this flood would be the establishment of a generator at the site, would the minister at least undertake to look into the possibility of making use of this available power immediately and give a report to the House.


Alastair William Gillespie: I will take a very close look at that representation.


RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR LANGELIER
Hon. Jean Marchand (Langelier):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Langelier on a point of order.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is with deep regret that I leave the House of Commons where I have lived hours of anguish, but also moments of enthusiasm and great joy.
Oral Questions
I have been impressed in general with the working of this great institution and with the behaviour of its members. [English]
I may be wrong, but I think I have found here many friends on both sides of the House and in several cases our friendship will last a long time, if not for ever.

I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the admiration I have for the competence, the dignity and the impartiality with which you carry on your high functions. A man of such quality is very rarely seen.
I am leaving for a political climate which is probably more perturbed than the climate one finds in this honourable House. 1 am sure I will have all your sympathy in the battle I am going to fight.
Au revoir, good-bye, adios amigos, shalom, and long live Quebec dans un Canada uni\


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can equal the multilingualism of the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand), but on behalf of his friends on this side of the House I want to say that, even though we have had minor disagreements from time to time about particular aspects of national policy, we have all enjoyed his presence here.

We know that it is his belief in the principles of federalism which has led him to the House of Commons to fight for those same principles. Now he believes he has to make the jump onto the provincial scene.

I would not presume to say anything which might intrude upon the decision which the voters of Quebec will have to make in November but I think I can say on behalf of all my colleagues here that we esteem the reasons which brought the hon. member for Langelier into the House of Commons; we have enjoyed his combative presence here in this chamber and wish him very well in the challenges which lie ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: On behalf of my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for rising on a point of order instead of just walking out and leaving the place, so that we can say these few words of farewell to him.
As has already been indicated, his presence in the House has not gone unnoticed. In fact, I am reminded of another occasion when one prominent member said of another that the House would never be the same without him. We particularly appreciate the reference the hon. member made to the friendships he has formed in this House and he is perfectly right in saying that those friendships will continue. We support and approve the emphasis he has indicated he is taking into the

October 25, 1976
Oral Questions
battle in which he is about to engage, and whatever his future may be, on behalf of my colleagues I say to him: bon chance!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the hon. member who was giving his resignation speech a while ago, I thought he would follow the footsteps of his colleague, Mr. Langlois, and depart smoothly. But we are now talking politics and it is a good start for his electoral campaign to make such a fuss. As a Quebec member, I wish him the best of luck because I know he is taking on a very difficult job. According to the comments I received this week, he will have a lot to account for to the Quebec people as he will certainly have to face over there the same ultimatums he was presented with, here, in this Chamber. He has accepted a most difficult task, this is why he has my sympathy and I wish him good luck.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. friend and colleague with mixed emotions which I am sure are shared by all members, some of which have already been expressed. I certainly regret his departure from the House of Commons. If not the most colourful and dynamic member of the House, he has certainly been among the most colourful and dynamic. His rising to speak in this chamber always assured that the seats were rapidly filled in order to listen to his fiery and effective presentation.
On the other hand, it is heartening to realize that the hon. member still has a sense of purpose and the enthusiasm to enter the lists in the Province of Quebec, and that when other politicians may be thinking of retiring he is taking on a new challenge in his native province. In the more than ten years he has spent in the House he was worked effectively not only for his own constituency but for the people of Canada. He has held a number of very important portfolios through which he has had considerable impact upon the people and the institutions of the country. He can be assured that he is leaving the House with the knowledge that his contribution has been substantial. All I can say is, we wish him well and good luck in his new endeavour. It may be that, when he has completed his assignment in the National Assembly, we can look forward to seeing him back again in the House of Commons.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: It is my obligation to accept officially the resignation of the hon. member for Langelier, but before doing so I should like to add a few words and extend to him my personal thanks. The hon. member for Langelier is a very distinguished member of parliament who, in spite of his spirit,

has always respected the decisions of a new Speaker, and I thank him for this constant cooperation.

The hon. member has distinguished himself by being a passionate and devoted fighter for the French fact in Canada, an endeavour which has stood him in good stead among his countrymen as well as among all members of the House, regardless of how heated the battle may have been. His clear understanding of that fact, and his passionate devotion to it, have served all Canadians during his time in this House. Certainly, his membership in the Quebec National Assembly will, I think, in that respect continue to serve not just that province, but the interests of all Canadians as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for the riding of Langelier having given notice of his intention to resign his seat, it is my duty to inform the House that, after this notice has been entered by the clerk on the journals of the House, in accordance with clause 6(1 )a) of Chapter H-9 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, the House of Commons Act, I shall address my warrant without delay to the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a new writ of election for the said electoral district.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order at this time. I am sorry that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is not here. I was looking for him on Friday, but he was not here then either. This matter occurred on Thursday evening and relates to his activities in the House as chief government whip.
I want to bring this point of order to your attention because I think the actions of the hon. member for St. Boniface clearly reflect upon the responsibilities and duties of each and every one of the members of parliament, regardless of the side of the House on which we sit. I refer to the fact that the chief government whip-and this has been my observation-has been keeping an attendance record, I think particularly of members of the opposition.
I rise at this point because in his remarks last Thursday evening, as reported at page 347 of Hansard, during the course of a speech being made at the time by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), he mentioned the fact that he had been keeping a record of attendance and could establish when members of our party were here or were not here. The implication in his remark, Mr. Speaker, is that if by chance a member on this side did not happen to be in the House of Commons at any particular time he was not performing the tasks for which he was elected. Personally I, and I think certainly Your Honour as Speaker of the House presiding over our deliberations, would be most anxious to make sure that there is no reflection cast on the carrying out of the duties and responsibilities of members of parliament. I say to the hon. member for St. Boniface, if he reads this record, that all of us
October 25, 1976

are obliged to make our declaration, as is provided for, respecting our attendance and the carrying out of our responsibilities in order to receive our emolument as members of parliament. We all have responsibilities to our constituents.
The hon. member for St. Boniface's own colleagues have been saying publicly that part of our duties as members involves getting out to our constituencies. We have committee responsibilities. We have responsibilities as members of parliamentary delegations. The mere fact that we are not sitting in this House on a particular day or for a particular period of time should not, with respect, be interpreted as being some sort of abdication of our responsibilities as members of parliament.
The reason I raise this point, Mr. Speaker, is that it seems to me that as Speaker of the House, as the chief magistrate of the House, there should be some direction from yourself with respect to the keeping of attendance by any member for a purpose which is inconsistent with the rights and responsibilities of a member of parliament. If 1 may quote what the hon. member for St. Boniface said:
I will prove that you are never here five days a week and I have got the records right here. Anybody who wants to see them 1 have them right here.
I say that those words are in fact a very serious reflection on the attendance of members of this House and on the carrying out of their responsibilities. I ask Your Honour whether you would please give consideration to making the direction that the chief government whip cease and desist from carrying out this schooltime attendance proposition of his. If he wants to keep attendance let him keep it of his own members. They have a lot to answer for themselves.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) would prefer to reply to that himself. 1 might say that the reason he was unavailable on Friday was that he was having a serious operation on his jaw. I hear some hon. members opposite laughing. It is not a humorous matter. We are not children here. We should be able to recognize a serious problem which occurs to backs, jaws, arms. That sort of thing does happen.


A. Daniel McKenzie: How was that recorded in the book? How are his actions recorded in the book?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: 1 might point out that the same kind of remark from the hon. member was the reason the whip made the reply he did. Possibly the interchange between the two hon. members should be discussed. 1 think the whip could set the matter straight, and certainly we should hear the total story.


Mr. Speaker:: This point is raised by way of a point of order and it has been replied to. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) may have something to add to it. The fact of the matter is that reflections upon the personal performance of a member can scarcely ever be in order. I say "scarcely ever" only because it might be possible to convince the Chair that they could in some way be in order, but they are almost always totally irrelevant to the matter being debated, to start with, and possibly out of order on a number of other grounds.
Private Members' Public Bills While the Chair could never do anything to interfere with note-keeping by any member of the House-because after all that is a personal exercise for any member of the chamber to undertake-the use of it in debate would, in my view, be extremely questionable so far as any reflection on the personal performance of any member is concerned. I fail to see how that could be in order, in the first place, in terms of relevancy; and in the second place it likely would be very close to this kind of personal reflection upon the conduct of a member that has traditionally been ruled out of order. Therefore, while the practice cannot be prevented, I fail to see how it could ever be used at all in the course of debates in this chamber.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Agreed.']
Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of bills. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has a considerable number of bills to be introduced. He has indicated to the Chair that because of the number he does not wish to speak in explaining each bill. I think there are 16 in all. If it meets with the approval of the chamber at this time 1 will introduce them individually. 1 will not reflect on their procedural regularity, but will enter the same caveat as I did with respect to the list of private members' bills introduced, 1 believe, on Friday of last week. If that procedure is in order, I might call all 16 bills standing in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). Is that agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
Bill C-360, An Act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-361, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publications of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-362, An Act respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-363, An Act to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-364, An Act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-365, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation).-Mr. Herbert.
[Stage Direction]
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
Bill C-366, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health).- Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-367, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-368, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of place of Senators).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-369, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-370, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-371, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-372, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-373, An Act to amend the Holidays Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-374, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code (fair employment practices).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-375, An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators).-Mr. Herbert.

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Maurice Harquail for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks, I would like to tell the House how much I regret Mr. Marchand's (Langelier) departure. However, I am convinced that every one recognizes in him a dedicated man with an honest mind and very clear ideas. I am also convinced that with all those qualities, he will offer the National Assembly of Quebec what it might be lacking, that is a political judgment which goes beyond the boundaries of Quebec, but which considers and analyses its problem in the light of the international situation.
Mr. Speaker, I want want to congratulate both my colleagues the member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) and the member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) for their answer to the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The quality of their interventions has demonstrated how serious and efficient can be the participation of young members in this House.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced to the Canadians the decision of the government to establish controls on prices and incomes. In his comments on the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister reiterated his faith in the anti-inflation program and his will to

maintain it until 1978 if the economic situation of the country so requires.
I do not want to mention statistics here. It has been done several times and they indicate that in 12 months the dangerous inflationary pressure has diminished. Despite statements from opposition parties despite protests from unions and from certain businessmen who showed precious little enlightenment in spite of the importance of their role, I believe that price and income controls are accepted by most Canadians and that this three year program will succeed in breaking up inflation psychosis. I reiterate my support for the program, so much so that inflation still remains the most serious among the threats to the economic stability in this country.
I would now like to talk about one of those problems closely related to that of inflation: the employer-employee relations issue. Demoralizing effects of inflation do not affect only the economy; they also are a threat to the very nature of our institutions. Our collective bargaining system was seriously shaken by the inflationary wave of the last few years. Collective bargaining now takes place in a tense climate, and labour relations are suffering from it. Before price and wage controls, wage demands had become increasingly more contrary to the reality of economic growth, of productivity, unemployment and international competition.
In Canada, while the production increase was only 2 per cent and that of wages reached 18 per cent, the wage increase in the United States at the same time did not go over 9 per cent while productivity rose to 5 per cent. In West Germany, productivity went up by 7 per cent and wages by 8 per cent.
After having appealed without avail to the good faith of all Canadians, the government decided in 1975 to set price and income controls. While inflation has been reduced to a still unacceptable but more tolerable rate and the economic recovery is well under way, the fight is far from being won. The reduced rate of the productivity increase occurring at the same time as higher wage settlements jeopardizes the competiveness of our industries, reducing the attraction of this country for the establishment of new undertakings. At the present time, the needs of new investments is heavily felt but the climate of our labour relations is not propitious.
Thus Quebec Industry and Commerce Minister Guy St-Pierre stated at the beginning of October 1976, and I quote:
Quebec has lost several industrial projects as a result of an unprecedented number of conflicts. It is impossible for me to ask for new capital with such results; the present uneasiness destroys our efforts.
At the level of industrial policy Canada is now leading for men-days lost as a result of strikes or lockouts. Thus loss of time due to work stoppages as a result of strikes and lockouts reached 1,183,080 men-days June last; there were 248 work stoppages which affected 190,197 workers. The increasing number of lost working days is prejudicial to all those concerned and impede a satisfactory development of the economy.
It is absolutely necessary to improve the atmosphere of our labour-management relations if we want to avoid increased
October 25, 1976

social tensions and if we want to improve the productivity of Canadian industry and keep our competitive position on the international markets, thus attracting new investments to our country.
We must now consider the very important problem of labour-management relations and steer them along a new course. Labour-management relations should develop in a more cooperative less antagonistic context, especially when the anti-inflation program will no longer be applied. Consequently, it is incumbent on the government to create the atmosphere which can help us look constantly for new means to boost productivity and create better working relations.
The government was aware of that problem in the Speech from the Throne when it declared that the improvement of labour-management relations is an essential pre-condition to economic stability. The government still considers the collective bargaining system to be one of the best ways of ensuring fair wages and of determining the working conditions in a democratic society; it does not think that the solution is to be found in excessive restriction of collective bargaining rights. However, as the rules of the game of the present Canadian society are quite different from what they were a few years ago, the government thinks that it is important to develop better mechanisms for settling disputes.
Consequently, the government proposes to work with the provinces and with labour and business communities to develop a number of initiatives aimed at improving labour-management relations. It intends, among other things, to establish a collective bargaining information centre which will offer objective data on the economy and compensation to all parties. Consequently, as union members will have all pertinent data concerning the operations of such or such economic sector, they will be able to avoid making extravagant wage claims which do not take into account the economic situation of the enterprise, which threaten its evolution and even, in certain cases, its survival.
Employees should become increasingly aware that the possibility of permanent employment depends on the viability and profitability of the company and that, on the long term, constant increases in real salary can only come from better productivity. Moreover, the government aims at encouraging workers in each plant to participate more in decisions concerning their working conditions. We must realize that the situation of workers has changed; today's average worker is more educated and more socially aware than ever before and he is less and less willing to accept unconditionally his role as a worker.
In the last few years, the concept of industrial democracy has reached beyond collective bargaining of working conditions. The modern worker wants a more satisfying work experience, which means that he wants to free himself from monotonous and repetitive work, from the pressures of the assembly line, and wants to have some sort of motivation and a sense of personal achievement. On the other hand, management must be aware of this social evolution and be more open-minded in the future.
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
In view of the present economic situation, the techno-structure must take into account the new strength relationship between the various production factors. While in the past the capital factor was the main element in all decision making processes, in view of the increasingly stable capacity of our economy to produce the savings that it needs, this factor has been replaced by the manpower factor; to have the most positive effect possible, this manpower must be increasingly recognized. This is what the techno-structure must do; this is the challenge that it must face. Should we not think of making companies more aware of their responsibilities for employee training, employment security and quality of the work environment? Should we not also think of including, as part of new mechanisms to encourage motivation, an increasing participation of employees in company management and profit sharing?
The Conservatives will certainly rebel against this suggestion, but there have been interesting cooperative management experiences in certain European countries. In many areas, labour participation in the decision making process and the greater satisfaction provided by participation have caused important increases in production as well as qualitative and other product improvements. Many foreign labour leaders think of the labour participation tactic as a means of giving something to union members in addition to their usual economic gains. The governments have encouraged the adoption of participation plans to reduce labour problems and promote industrial peace and economic stability. Employee participation in Europe operates under two main systems: participation of representatives or dicrect participation. Participation through representatives provides for the election or appointment of a certain number of employees to boards of directors or other organizations in charge of making the decisions within the corporation so as to represent the interests of workers.
Direct participation gives the employee control over organization and execution in his immediate work environment. Nearly all employees participate in the activities of the corporation and the first areas to be affected are generally at the lowest level in the working environment-those that are usually the most important ones for the employees themselves.
In the mid 1940s Scandinavia set up employee participation plans in the form of boards of workers within the plant. Since then, such boards have been a standard in most European countries. That is how since 1952 all plants in West Germany employing more than 20 workers are compelled under the law to put a board of workers elected by the employees in charge of monitoring the implementation of all regulations, laws and collective agreements applying to the workers. Boards also participate in drafting corporate by-laws on working hours, job allowances, the conduct and welfare of employees. Since 1971, all hirings, layoffs and promotions require prior agreement from the board of workers, and management must give the board full details on finance, production, sales, investment, working methods, proposed changes to the plants and other matters important to the employees.
Of course, all participation plans did not have the same success and in certain cases the workers in fact acquired only a

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. B. Loiselle
minimum power of decision-making. But one of the remarkable things about labour in Europe-except France and Italy-was the very small number of industrial conflicts reported in nearly a quarter of a century.
Although participation schemes have not been applied without involving some difficulties such, experiences suggest that it is possible to replace disputes by collaboration.
In our society, the main part of the dispute during negotiations derives from the perception held by parties of the negotiation process itself. Too much enphasis has been placed on what is called "distributive negotiations" in which each party is attempting to maximize its share. In such a situation, the gains made on one side are necessarily the losses of the other side. Such direct confrontation is toned down when parties are committed to an integral negotiation where both parties recognize they have common objectives and each one can help the other in reaching an end to their mutual advantage. Such a process assumes the sharing of information to allow for the exploration of common interest areas and the solution of common problems.
Although I have already mentioned it, I think it is important for me to repeat that confrontation should make way for cooperation. Both parties should realize that capital and labour are factors combining towards production. Each contributes to the productive process, each is entitled to a share of the product and each has an interest in business operation. One requirement for collaboration is consultation which should become the usual process and "emergency negotiations" ought to be avoided.
Basic issues such as the increasing anxiety brought about by the impact of automation and technological advances, cannot be resolved by a small negotiating team working under pressure for a few months every two or three years. We must wonder how collective bargaining, which is essentially a system used by opponents, could be adapted to make room for cooperation and increased consultation. The impact on collective bargaining of two related factors-namely constant and high job opportunities in the post war period and serious inflationary pressures-fanned the conflict between parties' interests and national interests. Under those conditions the competition between and within unions and employers caused negotiations to take place under a pressure which has, in its turn, resulted in higher wages and prices to an extent which cannot be totally explained by the present labour and market conditions. Consequently, public interest in collective bargaining is not restricted to reducing labour differences and its regrettable effect upon the community, as the public has become increasingly aware of the dangers inherent in the results of the collective bargaining process.
The challenge collective bargaining has now to meet is to preserve the advantages of a system which makes possible bilateral participation in the determination of working conditions, without imposing excessive social costs on the tax payers who would eventually refuse to assume them. The role of collective bargaining will become increasingly more complex as time goes by. It is not possible to return to the system where
[Mr. Loiselle (Chambly).J
unions and management were left alone and free to settle their conflicts, without consideration for wider economic, social and political consequences.
Collective bargaining will inevitably take place in a general context of economic and political realities which will impose constraints. As a matter of fact, the Canadian economy will be confronted very soon with a serious demographic problem: from the '80s and thereafter, we shall have to see to the maintenance of our economic development, to choose between massive influx of immigrants and the implementation or promotion of a more advanced technology. Increased productivity will depend on the realization of either of these conditions. However, both organized labour and management will have to make great efforts to ensure that this transition is carried out as smoothly as possible. A massive influx of immigrants would certainly result in social pressures, while the implementation of a new technology would certainly entail problems for unqualified workers. If these two powers do not cooperate to cope with this forthcoming problem, both our economy and the Canadian perspectives will suffer.
Mr. Speaker, another problem that should be given priority by our government and the Canadian people is the establis-ment of a new constitution or its patriation. Both levels of government, federal and provincial, should agree as soon as possible on an amendment formula. We must not forget that the constitution of Canada was adopted in 1867, over one hundred years ago. When it was passed, some sectors were within the exclusive jurisdiction of one or other levels of government. Since then Canadian government and society have been constantly changing and this is why the provinces tried, through various means, to extend their jurisdiction without raising questions about the sectors which were put under their jurisdiction. But the federal government itself, through what may be called indirect means or through the courts, never did stop encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, much more according to the problems to be solved than according to the legislation.
Such evolution, which sometimes created tension between the federal and provincial governments, flows from the very nature of our confederative system. Thus we should now be more innovative in establishing a new constitution as regards the amendments that should be introduced so that it can meet the present needs and be in line with the future evolution of Canada. In the light of recent experience in areas such as energy, communications, transport, where we could see that the rules of the game had changed, we should all try to do our best to find a common ground, a simple and acceptable formula which would among other things make it possible for the federal government to take action in some areas of provincial responsibility when the well being of the Canadian society as a whole is at stake-and I hope the partisans of provincial power will not become infuriated by this. This is what the federal government did recently when establishing a single price for oil, and a similar intervention will perhaps be needed in the future for electric power if the provinces disagree. Such
October 25, 1976

interventions should be possible under definite circumstances, which would ensure the respect and the integrity of provincial responsibility.
The amending formula must also provide for linguistic and cultural guarantees for French-speaking Canadians who-and this bears repeating-formed and still form the majority as the people who created this country. However, we must accept without discrimination that the former English-speaking minority grew in importance, particularly with the arrival of immigrants who, given the North American context, freely chose to join them. I think that the French-Canadian society which accepted this fact while giving in the most liberal manner possible the full rights of Canadian citizens, has the right to require from these same persons an absolute respect of their rights both in the area of language and culture. Therefore the amending formula must provide for such guarantees. Our former governments, without exception, were all defenders of individual and collective rights, of the equality of all citizens before the law no matter what their native language, religion or race.
Following recent and deplorable events, theories which are getting support seem to ignore the bases of the past policy, which I mentioned before, although it has succeeded in preserving our national unity. In a democracy like ours, there is place for any kind of theories and, incidentally, a member of the cabinet resigned recently to support a thesis which surely rallies a minority of Canadians but which is in total contradiction with the past and present policy of our government.
If I praise the courage of a man who takes such a decision in order to conform with his own integrity, I think at the same time that all members in the House, and I hope I am being heard from the other side, whatever party they belong to, who no longer agree with a policy on official languages granting equal rights to Canadians should rise and resign. Such a decision should not be taken for electoral considerations but rather for the consideration that each member has for himself.
As a Quebecer member, I reiterate my faith in Canadian society and the federal system; but it must be clear to everyone that this faith is not unconditional and that our people will only agree to participate in this great Canadian nation to the extent that they feel wanted and accepted with their own peculiarities, their own character as we, French Quebecers, respect and love our English Quebec brothers.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate may I congratulate the mover and seconder of the Speech from the Throne and also inject my personal regret at the departure of the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand) to his home province. I have formed one of those fast friendships with the hon. member while he has been in the House and have always admired his firy participation in the debates. It is my firm conviction that his loss here is definitely the gain of the province of Quebec. I am one Conservative who wishes for his absolute and complete success in the election to come because I think he has taken on a big job for the benefit of all Canadians.
The Address-Mr. Nielsen


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Before saying a few words on the subject of the Canadian penitentiary system I want to deal with a very urgent situation which exists in the Yukon, and I am glad to see the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in his seat because it concerns an area of the Yukon with which he is familiar and which he has visited. I am speaking of the town of Faro and the tragic situation which now exists there with the miners having been on strike since June 30. One would think that the work force at that mine would be on strike because of a dispute with management, but that is not the case at all. Management and the union negotiated a collective bargaining agreement in April of this year and agreed on the amount of increase in wages that all classifications of workers would be receiving.
Then, as required by law, the matter was submitted to the Anti-Inflation Board, which rolled back the agreed upon wage rate to 12 per cent in the first year. Management and the union together put a joint request to the A IB, because of the seriousness of the rollback, to have the AIB review their decision. The AIB did just that. Their decision to roll back the increase to 12 per cent was reviewed and the decision was to allow an increase of 14 per cent. But that was still less than half of what the workers and management had agreed upon, and the matter, at the request of both management and labour, was referred to the administrator of the AIB, Mr. Tansley. This gentleman rolled back the wage rate from 14 per cent to 8 per cent.
The steelworkers's union at Anvil have taken the position throughout that the rollback was much too severe and that it was inexplicable. Both management and labour were aghast when the administrator brought in the decision of 8 per cent. The union has been on strike since June 30. There were approximately 500 workers at that mine and well over 100 have now submitted formal, written resignations and they and their families have moved out of the Yukon. The union has been on strike against the Anti-Inflation Board for almost three months. Let me emphasize that they have been on strike against the Anti-Inflation Board, not against management. Management wants to go back to work. It is prepared to stand by the negotiated collective bargaining agreement. The union also wants to go back to work, but it certainly does not want to go back at 8 per cent, which has no bearing on historical relationships, even in the area, where Cassiar asbestos miners in northern British Columbia are receiving a greater increase than the 8 per cent set by the administrator.
As I understand it, there are three stated objectives of the AIB, and certainly we hear them often enough from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and from members of the AIB. One is to contain the rate of inflation and reduce it, if possible, in the country. The second is to maintain production, and the third is to lower the rate of unemployment. All three objectives in this instance have been thwarted by the action of a board set up by the government. Production at that mine has

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
ceased absolutely since June 30. Unemployment at that mine has gone up by the total work force of 500. It has had a ripple effect throughout the Yukon. It has put some 170 White Pass drivers out of work. It has cut their shipping schedule in half, and that has affected the work force in Vancouver, where the shipping originates and where it has its destination on the back haul. Other ripple effects in the Yukon have caused unemployment to climb alarmingly.
As far as containing the rate of inflation is concerned- because the biggest user of power in the Yukon is that mine and because section 10 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act requires the system to be self-sustaining-the consumer will be expected to bear, unless the government introduces some relief legislation, the added costs of increased rates in order to pay for the revenue which is being lost because of this strike of the miners.
The other day when I questioned him in the House, the Minister of Finance said that the best thing the workers at Anvil could do would be to go back to work. To add confusion to the tragic situation created by the AIB, apparently with the full support of the government, we have a decision by the Canada Labour Relations Board, which falls under the jurisdiction of the minister, that the strike is a legal one, and the reasons given by the CLRB for declaring the strike a legal one is that the AIB interfered in the collective bargaining process. To my mind this surely is not what the government intends to happen with respect to the actions and activities of the AIB and the administrator. It is having the most serious and harmful effects on the economy of the Yukon. The economy of the Yukon is never going to recover from the three months of this strike. Revenues and wages are lost forever. The value to Canada of the production of that mine-which is not insignificant, I might add, as the minister well knows-is lost forever. It can never be made up.
All the Anti-Inflation Board has to do-and I am sure the government could urge upon the board a reconsideration of the matter-is to apply sensible standards in the north. I raised the matter when the legislation was before the House a year ago. You cannot apply southern standards to northern high-cost areas. You cannot apply the standards which exist in Toronto, Edmonton, Halifax or Vancouver to high-cost areas in the north. In the town of Faro a gallon of regular gasoline costs $1.25. Contrast that with the cost of gasoline in other localities in Canada. A gallon of home heating fuel in Whitehorse costs 64 cents. Compare that with fuel costs for home heating fuels in the rest of Canada. In Ottawa a two quart container of milk costs $1.09. Compare that with the $1.62 in Whitehorse. That was the price three weeks ago; it has probably gone up since then. In all fairness there is no way the guidelines set by the government under which the AIB operates should be applicable to an extremely high cost area such as the north.
Who is to blame the steelworkers for going out on strike against that AIB decision when we have to face these increased costs? People in the north cannot possibly bring up families and sustain themselves at a standard equivalent to

similar job holders in the south on a wage rate approaching the same amount, and yet the administrator's decision to roll it back to 8 per cent actually sets the wage rate of those miners lower than a comparable worker in southern Canada receives.
Another stated objective of the AIB is to contain prices. I have already given some examples of food prices in the Yukon. There was a famous preliminary report published by the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board many months ago with respect to food prices in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and one of the chief recommendations in that report was that a further study be made into the cost of food in those areas. We have not seen hide nor hair of any indication that that second report will be forthcoming.
When we referred to the AIB the question of Northern Canada Power Commission rates going up in the case of the Yukon in one year by 78 per cent, we were told that the AIB has no jurisdiction. When we complained about CNT telephone rates going up-they escape me at the moment, but they are far in excess of the guidelines set down-we were told that the AIB would not take jurisdiction to inquire into those rates. The NCPC intends to increase the rate for electricity in Fort Smith in Northwest Territories by 56 per cent, and yet the AIB does nothing about containing those prices.
It seems to me that the other function of the AIB is failing miserably in so far as the two jurisdictions in the north are concerned. I would be urging-if it were not for the fact that I think it offends my approach to responsible government in the Yukon-the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) to instruct his commissioner in the Yukon to intervene with some back to work legislation similar to that passed in this House last Friday. However, I do not want to do that because if any constitutional initiative does exist, it should be taken up by our own Yukon legislative assembly.
That is one solution, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development might take that under consideration. I am not suggesting that he direct his commissioner. I am suggesting he make the suggestion to his commissioner that that kind of approach might be considered by the Yukon legislative assembly.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Just before the recess, Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the workers at Anvil are asking where the controls are. No one can blame them for striking against the AntiInflation Board as they have.
October 25, 1976

Just before I leave this subject, Mr. Speaker, I want to cite one example that comes from the constituency of my colleague, the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). Food prices at Giant Yellowknife Mines have increased by 100 per cent. Representations were made by the Steelworkers local 803 through their president, Sandy Hamilton. He wrote to the Anti-Inflation Board in May to complain that Dominion Catering had raised the price of their regular meals from $3 to $5, and for the special steak night from S3.75 to $7.50, a 100 per cent increase. In a statement to "The Miners' Voice" in October, 1976, he said:
I question the merits of the Anti-Inflation Act if these types of increases are allowed to happen while the wages of workers are being tightly controlled.
In reply to his letter, he received a form letter from the AIB promising that they would investigate. Now he asks, "What happened to price controls?" Who can blame the miners of Anvil for going out on strike, not against management but against the AIB? Who can blame any consumer in these two northern constituencies for asking why the AIB does not step in and control price increases in power rates of 78 per cent in the Yukon and 56 per cent in Forth Smith? Where are the price controls? All that we have seen in these two northern jurisdictions is a policy of wage control, and wage control only. That is having a savage effect on the economy, in my constituency at any rate.
While I have the time, I want to say a word or two about the Canadian penitentiaries system. I am glad to see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in his seat, because I am sure this concerns him. We set up a committee on October 6 because of the urgent situation that our leader thought existed in the country with respect to the administration of the Canadian penitentiaries system. He set up a special task force from among our own caucus to inquire into the Canadian penal system. The government, belatedly, saw that there was, in fact, need for such an inquiry. They decided to establish a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
I had talks with the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) as to the establishment of this committee and our participation in it. We want to participate in an impartial inquiry that will produce meaningful results. We want to participate in the parliamentary process that will produce an in-depth inquiry, not just into the maximum security penitentiaries in the country, where most of the trouble is receiving the headlines, but into the whole of the system. For that reason we decided to place the objective of our special caucus committee on the shelf and go along with the establishment of a parliamentary subcommittee to inquire into the very serious problems which now confront the system.
When I first had those discussions with the Solicitor General, the members of the subcommittee were discussed as being four Liberal members, four Conservative members, and one each from the NDP and Social Credit. In further discussions with the Solicitor General the following day, he informed me
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
that he was sorry if there was anything misleading, but he assumed in discussing those four, four, one and one figures that the Liberal party would have the chair. I went along with that after discussing it with my colleagues. It was done on the assumption that the subcommittee would be set up on the basis of five members from the Liberal party, four from the Conservative party, and one each from the NDP and Social Credit parties.
When the Solicitor General introduced his motion for the establishment of this subcommittee, I raised the matter of number of members. He reneged on the five, four, one and one figures. He would not give me a positive answer with regard to those numbers. He said, in effect, that the approval he got was for the normal representation in parliament. I hoped that what he meant was that it would be a simple majority for the Liberal party of five members, four from the Progressive Conservative party and one each from the NDP and Social Credit.


Walter David Baker: We'll see.


Erik Nielsen: We will see when that committee is struck; I will have a word or two to say about that in a moment. We will see whether those discussions were held in good faith. We will see whether there is a genuine desire by the government to operate on the basis of good faith and conduct an impartial inquiry which is free from superimposition of a party majority on the committee. One of the conditions to which we agreed with regard to the establishment of a special parliamentary committee was that it would get to work immediately. We had our plans laid for going to the institutions in the Montreal area commencing last Monday. We feel it is vital, particularly in view of the reporting date established in the motion of February 28, that the committee get to work as soon as possible. We expect the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to meet tomorrow in order to establish that subcommittee. We expect to establish the itinerary tomorrow.
In our view, not only have we to visit all the maximum security institutions in this country, ostensibly where the real difficulties seem to lie, but such other institutions, to use the words of the motion that was passed, "as the committee deems advisable". Those include not only the maximum security institutions but some of the medium and some of the minimum security institutions. We believe that the five regional headquarters have to be visited, as well as some 17 maximum, medium and minimum institutions. A total of 22 meetings have to be held throughout the country, from British Columbia to the maritimes. We have between now and the end of February to produce a report.
We believe that arrangements should be made to hear the local guards unions and inmates committees where they exist. We believe that citizens advisory committees, where these exist, should meet with the subcommittee. We also believe that where prison inspection committees exist, there should be provision to meet with these groups. This is the kind of inquiry we envisaged we were going to conduct, and this is the kind of inquiry we believe the subcommittee should conduct.

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Nielsen
There will be reluctance on the part of some individuals and some groups involved with the administration of penitentiaries, as well as the inmates of those penitentiaries, to meet in a formal way. Therefore, we covered that aspect of these meetings in our discussions with the Solicitor General. We felt that in addition to the formal part of the subcommittee's work, it should be made clear well in advance of our visits to these various areas of the country and various institutions that inmates, either as individuals or groups, or officials either as individuals or groups, should feel free to discuss with individual members of the subcommittee, or members as a party group of the subcommittee, their problems and their views as to the solution of those problems. It stands to reason that there will be reluctance on the part of some individuals to discuss their criticisms and problems in a formal way before the committee which records all of its proceedings. That reluctance might not be present if provision is made for this kind of informal discussion with individuals and groups.
Our prison system is in a mess. There have been uprisings, hostage-takings, murders and suicides. Deplorable conditions exist in our Canadian penal system. It cries out for some kind of solution. The best summation that I have seen recently with regard to the situation that exists is in an article by Allan Fotheringham in the October 18 issue of Maclean's. It is carried under the headline "Canada does not have to execute people any more. It just sentences them to neglect." He goes into the background of the establishment and growth or malformation of the penal system in Canada since it was set up almost 140 years ago with the building of Kingston. He criticizes the hypocrisy of the Liberal government-as he labels it-with respect to its approach. He says in the article:
The sadness is that the hypocrites do not realize they are hypocrites. The hypocrites are the Liberal members of parliament who give the impression they have abolished death from the land. When they voted to wipe capital punishment from the slate, they saved the lives of the 11 men on death row. That was the public, moral stance and the government felt cleansed. It prefers to ignore the cruel reality. As the custodian responsible for the Canadian prison system, the Liberals have to answer for the fact that more than 11 inmates die every year in our prisons. Since 1970 there have been 62 suicides in federal prisons. Another 18 prisoners have been murdered by fellow inmates.
Last Friday, in Kingston, another was murdered by fellow inmates. The article continues:
The Canadian prison system is a mess-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) says, "Hear, hear". He is in agreement with me.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Not with what you just said. It was with what you said before that.


An hon. Member:: You are a little slow, then.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You know how I voted.


Erik Nielsen: I appreciate that. I appreciate the reason the hon. member may not be as quick today as he was two days ago.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: When people are reading their speeches, I sometimes get a little behind.


Erik Nielsen: But I am not reading my speech. I am quoting from a knowledgeable writer on prison reform. Not all members may have read this.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They don't read Maclean's.


Erik Nielsen: I am sure the Liberals read Maclean's. I am sure that is all they read. The author says:
There is a third similarity that tells you everything you want to know about Liberal priorities. The warden of Laval says his prison has 350 inmates too many. More than a decade ago, a federal commission of inquiry, coming after 300 prisoners had rioted at the B.C. pen, reported to the then justice minister, Lionel Chevrier, that "the prison was grossly overcrowded".
Mr. Speaker, I have gone back over the dates from 1963 to date and I have seen that figure reiterated by successive Solicitors General who were aiming at the target of no more than 450 inmates in any penal institution in Canada, and I note that this mark has been exceeded in almost every maximum security institution in the country. The writer of this article says:
What has happened? The population of 500 remains the same to this day. There have been 18 hostage-takings in that jail in two years. What really has happened is that Chevrier was replaced by Guy Favreau, who was replaced by Lucien Cardin, who was replaced by Pierre Trudeau, who was replaced by John Turner, who was replaced by Otto Lang, who has been replaced by Ron Basford-
He seems to have gone.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I must remind the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only by consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: I thank hon. members. I shall bring my remarks to a close.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: He is here now.


Erik Nielsen: I mistook another hon. gentleman for the minister.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is the way they comb their hair.


Erik Nielsen: My hon. friend says it is the way they comb their hair. Well, during all those ministerial changes, to use the words of the article, "the overcrowding goes on and the riots go on and suicides increase".


Mr. Faulkner:: Author?


Erik Nielsen: The author is Allan Fotheringham of Maclean's magazine. Take it easy over there; you cannot be critical of Maclean's. The article is dated October 18, 1976.
October 25, 1976

So there are serious problems. I hope the work of this committee will be fruitful. We intend to put all our effort into it. We shall put the same effort into the work of this committee as we intended to put into our own special caucus committee which was announced by our leader. I believe the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) will be the chairman if my information is correct. But if we find the committee is being suffocated, if we find our inquiries are restricted, if we find we are prevented from hearing people whose evidence should be heard in the interest of coming up with sound recommendations to parliament, we shall go ahead on our own and come up with our own recommendations to parliament. We hope members on the other side will enter into this project, when the committee is struck, in a productive and impartial way as we intend to do on this side and as I am sure colleagues to my left intend to do.
No one expects prisoners to be happy, but if our prisons are to discourage crime, as they are supposed to do, they must command the respect of the inmates. Right now, our penal system is seen, by the inmates as well as by the general public, not as a well-oiled machine dedicated to the combat of crime and to the rehabilitation of prisoners, but as a monument of confusion, unsure of what it is after and certainly as one which is not accomplishing anything at the moment.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to take part in this debate. At the outset I should like to add my good wishes to those already extended to the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Marchand) and wish him well in his future endeavours in Quebec. I should also like, at this point, to congratulate the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) on his appointment. I wish him all the luck in the world. He faces a big challenge and many people across the country are counting on him. So far, relatively few requests have been made upon him but there was one made by my hon. friend from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of our party, asking him to look into a situation at Cross Lake where the water supply was very bad. The people there had been seeking rectification of this situation for six years, through various former ministers, and I am very happy to note that the new minister saw fit to act promptly and rectify the situation. The people from Cross Lake send their thanks to him. I hope this is an example of the way in which the hon. gentleman intends to act in the future.
So, Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his new post and wish him all the luck in the world. Certainly, I shall offer him whatever help I can. Since he is not in the chamber today, I hope his colleagues will pass on my good wishes.
I should like to make a few suggestions regarding what I think the minister should do in the Indian Affairs department. First of all, there is the question of land claims in the Northwest Territories and Yukon in particular, and in general other claims by our native people all across the country. I think the minister should move a little faster in this area, especially in
The Address-Mr. Firth
those constituencies in which the native people would like to sit down around a table and discuss native claims. I consider the settling of these claims, particularly in the Northwest Territories, northern development. I suggest that once these claims have been settled we can move forward a little faster and deal with those problems that are of everyday concern to our native people and which are not receiving sufficient attention at this time.
Indian affairs and northern development are both under the jurisdiction of one department or ministry, and many times these two departments come into conflict. Therefore, I suggest that the minister should give serious consideration to dividing the department so that Indian affairs stand alone. It is an extremely important department and, as I mentioned previously, the minister has a great challenge in changing the attitudes of departmental officials and improving the image Canada has in the eyes of the rest of the world in regard to our treatment of our native peoples. I suggest northern development come within the Department of the Environment, or with fisheries or some other department, where there will not be so much conflict.
I would also suggest that the minister immediately hire capable native people from all across the country for very important decision-making positions within that department. At this time I do not think he would be able to name more than five or six native people who are in decision-making positions in the Indian Affairs Department. I do not have the figures with me, but I would be very surprised if there are more than five or six.
Another suggestion that I think would be useful is that the minister offer early retirement to some members of the department who have been there a long time and may not be doing quite such a good job as would some younger person who might be more effective. This would make the department more responsible to the native people of this country. As it is now, a lot of times it seems as though the department is more the enemy of the native people than their ally.
I would also suggest that another healthy move for the department to make is for it to be more co-operative with native organizations from all across this wonderful country of ours. These organizations have a better understanding of what the immediate problems are on the reserves, in different parts of the territories, and so on. Thus, the department will be more effective. The millions of dollars allocated to the department are really not reaching those areas where they can be spent effectively, and the suggestion I have made would, I think, help see that this money does get to the grass roots level where it would do most good. The minister faces a very big challenge, and many people are counting on him. With a majority government, and working with native organizations, I think the minister is in a good position to do a lot more for our native people than has been done in the past.
Talking of the past, Mr. Speaker, and of the effectiveness of previous ministers of the department, I should like to refer to what I think is a very scarey situation having to do with the sterilization of native women in the Northwest Territories.
414

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Firth
This example goes back to October 9, 1970, when the former leader of this party, Mr. David Lewis, the then hon. member for York South, asked a question of the then minister of Indian affairs and northern development as reported at page 16 of Hansard. It is now October, 1976, six years down the pipe, and still no answer has been received on this very important matter. Let me put the question on the record. The then hon. member for York South asked:
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on a rather serious matter. Is the minister aware that a program of sterilization of native Eskimo women was apparently introduced in the Holman Island community on Victoria Island, that five women have been so sterilized and that some others are being considered? If he is aware, will he inform the House who authorized this unnecessary and inhuman program, in view of the availability of birth control methods?
The minister at that time was the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien), and he answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have no information on this problem. The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his question, so I have had an investigation made but I have not yet received any report.
I am not aware that any authorization was given by my department. Health services in the Northwest Territories are under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I therefore asked one of my department's officers this morning to get in touch immediately with the representatives of the department of national health in order to determine whether any authorization had actually been given or whether the facts alleged by my hon. friend were correct.
As soon as I obtain further information, I shall be happy to inform the House, but, at this time, I do not believe that such an authorization was given. If such action took place it must have been because of some local or individual initiative, rather than under a government policy.
So at that date the Liberal government said it did not have a policy of sterilization of native women in the Northwest Territories. Although the question was asked six years ago, there has still been no answer. I have good reason to believe that a sterilization program has been continuing in the Northwest Territories and that a lot of people have been sterilized. People in the north, as well as myself, are asking for answers to a lot of questions.
I do have a few figures before me, Mr. Speaker, but they cover only a small part of the Northwest Territories. As an example of what appears to be happening in the north, in Repulse Bay, out of 22 women between 30 and 50 years of age, 10 have been sterilized-a percentage of 45 per cent. In Chesterfield Inlet, out of 23 women between 30 and 50, 6 have been sterilized, for a percentage of 26 per cent. In Pelly Bay, out of 18 women between the ages of 30 and 50, five have been sterilized, or 27 per cent. In Gjoa Haven, out of 41 women between 30 and 50, 13 have been sterilized, or 31 per cent.
The numbers have been quoted in the Sunday Express and other newspapers. The question of the sterilization of native women in the Northwest Territories has been raised by the Inuit Tapirisat, the representative of the northern peoples of those parts. The question was also mentioned in the Sunday Express and in the Globe and Mail and was brought to my attention by Father Lechat, a well respected and well known

man of the north. He is concerned about this problem and raises many questions about it.
I ask the government, which has not answered questions concerning this area as well as other areas, does this represent government policy? Is this, indeed, policy? If so, how many people have been affected by it? How long has this program been going on, and why is it being carried out? Are white people involved in it as well? Is the program being explained to people taking part in it? Do the women who have been sterilized know exactly what the consequences are? Do they understand fully what it is all about? Has it been explained to them in terms they can understand? I know these are difficult questions to answer.
I know of a white lady who discussed this question with doctors, friends and others experienced in the area. She decided, after consultation, to go through with the operation, but said sometime afterwards that if she had known exactly what its consequences would be, how it would change her, she would never have agreed to go through with it.
The government has not been able to say whether this is policy. I wonder if the government has the guts to undertake an inquiry, find out exactly what is going on and explain to the Canadian people what this is all about. When you couple what is happening with ideas put forward in a training manual for the correctional institute in Yellowknife, a manual which describes the native people as shiftless, lazy and goodness knows what else in unkind terms, you wonder how many sick people, including civil servants, in those parts are making major decisions affecting the people's lives. Therefore, I ask the government to look seriously at that program and let us know exactly what is happening.
I now touch upon another area of concern-housing. In March 1974-and the year was fairly exciting in this House, as I recall-the minister responsible for housing announced that 50,000 units in a five-year period would be built under the government's rural and native housing program. The program itself was under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Unfortunately, the program has not worked. It seems that the program is in a shambles. It has operated almost for two years. I do not know how many houses were built under it, but I have not seen any in the north, the one place in which they ought to be built.
Housing everywhere is a basic human right. This being a cold country, housing programs should be given greater priority. We need good housing programs in all parts of the country. We need a super-good housing program in the north, where the climate is extreme. Housing is in short supply in many areas, including mine. Adequate housing can help us solve many of the social ills afflicting people in various parts of the country. Good housing helps to keep the basic family unit together. Good housing would keep our native peoples together and improve their health conditions. Good housing, and improvements in health, enable people to do better work and keep their jobs. I know of many in my constituency who could do good work, but cannot because they lack adequate housing. These people cannot hold on to better jobs because they have
October 25, 1976

no place in which to rest and eat a good meal before going back to work. They have nowhere to enjoy life.
Good housing would help to curb alcoholism, which afflicts not only people of the NWT but people generally in northern countries. Good housing, again, is the answer. As well, adequate housing would allow people to work in home industries. They could support themselves by doing soapstone carving, needlework, and so on. Such activities can be carried on in the spare room of the home, if the person has one, the bonus being that the traditional way of life could be maintained. That is another point in favour of a good housing program.
A countrywide good housing program would help to create jobs in this country. It would support small industries, especially small construction firms. As I say, there are many arguments in favour of a good housing program. Therefore, I wonder why, since the program was announced almost two years ago, it has not worked as well as it should. I think the minister is obligated to find out why the program is not working and he should make the necessary corrections. As I said earlier, housing is a basic human right. The government should do everything possible to make sure that as many houses as possible are built.
I am led to believe that bungling civil servants are responsible for the rural and native housing program not working. I do not know if it is all the government's fault; perhaps people at the local level who may not be involved with the government are also responsible. No matter where the blame lies, the question should be looked into. The minister should find out what is wrong and get the show on the road.
I want to speak briefly on something called northern development, which is a pretty big topic. Elaving perused the Speech from the Throne, I find that again the north has been neglected. Important areas of concern for the north are not even mentioned. These questions concern not only northerners but people in the rest of the country. Major decisions affecting the north will affect the rest of the country. I am thinking of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. The Speech from the Throne did not mention it. There was no mention of the Arctic Islands gas pipeline, and no mention of transportation systems, whether involving ships in the High Arctic, aircraft, better roads, better airports, better navigational facilities and more and improved weather stations.
No mention was made of environmental priorities for the NWT, and there was no mention of possible provincial status for the Yukon or the NWT. There was no mention of the government's thinking with respect to changing the status of the NWT, that is, for dividing it into two territories, one to be a province and the other a territory. No mention was made of native claims. No mention has been made of these things in recent Speeches from the Throne. I have listened to two or three, and we seem to be left out all the time. We do not particularly like that. Even though there are only 40,000 of us up there, we feel the north is very important to all of Canada. We believe some very important decisions will have to be made about that area in the next few years. There probably will be some pretty important issues arising in that area within two or
The Address-Mr. Firth
three years, or even within a year and a half. It looks as if there is a move toward a minority situation in which we hear that the NDP will have a little more fun squeezing some things from the government.
There is no mention in the throne speech of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. In looking at this situation, one wonders whether the large oil companies are very serious about building a pipeline there. I recall that when it was first mentioned, the Atlantic Richfield Company announced it intended to go ahead. However, from the figures I have been able to dig up today, it does not seem to me that there is enough gas or oil in the Mackenzie Valley to warrant a pipeline. I do not think they intended to build one in the first place. Even if they did, possibly it was more in the form of bluff than anything else to enhance their bargaining position with the companies in the east.
It has not been proven that there is enough gas in the Mackenzie delta to warrant the building of a pipeline. Even if it were built, the purpose would not be to move several trillion cubic feet of gas, but to tap the cold, clear ice water from the Slave Lake, Bear Lake and the Mackenzie because of the skunky water in the south and the fact that the people must have good clean water. So that would be one of the main reasons. The United States government would like to have a pipeline up there for that purpose. This is worth thinking about. I still think the oil companies are not very serious about building this pipeline and that probably it will never be built in any event.
There was no mention in the throne speech about the structure of what is called the NWT government, which is not actually a government but, rather, an administration. It is my opinion that there are far too many civil servants in the north now. It is a very large area-1,350,000 square miles. There are only 40,000 people, and every fifth one is a civil servant.
The budget for the NWT administration alone is between $150 million and $175 million, which does not include MOT, the RCMP or other federal departments, which would bring the figure up around $250 million. If we said we would have no government up there, but merely several government agencies-which was the situation in the past-there would be a guaranteed annual income of about $5,000 or $6,000 for every man, woman and child. This area could be maintained something like a park, so that it would be for the benefit not only of Canada but of all the world. We must protect the environment and beautiful places like that from resource exploitation and big industry, for the benefit of all people.
Previously in this House I have attempted something which did not work. I would like again to give it a try. I believe I have a few minutes left, and I would ask hon. members to agree that five or six minutes of that period be devoted to thinking for a while about the suggestions I have made concerning Indian affairs and northern development generally.
416

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Basford


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, along with the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), I would be quite happy to think for a few minutes, if that is your ruling.


An hon. Member:: Transcendental meditation.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I appreciate the suggestion of the hon. member for Northwest Territories. It would appear that the rules do not allow, for the moment at least, for a thinking period, although I realize that a number of members opposite need that sort of time to sit and think, judging from the speeches I have heard so far in the throne speech debate.
In entering the debate, I wish to join all my colleagues in the House of Commons in offering my congratulations to the two hon. members on my side who moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne in a manner and content that was a credit to themselves and to the constituencies which sent them to parliament.
This afternoon I want to touch briefly on three subjects. First, may I say that I read with a great deal of interest the speech made the other day by the official justice critic of the Progressive Conservative party, my friend the learned member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), and particularly his remarks with regard to, as it was known in the last session, Bill C-83. It is a favourite and irresponsible tactic of the opposition to clamour for the introduction of bills and then to proceed to obstruct their passage through parliament and into law. This is precisely what they have tried to do in respect of the measures that were contained in Bill C-83.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), on a point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), who stands for the administration of justice in Canada, would come forward with a truthful statement. His party had to move 54 amendments to that bill in order to get it passed. There was no delay in the committee. I believe his own members would tell him that. I do not like such a misrepresentation to be made here now, or at any time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest that the hon. member has risen not on a point of order but, rather, on a point of debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let him stay with the truth.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will stay with the truth. What I say is based on the truth. I will quote the evidence. Almost a year ago, on October 28, 1975, in the wake of shooting tragedies in this city and elsewhere, the then leader of the opposition, the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), pressed the government during the question period to introduce proposals to restrict the availability of firearms. I note that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Clark), in his speech on the address in reply, never mentioned the subject. Last week, as a result of ques-

tions during the question period, it seemed to me the official opposition indicated that it would refuse to allow the reinstatement of Bill C-83 which contained the measures called for by the former leader of the opposition.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Absolute nonsense.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Let me provide further evidence. I would ask hon. members to recall who it was who, twice in this House, once on January 27 and again on June 6, 1975, called for legislation providing a minimum penalty for anyone having or using a firearm for any improper purpose. That person was none other than the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Yet just the other day he affirmed his opposition to the reinstatement of the peace and security bill which provides for just such penalties as he called for.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He did not say that at all.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, he did. The hon. member for Calgary North correctly pointed out in his speech that the bill raised many important issues other than gun control. These included provisions to keep dangerous offenders in prison and away from society, provisions to increase the capability of the police to combat organized crime, as well as provisions to provide police with increased powers to confiscate weapons in potentially dangerous and serious situations. The bill also contained measures to provide a more effective and protective parole system, measures relating to laws regarding the custody of inmates in our penitentiaries, something the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was talking about only half an hour ago. Yet we are unable to make necessary changes in the law relating to day leave, statutory remission and other important custodial matters.


Mr. Peters:: Because you want to put too many things in it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you split it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member asks why I do not split the bill. He wants to have an opportunity to defeat it in committee. All these issues were important in the bill last session, and all of them are important still. It seems to me that the public still has the right to laws which will assist society in protecting itself against violent crime and violent criminals. The public has a right to laws that will help reduce the growing death toll from the misuse and careless use of firearms. Surely something is very wrong with the law when it is just as easy to buy toothpaste as it is firearms.
Should there not be some change in that law, not only by means of increased penalties applied after a crime or tragedy has already occurred, but surely we have the responsibility and we must be just as concerned about preventing, in one way or another, or at least limiting such occurrences before they take place. How many times have we heard citizens talk about the stop sign or a red light never being put at an intersection until one, two or three people have been killed. When it comes to
October 25, 1976

firearms, surely we should try to put in place some stop signs and some red lights before the tragic incidents occur.
Hon. members opposite do not have to take my word for it; they can rely upon statements that some of their own members made last session or they can take the word of such authorities as the Quebec crime commission. That commission, headed by Judge Jean Dutil, concluded its report on organized crime, which was released just two weeks ago, by saying that violence involving the use of firearms is so grave that it threatens the social peace of Canada. The report calls for strong measures to curb the incidence of gun-related crime, and for those measures to be instituted immediately.
This is precisely what we asked parliament to do last session in the bill. Hon. members opposite should ask the public how it feels about restrictions on firearms availability. The public has always, overwhelmingly, supported responsible restrictions on the availability of guns. I have every reason to believe that that public support has, if anything, increased recently. I would refer my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North, to his friend, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who recently conducted a survey in his riding. I have been somewhat surprised at the result, because judging by my mail, if opposition is strong anywhere, it is in Calgary.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre asked his constituents, among others, "Do you support the government's intention to control firearms?". The replies from Calgary Centre, next door to the riding of the hon. member for Calgary North, were 61 per cent in favour, 37 per cent not in favour, and 2 per cent undecided.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Let me point out that 89 per cent in your riding wanted capital punishment.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary North confer with his colleague from the next riding.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you talk to your colleague, Simma?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I confer with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) constantly. She is an invaluable member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: She is the greatest thorn in your side.


Stanley Ronald Basford: She indicated her support for the concepts in Bill C-83. The problems of criminal activity, as well as the misuse of firearms, will not disappear in spite of the fact that the opposition may well like them to do so. We have a duty to press forward with responsible and Workable measures which will protect the public against violence and crime. 1 am very grateful for the hard work of many hon. members, including my friend the hon. member for Calgary North, who made constructive efforts in the committee last year, not only on the firearms measures but on all aspects of that bill. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs sat for 35 sittings, heard witnesses from all across the country and considered a
The Address-Mr. Basford
large number of amendments proposed by the government and the opposition. It is a matter of real regret to me that that investment in parliamentary and members' time would now appear to have been wasted in terms of making parliamentary progress.
The Leader of the Opposition calls for leadership, yet nowhere in this debate, either in his own speech or in the speech of the official justice critic, the hon. member for Calgary North, is there any suggestion as to how parliamentary progress can be achieved with laws that are more protective of society in relation to guns, to dangerous offenders, to parole and to penitentiaries. The official opposition calls itself a responsible opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday on national television that it is not his responsibility to come up with answers.


Erik Nielsen: You steal them all.


Stanley Ronald Basford: If we steal their suggestion, which I know is a claim they make from time to time, then as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated, we cannot understand why they oppose them.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Because you pervert them.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues to negotiate with the House leader on this side in order to make parliamentary progress. I ask the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)- who unfortunately is not in the House, and for whom I have a good deal of personal and professional respect-who is the House leader of the official opposition, whether we have to go through another tragic shooting in Ottawa before he begins to assist our House leader in ensuring that this session parliament passes meaningful changes in the criminal law relating to the improper and careless use of firearms. If a meaningful version of Bill C-83 is not passed by this parliament, the responsibility will clearly lie with the official opposition.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Rubbish.


William Arnold Peters: Nobody is going to pass it. If you want the legislation, bring it in.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am glad that my remarks have so affected the sensitivities of hon. gentlemen opposite. Now I wish to turn to the areas of the Speech from the Throne relating to the further work of my department. The Leader of the Opposition said that he found little of relevance in the speech. It surprises me that such subjects as bilingualism, national unity, equal opportunity and the strengthening of individual rights are regarded as not relevant by the hon. gentleman opposite. Until now, in dealing with the question of individual rights and discrimination, the authority of the federal government to deal with discrimination in employment and accommodation has been limited. This may not seem important to the Leader of the Opposition. However, it does seem to be serious to many other Canadians-for example, to many women in Canada, to the physically handicapped and to members of many minority

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Basford
groups who have felt the heavy hand of discrimination in their daily lives. It also seems serious to me. In a free society like ours it is essential that we put into law and into practice a clear commitment to equality of opportunity and to protection from discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction.
In the summer of 1975 a human rights bill was introduced by the government, and along with the advisory council on the status of women and other groups, I regret-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Are you going to blame us for that, too?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -that is was not passed last session, due to the pressure of parliamentary time and business. The new bill will have high priority in this session and I look forward to its early introduction and passage. While I regret the delay in its passage last session, that delay has provided me and members of the government with an opportunity to strengthen and improve our proposals through extensive consultations on the provisions of the bill with individuals, with the provinces and with groups concerned about discrimination. In particular, my officials and I have had extremely useful meetings with groups representing women's rights and the status of women, with associations for the physically handicapped and with a number of others.
As a result of those meetings I will be laying before the House a greatly strengthened piece of legislation which I hope will become a comprehensive federal anti-discrimination code complementing those already adopted and enforced by the provinces. The legislation proposes to prohibit, through the activities of a human rights commission, discrimination on grounds of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age and marital status, as well as physical handicap, with respect to employment. For example, if a handicap does not affect job performance, it will no longer be a permissible bar to getting a job. This is a new provision added after consultation with associations qualified to speak for the handicapped.
The legislation will contain certain provisions prohibiting the sending of hate messages over the telephone, a matter which has been the subject of news controversy for the last few days. As far as I can gather, these messages are put out mostly in the Toronto area and mostly by a group calling itself the Western Guard which breeds racial prejudice and bigotry. The group arouses anxiety in racial minorities and undermines the confidence of those minority groups in the protection they should be afforded under the law. Our measures are designed to provide an effective supplement to the provisions in the Criminal Code for combatting this particularly revolting-I think there is no better word to describe it-practice of tape-recorded, racially biased messages going out over the telephone.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Cowards.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), whom I know has a very deep interest in these matters, asks, how?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I said they are cowards; the members of the Western Guard are cowards.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I apologize to the hon. member. Of course, I agree that they are cowards, hiding behind this kind of taped telephone device to propagate their messages of hate and racism. I invite the hon. member for Fundy-Royal, who has a deep and abiding interest in these matters, to study the bill with great care, because obviously it is a delicate area in which to legislate. However, I think the proposals we are putting forward will deal with the problem on the one hand and will properly protect the right of freedom of speech in a free society on the other. This is a measure which the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has also asked about many times.


Erik Nielsen: When is it coming?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Very shortly. In addition, the provisions of the human rights bill have been strengthened with regard to the question of equal pay. Traditionally, those concerned about discrimination in employment practices have felt that the concept of equal pay for equal work would solve all our problems, and in the bill introduced last session the language employed to prevent this discrimination was the traditional concept of equal pay for equal work. After consultations with women's groups, I have been convinced that this language is inadequate to provide full guarantees against sexist discrimination on the job. The fact is that women are often not allowed to do work similar to that of men and they are hired and hived off into female work ghettos. Thus, they are often paid less, even though what they do is of equal value. To provide truly equal opportunity, regardless of sex, we have decided to accept the recommendation of the women's groups and to adopt the definition proposed by the International Fabour Organization of equal pay for work of equal value as the governing criterion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: It would, therefore, be a discriminatory practice for an employer to maintain different wage scales as between male and female employees who are performing work of equal value. This measure is unique in Canadian law. Its enactment will mark a major milestone in the commitment of the government to the women of Canada to provide equal opportunities. Women's organizations can properly congratulate themselves for this achievement and now press for passage of this measure when introduced and for an equal response from provincial governments in areas of provincial jurisdiction.


Erik Nielsen: What about territorial jurisdiction?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The throne speech, in remarks related to the human rights legislation, also touched upon a second major aspect of the human rights legislation we will be bringing forward: the protection of rights to privacy with respect to information collected by the government. There are two main aspects to this. One is protection from harassment for information by government departments and agencies.
October 25, 1976

I share the concern of many people that we are a nation becoming addicted to information-gathering about individuals and small businesses without much thought about the need for it or about the cost and inconvenience imposed upon those individuals or small businesses in collecting it. That is a matter the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) have touched upon. Data collecting or information collecting should not mean open season on taxpayers' time or money. The new legislation would ensure that government demands for information are rationalized, co-ordinated and restrained to an absolute minimum.
The second aspect of this question relates to personal information solicited by the government and stored in government information files or data banks. I have already said that this legislation will narrow and restrain government access to information from the citizen. It will also broaden citizens' access to personal information about them in government files. It will give individuals the right to find out what federal government records contain personal information about themselves used to make decisions affecting them. They will have the right to examine and correct such information. They will have the right to know the uses to which the information is put and to prevent its use for purposes other than those for which it was intended. It will provide a major increase in the accountability of government to the citizen for the administrative acts affecting that citizen.
Having listened to the debate, I note it is agreed by all that there are some personal information records to which there should not be access. In the earlier legislation of which I speak, those exemptions would have been decided by government regulation. In the new bill, because of the delay in passage, we have been able to develop a legislative or statutory scheme setting out explicit criteria that any information records withheld would have to meet. These restrictions on access should be reduced to the minimum possible, consistent with our parliamentary system. We want to ensure the maximum access to personal information that the public interest will allow. Our aim is to secure to the greatest extent possible the right of the individual to know and to see the personal information on which decisions affecting him or her are made.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister accept a question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would prefer to do so at the end of my speech, if I may, Mr. Speaker.
The time has come to recognize in law that individuals have rights and interests in knowing what personal information is on official records, whether it is accurate and the uses to which it is being put. In this era of bigness of government, business and unions, many decisions affecting individuals are made every day by these big institutions on the basis of information stored in files and computers. The risk of erroneous decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete information is too great to ignore in a free and open society. The privacy of information provi-
The Address-Mr. Basford
sions will not encompass the private sector nor, obviously, apply to the provincial sector at the moment, but I would hope that the legislation that is introduced could be seen as a model which can be adapted to fhe private sector and one which provincial governments would wish to emulate.
I should now like to touch on the Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker. To achieve the goals enunciated in the speech, of equality of opportunity and the enhancement and rights of the status of women, will take more than simply the enactment of a human rights bill and the establishment of a human rights commission. The Speech from the Throne contained additional measures designed to achieve this. There is the commitment to more and better day-care services that will free mothers to seek employment outside the home when they wish. There will be changes in the Canada Pension Plan to recognize that the housewife's work at home is an economic contribution to the family and society. This is part of our continuing commitment to improving women's rights.
I need hardly remind the House that last session parliament enacted the status of women bill which changed a whole range of our laws to give recognition to the equality of women; nor need I repeat my commitment to the goal of appointing more women to the bench, not as tokens but on the same basis as all appointments, namely, merit. I am glad to indicate that since my appointment as Minister of Justice my colleagues have been happy to accept my recommendation for the first woman member of a court of appeal in this country, Madam Justice Wilson of the Court of Appeal of Ontario, and the first woman of Chief Justice rank in the person of Associate Chief Justice Madam Gabrielle Vallee of the Court of Appeal of Quebec.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Tell Earl MacLaughlin.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, I seem to be having more success in the appointment of judges than Earl MacLaughlin is having in the appointment of board members. But probably no area of the law touches upon the legal and economic rights of women more than the law relating to the family. I am convinced that if real progress can be made in the area of family law, it is the single most important thing that could happen to assure the legal and economic equality and status of women.
The Speech from the Throne refers to the Law Reform Commission report on family law, which I commend to members of the House. The commission emphasized that the basic concern underlying all family law reforms should be the support and preservation of viable family units. Any movement in this area must be done only with very carefully measured steps. This is the basis on which I am examining the proposals of the Law Reform Commission and others.
Some newspaper headlines have bandied about the phrase "divorce on demand". I have read the report. I do not see in it any proposals for divorce on demand. I do, however, see a number of very thought-provoking suggestions, and it is with this in mind that I call upon all interested groups and individuals across the country to read the commission's report and to let me hear their views on the proposals it contains. I intend to

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Basford
carry out, with them, formal consultations on the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission.
Let me speak specifically about two sets of recommendations mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. First, our commitment to the development of unified family courts in Canada. Mr. Speaker, this is an idea whose time has come: one judge in one court to deal with all family matters, federal and provincial. This would mean a saving in time and money, convenience to the parties involved and the creation through the aegis of such courts of a less adversarial context of winners and losers in which to resolve disputes. This would be a tremendous improvement in procedures relating to family law.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I appreciate the courtesy shown by the House. I did not realize my time was up, but I shall conclude very quickly. In the unified family courts, procedures would be aimed at reconciliation and rehabilitation. I discussed this matter with my provincial counterparts at the conference of attorneys general in Vancouver in June which I hosted. Perhaps I might quote from the communique issued by that conference:
Ministers agreed that priority should be given to the development of unified family courts with broad jurisdiction over all legal matters respecting the family unit.
There was some disagreement over the level at which such courts should be sited, but I am confident that this issue can be satisfactorily resolved and that we can get on with the business of reform in these particular courts which touch so many Canadians. I will be meeting, in the coming months, with ministers of the provinces in an effort to establish, where appropriate, unified family courts. Indeed, negotiations in this direction are already well under way in several provinces and I am confident that progress can be made such as was indicated by the attorney general for Ontario the other day in forecasting possible legislation in that province.
The Law Reform Commission also stressed that there are three economic functions to marriage, wage earning, home care and child rearing, and that the present law on matrimonial property really recognizes only the first, which is usually the contribution of the husband or the wage earning provision and does not recognize the two economic functions which are usually the woman's contribution of home care and child rearing. The commission recommended that the law should provide for the equal sharing of property acquired through the earnings of either or both spouses during the marriage. There would be some exceptions relating to gifts, inheritances, bequests or trusts. The recommendation affecting matrimonial property are of immeasurable importance to married women in Canada. It takes direct aim at the anachronism which exists in the law of most provinces and which was highlighted by the

Supreme Court of Canada in its decision in the now famous case of Murdoch v. Murdoch.
Our ministerial discussions in Vancouver, in June, touched upon this particular subject, and at that time provincial attorneys general expressed the view that matrimonial property is exclusively a provincial matter. This is not a unanimous view. Obviously, the Law Reform Commission had different experts and different views on the federal role involved relating to matrimonial property. The conference did indicate the ministers agreed that provincial governments would be urged to press forward with reform of matrimonial property laws reflecting the concept of marriage as a partnership of equals. I understand, again from press reports, that the attorney general of Ontario plans to table some proposals in this regard very shortly.
I welcome such initiatives to be taken by the provinces and will continue to consult with them to that end. I would point out, however, that if it is their exclusive jurisdiction, they have a responsibility to act, and to act expeditiously. If the provinces do not move expeditiously to put in place meaningful changes in the law relating to matrimonial property to take account of the economic needs and the rights of both spouses, there will obviously be increasing pressure on this parliament to endeavour to try to implement the recommendations, in one form or another, of the Law Reform Commission's report relating to the disposal of matrimonial property. Canadian women should not have to wait much longer for provincial action in this regard. I hope that provincial attorneys general will take note of my remarks, that if it is their jurisdiction, as claimed by them, they should act expeditiously in this area.
We will go forward in the immediate future on three aspects relating to family law. The first is negotiations with the provinces toward the establishment in the provinces of unified family courts. The second is changes in the law relating to matrimonial property to better take account of the economic needs and rights of both parties. The third is formal consultation with those in the community across Canada regarding the other recommendations of the Law Reform Commission's report on family law.
I appreciate the courtesy of the House in allowing me to complete my speech. This is the last day of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It has in may ways been a useful debate, providing members of parliament with the opportunity to put forward matters of concern to their constituencies and to put forward ideas for action. In the Speech from the Throne the government put forward a comprehensive and coordinated program for action by parliament and the country, The object of the debate within the time allotted in our rules gives the opposition a chance to show their disagreement with those proposals and to show that they deserve the confidence of the House. I have read the motions of confidence with great care, as well as the speeches from the opposition. In the essential task of the official opposition to show that they should be the alternative government they have
October 25, 1976

failed to persuade this House or the country that it should not have confidence in the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Will the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In view of the fact that the minister has taken 36 minutes, we must have unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask his question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the government's intention with regard to a human rights bill to provide for the right of an individual to examine his own file and to claim rectification. That is good, but without the correlative right I wonder how useful it is. Where there has been a rejection by the government of a claim for rectification of a private record of an individual, will that individual have a right to an appeal, either to a court or an independent tribunal, to compel the government to make that rectification on the record?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question very briefly. Obviously, in discussing a bill not before the House, I was speaking very generally. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who has taken a deep interest in this whole matter, will see from the bill that there are methods by which a government or ministerial decision in this area is subject to review.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, will the minister accept one further question?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: As Attorney General for the Yukon and Attorney General for the Northwest Territories, how quickly does the minister intend to act with regard to the establishment of unified family courts in those two jurisdictions which he knows are separate judicial jurisdictions?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, we are considering that within our department. At this time I am not able to make an announcement.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have tremendous respect for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), but he is more persuasive when he is on the highroad than when he is making a "cry-baby" speech about the fate of Bill C-83. The government is in charge of the timetable of this parliament. The government asked for prorogation of the last parliament. It ill behooves the minister to say that Bill C-83 is lost, when in the next breath he says that Bill C-72 was improved because parliament prorogued and he had time to consult.


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


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The problem with Bill C-83 is that the minister did not consult enough. He is very good at truth by degree. He knows his caucus opposed the bill in its present form. The minister had to bring in some 60 amendments to a tattered part of the bill. The minister also knows he could have had every one of the policies that he listed, had he accepted our suggestion to split the bill. He could have had in place now on the statute books all that part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Let us have a little bit of total truth, not truth by degree. I have no doubt about the future of our country. Yet the lack of will of this directionless government is cause for profound disquiet. As Oliver Wendell Holmes aptly put it:
I find the great thing in this world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving.
To reach the port of heaven, we must sail sometimes with the wind and sometimes against it, but we must sail, and not drift, nor lie at anchor.
This government will not reach the port of heaven, or even get within sight of the fairway buoys, if this Speech from the Throne is any indication of the legislation that is coming forward. It is a latter day tragedy. This government has allowed itself to drift. It is in the doldrums of indifference. The captain is unsure of what course to take, and the navigator, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), will not even share the charts with the public of Canada. We are entitled to know the direction the government is going to take and the purpose of its journey, but it is sealed because it is confidential and "eyes only".
As the Minister of Justice said, we are in the last few hours of this debate. I have found four or five topics which concern me and my constituents. I hope they will commend themselves to hon. members. These topics are the constitution, the faltering effort of the government to face the issue of freedom of information, problems relating to overlapping jurisdictions, an idea for improving the consultative process between government and management and labour, and, lastly, a personal proposal for solving an international irritant, namely, the ownership of Machias Seal Island at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy. I wish to use this as an example of something the United States and Canada might do together. Because I believe in short speeches, I can only highlight some of the implications of the policy areas about which I have spoken.
With regard to the Official Languages Act, which has been talked about by other people, I wish to restate clearly the commitment I made to it, for its splendid purpose, by my votes in this House in the past. I know I say this at some personal risk, but I think it is time some people in this country spoke out in favour of the reasonable sharing of what we have here. The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) put the matter in historical perspective and we should be grateful to him for doing so. There is no need for Canada, which is a carefully constructed experiment involving recognition of fundamental rights in language and culture, to fly apart. It is time
422

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Fairweather
for conciliation, not for confrontation. It is time for the celebration of what we Canadians share together, rather than for the intoning of funeral dirges mourning our lack of will to go on.
I am fed up with Cassandras who are abroad in this land prophesying the end of our country. Canada will live long after those apostles of gloom have passed away. May I ask those who may listen to this statement, including our colleagues from Quebec, to remember that some people express such views at a certain risk, and when voices are raised or importun-ings are heard I ask them to remember that those who share the aspirations of this country are glad to do so, glad to stand up and say so. But can we not have the same language, that is, the truth, from one end of the country to the other, whether it is English or French?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What irony, when the evidence is all around us that Canadians appreciate and treasure our heritage and want to guard it, that there should be those in various parts of the country who would tear down what we have built together and hazard the future of our nation with their narrow stridency. Mere lip service to the commitment of this country is unacceptable.
On the subject of the constitution I would say this: I may sound "preachy" today, but I believe that insolence and petulance are accurate descriptions of the tone of the exchange of letters between some premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada. For Canada's sake, let us cool down this issue. I admit that the government has a mandate provided by stark numbers-if that is all we care about-but I submit it has no mandate at the moment of will in favour of the constitutional debate. The whole debate seems to me to be arcane, characterized by intemporate bulletins lobbing from capital to capital and almost entirely misunderstood by the public which parliament is elected to serve.
A constitution cannot be the private property of some government or some constitutional lawyer advising the government. A constitution which cannot be understood by the people is nothing more than a lawyer's document fit to be hidden away in some file. I believe a constitution should be as clear as the beatitudes and, in its starkness, as eloquent as the Gettysburg Address. The rest of this debate is almost unbelievably out of touch with the mood and aspirations of the people of this country.
I am sad to say this, but I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who for one reason or another has lost the essential elements of good will and trust of the Canadian people, should put the constitutional debate into cold storage until the public of Canada has had the opportunity to say who will lead the country in the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, we live in a time of increasing complexity and confusion, a time when the citizen who

wishes to play a responsible role in our democratic system is confronted by an almost overwhelming tangle of bureaucratic red tape. My hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) will long be remembered for his efforts on behalf of a freedom of information act. This is the last part of the twentieth century, and we are still fiddling in this parliament. What worries me is that there may be another government diversion, that we may be faced with another white, grey or red paper postponing a decision the need for which is obvious. This question has been studied by parliament, by the Privy Council, by those who understand our system of government. It is time, now, for a freedom of information act and I very much hope there will be no postponement or diversion by way of green papers and the like. We already know all we need to know about the subject. The appointment of one more committee would be exceedingly disillusioning to those who are interested in this aspect of policy.
Another point I wish to raise has to do with the overlapping of jurisdictions. It seems to me that this is an impediment which hinders the wise governing of the country at every turn and prevents us from going ahead as we ought. Decision making is constantly hampered by the existence of overlapping jurisdictions, meaning that one must wade through a bureaucratic maze, searching from one level of government to the other, with the result that everyone's problem becomes no one's problem. I have a couple of examples which I could use to illustrate this contention. Many people will be unfamiliar with the part of the country about which I speak, but I will take that risk anyway.
The dilemma produced by these overlapping jurisdictions becomes apparent as it affects the coast of the bay of Fundy in a community known as Red Head which is literally eroding or sliding into the sea. Much the same thing is happening along the shores of the Kennebecasis River at Sussex. Citizens groups who are anxious, not for government hand outs but for policies which will help them help themselves, have been continually frustrated, and if I may say so modestly, I too, have been frustrated by the hours I have spent trying to find out which of the many agencies of government are responsible for ending this imminent threat.
The citizens' groups in these communities have organized themselves in an effort to prevent further disaster in their communities, but they need help and, as I say, I have spent hours trying to find out the particular department of the federal or provincial government with which responsibility lies. But the buck gets passed from one level of government to the next, from one the department to the next, and I hope that the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), a New Brunswicker for whom we have the greatest respect, will be able to tackle this maze of shared jurisdiction and find a way through it for us. I must say, however, that I am discouraged at the prospects for action if the present system of buck-passing goes on. The government has simply not overcome difficulties of governing a complex system, so inertia, it seems to me, is too often the end result.
October 25, 1976

I wish to say a word or two about the consultative process. Just as serious is the government's failure to provide consensus policies brought about by co-operative consultation between the private and public sectors, between government, management and labour. Instead, what we have seen is an adversary system that has submerged the common interest. Governments used to be thought to speak for the common interest. Unhappily, in recent years, this has not been the case. Professor Paul Malles, a former senior member of the staff of the Economic Council of Canada, has some interesting things to say about ways in which we can facilitate consensus policies, in a pamphlet from the Conference Board of Canada which I am sure my colleagues will want to read. I think if we were to expunge the word "problem" from our vocabulary for a year or so, Canadians would be very much better off. In any event, the good professor suggests that our federal system, our diversified geography, climate and resources, and the limited organizational base for business and labour to speak with a collective voice, are realities of our country that make the road to consensus policies very long and difficult. But he suggests a road that we have to travel.
The challenges are clear. This government, I am sorry to say, has not met them. The alternative is more divisiveness and more unilateral intervention by government. The public has increasingly rejected this alternative. If I may quote Professor Malles, he has this to say:
Canada's economic problems would be greatly eased if Canadians could somehow develop consultative arrangements that would encourage them to work together in unison, toward commonly agreed upon goals, harnessing the energies of all three of the social partners in a co-operative effort toward mutually advantageous objectives.
This consultation cannot go on if the elements of consultation continue to be hidden, where everything is marked "Secret" or "Confidential". The attitude is, "Don't let anybody see it. Be careful, the public might want to know". The trouble with this government is that they are afraid to share the decisions that have to be made for this country. Professor Malles cites consultative arrangements through institutions of consultation and negotiation between interested partners and government in Europe that are linked in one form or another to planning bodies set up by government. I believe that we must look toward similar arrangements in this country. I do not think that it is a matter of very much pride to Canada that almost every one of the western European countries have in place, and in some cases have long had in place, a much better system of management-labour consultation.
Lastly-you will be glad to know I mean "lastly," Mr. Speaker-through eons of time the oceans and remote breeding islands have sheltered and protected animals and birds which today are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the encroachments of civilization. Machias Seal Island is a challenge to part of what still remains. Such is the excitement, beauty and uniqueness of the island that it has been studied and visited by world famous naturalists, photographers and writers. The United States National Audubon Society takes
The Address-Mr. Herbert
great interest in the safety of the birds. I am delighted to tell the House that Jack and Rita Russell, the light-keepers on this island, are committed conservationists. Mary Majka, of Caledonia Mountain, New Brunswick, is a naturalist who has embellished the life of our province with her dedication. These people are anxious about the future of this and other great breeding grounds of our natural heritage. Constitutional lawyers, cartographers and other experts in the foreign service of Canada and the United States are at this very minute engaged in a long and frustrating argument about title to this 15-acre island which is 12 miles south of Grand Manan and 9 miles off the coast of Maine. Machias Seal is the outermost of the islands forming the Grand Manan archipelago.
My own modest and personal idea, as a member of parliament, gleaned from others who have thought about this question is that we forget about the national sovereignty of Machias Seal Island and use the wonderful example of the Roosevelt Campobello International Park which provided for the first time an international sharing of title to land. The United States is joint owner of the Roosevelt Campobello Park, and I suggest that this island also be declared an international bird sanctuary. I suggest-and members might have to go to their dictionaries and look this word up, as I had to do-a co-imperium for birds; in other words, that sovereignty over these 15 acres be shared by the United States and Canada. The constitutional lawyers would all have heart attacks, the cartographers would have to fold away their maps, and the birds would continue to do what they have done through eons of time-breed and lay their eggs.
The United States and the Canadian wildlife services could contract out guardianship, protection and management of the islands to the private sector, to Nature Canada, the United States audubon society, and so on. I might also mention, for the British Columbians present, that this co-imperium might be an excellent solution to the irritant on our west coast, namely, Point Roberts where Canadians occupy the territory but it is part of the United States. In any event, surely our two countries should be able to work this out together.
A nation, St. Augustine said, is an association of reasonable beings united in a peaceful sharing of the things they cherish. I believe very profoundly that it is time we spoke about the things we cherish in this country. By doing this we determine the quality of our nation. We must take great care that we know what these things are that we share, and many members who have taken part in this debate have added to the knowledge of our shared inheritance.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I intend in these remarks to discuss three subjects of particular importance in the province of Quebec. The three subjects are immigration policy, the language question, including Bill 22, and the constitution. Firstly, though, it is highly relevant to refer to the population change in the constituency of Vaudreuil between the centennial census taken in 1971 and the census taken this year, just five years later. The population is exploding, having shot up from 119,000 in 1971 to almost 136,000 in 1976. This is recognizable both in the extensive new house
424

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Herbert
building that one can see and in the new citizen statistics that are supplied to members. Areas such as Pierrefonds, Kirkland, lie Perrot, Vaudreuil, St. Lazare and Rigaud have all seen impressive residential construction. This new home building is to be augmented by- extensive development plans such as those on beautiful lie Bizard.
Talking to house builders leaves the distinct impression that the majority of the families buying these new homes are English-speaking. This impression is supported by the new citizen statistics which indicate that in the last four years 85 per cent of the new citizens in this region list English as their language. On the island of Montreal, the population increase in the Vaudreuil constituency has exceeded 17 per cent in the five-year period of 1971 to 1976. Off the island, in the land area enclosed by the Ottawa and St. Lawrence Rivers and the Ontario border, the population increase has been even greater, almost 19 per cent in five years.
There are two key points to be made from these statistics. Firstly, it appears to give the lie to the oft repeated statement that the English are moving out of the province of Quebec. Secondly, it supports the contention of the government of the province of Quebec that federal immigration policy could negate the cultural and educational programs and planning in areas which are acknowledged to be 100 per cent provincial jurisdictions. Thus, it is absolutely essential, if only for reasons of orderly planning, that the provincial government participate actively in the formation and application of immigration policy. Let me try to make a more forceful illustration of this point. The federal government has, of course, already acted to avoid such an extreme case. It would be catastrophic in its consequences to establish an immigration quota for this year of, say, 200,000 persons and then to permit them all to establish in one of the big cities with its attractive labour market and high salaries.
Whilst the importance of participation in the establishment of immigration policy is more obvious in Quebec, for language and cultural reasons, it is equally important for good economic planning. The industrial growth of the province is a key consideration if the standard of living and the general prosperity is to advance at a rate adequate to satisfy our expectations. The manufacturing sector particularly must be developed to take greater advantage of the natural resources with which this province has been blessed.
From immigration it is natural to turn to the language question. This is undoubtedly the hottest issue in the country today, for two reasons, both of which are extreme: the government is shoving French down English throats and only the separation of Quebec can guarantee the preservation of the French language and culture. First let us look at what the federal government has done, or at least has tried to do. In 1974, at the executive level of certain key departments, the French-speaking representation was still under 10 per cent. In general, very little progress has been accomplished in the use of French as a working language. The total cost of bilingualism in the public service is about $135 million. A further $30 million is allocated to national defence. It is interesting, how-

ever, to stop at this point, to compare the implementation of language policies in the Department of National Defence with the public service generally. The hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), the recently resigned minister of national defence, said:
For promotion to the rank of major and above linguistic ability in a second official language is a factor.
He then goes on to describe how the scoring system determines relative merit based on "performance and potential". Thus, linguistic ability in a second official language, whether English of French, enhances an officer's position with respect to promotion to the rank of major or above in relation to a unilingual contemporary when all other factors are equal. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South said:
The department is endeavouring to establish an Anglophone/Francophone balance of personnel in the forces corresponding to the national ratio of the two groups.
It is this approach that I have personally promoted for the public service. It is not easy for a person who has passed his or her youth to learn a second language. It becomes substantially impossible when there is a force, when French is being shoved down the unilingual English throat. The English appear not to want it, so why force them. Keep the language courses available on a volunteer basis only and recognize the ability to speak a second language as the asset that it is when candidates are being considered for promotion.
That brings me to Bill 22, and since one of the major contentious issues in this bill has concerned education I should like to make reference first to federal involvement in this field. The federal government grants between $135 million and $140 million to the provinces for their second language programs. It is assumed that for a province to organize and maintain two parallel systems of education, where the language of education in each is different, is more expensive than if it had only one system of education for all its students. We are reimbursing Quebec for the extra costs it incurs in providing for the English minority and equally sophisticated system of education as that which it provides for the majority. Although great progress has been made in this respect in other provinces such as Ontario and Manitoba, Quebec more than any other province, achieves this objective. Quebec is the only province where second official language instruction is compulsory at the secondary level for both the Francophones and the Anglophones.
The government of Quebec does its best to assure good quality education for its students. An OECD committee of experts on education reported recently that Quebec is the only province of Canada where the objectives in education seem to be clearly defined. The province of Quebec is second after Ontario for its per capita spending in education, even though Quebec is not the second richest province in Canada.
Now I will comment on Bill 22 and repeat what I said two years ago, "People in the province of Quebec can well take care of themselves without Bill 22." However, the bill was promised and has been passed. Even after the adoption of Bill 22 Quebec is still, among all Canadian provinces, the one which treats the language of the minority, on her territory, with the most equity, the most liberalism and the greatest
October 25, 1976

generosity. If the other nine provinces suddenly decided to show the same respect toward their own official language minorities we would witness a miraculous blooming across the whole country. The Montreal Gazette said:
Whatever the failings of Quebec's Bill 22, it still preserves a substantial place for English education in the province. Manitoba and Ontario should be prepared to do no less for their French minorities.
Let us examine the bill for a moment. The only real teeth in the law are in the section-empowering the government to withhold subsidies, contracts and certain other advantages from companies not favouring French. Significantly, the law provides for fines in only one section, that is, for those failing to provide French on product labels, warranties, menus and wine lists.
The law states that all official texts and documents emanating from public bodies, the provincial government, its departments and agencies, municipalities, urban communities and their various agencies such as transit commissions, school boards, colleges and universities, must be in French, but adds that these may be accompanied by an English version. In the other provinces across the country the English version prevails over the French. Every individual has the right to address all these bodies in French or English. In cases where at least 10 per cent of the persons served by a municipal or school body are English-speaking, and this is the case for at least two-thirds of those bodies in the province, both French and English must be used in official texts, if this is already the practice.
The law states that no one will be employed or promoted in the public administration unless he has an appropriate knowledge of French. There could be unilingual English public servants in Quebec, provided they were not in direct contact with the public. Remarks addressed to the chair in any area of the public administration may be in French or in English, at the option of the persons addressing the remarks. This gives English-speaking Quebeckers a right spelled out at present in no law.
In education, the law states that pupils must have a sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction, French or English, to receive their instruction in the language. The law also says that the education minister may, in accordance with the regulations, set tests to ascertain that the pupils have sufficient knowledge of the language of instruction to receive their instruction in that language. Personally, I do no believe that there should be an entrenched right to choose the language of schooling when the child is not able to speak that language. However, on a non-legislated entitlement basis I am particularly happy to see the successful immersion schooling in our constituency today. However, there has been one contentious issue that looks as if it may be nearing resolution, that is, the division that can be created in an immigrant family. A family coming to this country has not expected the right to demand French schooling in the English provinces. Nevertheless, it has been possible for a family settling in Quebec to choose to send their children to an English school, even though English was not their language. It does not make sense to divide the children and the family by legislation which was not
The Address-Mr. Baldwin
in existence when they made their decision to choose Quebec. The numbers are relatively few. Future immigrants will know the rules. A small change in the application of Bill 22 will remove this very emotionally charged and understandable issue.
Hand in hand with the discussion of immigration policy and language rights must go the discussion of jurisdictional responsibilities and our constitution. One cannot deny that the constitution was formulated and signed at a time when it would have been difficult to envisage the changes that have actually taken place since confederation. To name one aspect alone, the religious attitude, would suggest that our forefathers did not even think it necessary to contemplate and make provision for such a change.
There are extremely few in this country who are not firmly convinced that a revised constitution should be formulated and amendable in Canada. It is my personal conviction that changes in the constitution affecting immigration policy, communications responsibility and cultural sovereignty, are far from insurmountable obstacles. These are primarily emotional issues and good common sense is likely to prevail. For example, in the field of communications the federal government can hardly fail to recognize the impact of this highly-developed sector on education and culture. However, there is one acknowledged provincial area of responsibility that is looming as a major stumbling block to an agreement; that is, the effective level of control of resources. This question, probably more than all others, must be studied in its totally national context because of its major economic impact. Whether we discuss British Columbia lumber, Alberta oil, Saskatchewan minerals or Quebec hydro-electric power, it is questionable whether we can live in harmony as a nation if we are not able to recognize the national interest first. Surely no one province should be able to hold a gun to the heads of the other provinces. We are, obviously, going through a preliminary bargaining session. Advancing technology, the development of the third world, with its impact on our economy, and the good common sense of the Canadian people will surely lead our federal and ten provincial governments toward an accord. When we reach that long-awaited agreement, it is my hope that at that point in time we make the national declaration of our new and 100 per cent Canadian constitution. I am, personally, opposed to wasting any plane fare to pick up a piece of paper in England.
I will conclude by repeating an extract from last month's Observer:
One of our greatest possessions in Canada is our heritage of two peoples with two cultures and two languages. Our future and the future of our children will be immeasurably enriched if we can keep this country together; it will be deeply impoverished if we divide. We like to believe that we are a tolerant people, but we should never tolerate racial or cultural intolerance. And we would hope that Canadians might so act as to contribute to their pride in themselves and appreciation of our language and traditions.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I first express the traditional and very heartfelt congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, to those eminent persons who have

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Baldwin
occupied or reoccupied positions in the chair, and to the new cabinet ministers who might have a reasonably limited time to become accustomed to the glory that is temporarily theirs.
1 sometimes think that perhaps a speech from the throne is an anachronism, but when 1 heard that strong, honest and extraordinarily eloquent speech by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) this afternoon I thought that makes us realize that this is a good occasion for speeches of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: However, the writers of the present speech seem to have really covered the waterfront. They appear to have left out very little except a cure for the common cold and the Ten Commandments. I am informed that since October 18 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been looking at the Ten Commandments and is going to have the Privy Council make a study of them and have them made available publicly. They will probably show up, in my humble opinion, as an annex to the anti-inflation program regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All ten of them?


Gerald William Baldwin: Almost. If the items which show up in the Speech from the Throne sound vaguely familiar, they are, because they have shown up in so many other throne speeches. Inflation, unemployment, small business, competition, bilingualism, agriculture, national unity, labour relations, social assistance, transportation, federal-provincial relations and constitutional problems have, under the same or different names, been referred in such speeches for the last 100 years.
In fact, some of these problems were around on the occasion of the bringing together of the individual provinces to cause confederation. In most cases these are tough problems, conundrums which are related to the permanent characteristics of human beings as individuals and collectively as society. They will not easily yield to final solutions and are likely to be around for the next 100 years. I hope future governments will be more honest and open than the present one and will admit there are no miraculous cures but just present remedies for existing symptoms. The people seem to know this. They are pragmatic and instinctively more intelligent than their rulers. They recognize that the limitations, the accelerating distrust and the loss of faith in the manner of our governing stems from this.
It is a deep, angry and abiding aversion to the way we are ruled, rather than to acts of default, error and omission that turns the public off. It is the rigidity and over-discipline of political parties, particularly the party in power, a lack of effective rules in the House, which places the government, the cabinet and the civil service far outside the scope of meaningful public or parliamentary challenge. It is the enormous increase of delegated authority.

I have here Canada Gazette 110, number 19, with 200 pages of nothing but regulations and orders in council. This is the kind of thing which the people of this country are faced with. Above all, it is the impenetrable veil of secrecy behind which bureaucrats and ministers are able to carry on their arbitrary powers free from adequate challenge. This has progressed to the stage where there is no longer a responsible government.
This is not only my view. 1 have here the editorial of July, 1976, from "Round Table" dealing with the situation in the United Kingdom. I quote from that article at page 216. It talks about the United Kingdom, but the only difference between the U.K. and Canada is about five years. It reads:
The convention of ministerial responsibility has almost reached a point where it is but a memory with antique charm.
It is a ludicrous fiction to suggest at this point that the House of Commons can exercise any real control over the government on the principle that the members who sit in the executive council, the Privy Council, are members of the House of Commons whom their peers in the House can at any given moment eject from office. This is nonsense. It has happened twice in 50 years, and on both those occasions it was because we had a minority government and the minor party, which, for reasons best known to itself, saw fit at the time to act in this way because they said, "That is enough; we will put the government out." It was not a question of responsible government at all. Most individual members are now limited to the role of an ombudsman in respect of their own constituents or, as supporters of the party in power, waiting and scheming to come into the cabinet.
It is not an insignificant role, 1 do not downgrade it, it is a very important role; but far less than the proper concept and function that this House should have. In short, with very little real opposition from the public press or parliaments, power has slipped into the hands of the bureaucrats and whoever happens to be prime minister. They not only administer, but in most cases make policy, and I doubt if any government-certainly no government so far-has shown the capacity, the strength, the know-how or even the will to do anything about it.
There is only one place where the scales can be more nearly brought into balance, and that is on the floor of the House. If it can be done-and I am not sure that it can now-it will be only by reason of tremendous effort by members on both sides of the House. This side cannot do it alone. It will require the co-operation and the support of some hon. members on the backbenches on the other side of the House. Indeed, it may be asking too much at this time to overcome the inertia, the easy ride with the status quo and the unhappiness about having to challenge City Hall.
The major item in any package to bring this about is the right of the public to know the real truth about the actions of government and the concomitant duty of officials to disclose the facts. If anyone wants to take the time and trouble to go back over many years and review the inception of major programs in this country, either capital construction or social benefit plans, it will be found that in almost all cases they were
October 25, 1976

launched with false statements as to their initial and continuing cost and their effect.
From the refitting of the Bonaventure to the quasi-welfare proposals of the UIC of several years ago, from federal contributions to Expo to the ill-fated hydrofoil project, there has been deception or lies or appalling ignorance or gross negligence and, sometimes, a mixture of all. I can say this without doubting the intrinsic value of many of these proposals. It is incredible that supposedly intelligent and conscientious people with access to the facts and statistics should have been allowed to peddle the propaganda which they did.
In my judgment, if there had been the opportunity for public access to the factual material, the various programs would have been tailored to reality and the enormous deficits and Fiscal irresponsibility which constituted such a large element of inflation would not have occurred. If the officials and the ministers who put together these schemes had known at that time that they would be compelled by an adequate and working freedom of information law to publish the true facts, and had realized that the data would be subjected to contemporary scrutiny both in and out of parliament, it could well had been a different story.
It is an interesting sidelight that when we did find out something of the real horror stories behind many of these programs, it was as a result of the reports of the Auditor General. By the time the report came out into the open, the horses were gone, the door was locked and many years had elapsed. But bear in mind that it was only because the Auditor General had the right by law, under the pertinent provisions of the Financial Administration Act, to go to the public service and secure all the documents he desired and have access to the books of account. Without that right, the Auditor General would be in no better condition than we are, or than the public or the press. The Auditor General has his own freedom of information law and because of that, although often it is too late, we find out the facts.
I note with interest the words in the Speech from the Throne about freedom of information. They could mean anything, or nothing. If the government has in fact accepted the proposals made from this side of the House by myself and by my colleagues, and developed in the committee, and is prepared to produce a meaningful, workable, valuable freedom of information law with teeth, then I say, "More power to you. Go ahead with it." But I challenge them to do that. The members of all the opposition parties and, I believe, many members on the other side, want that kind of thing. I am authorized to say that when the Conservative party forms the government after the next election, if there is no valid freedom of information act produced by this government it will be enacted in the first session of such a Conservative administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: We have been hearing that we have no policy. I reject that. Here is a policy on a major issue which, in my opinion, is of equal importance with the other issues which
The Address-Mr. Baldwin
have been brought up. What policy does the government have?
I say that there is an opportunity for the government to let us know where they stand. I say to hon. members opposite that we are dealing with a major issue. People all over the country are aroused, and not only in this country but in other democratic countries, because of the events of the past few years. There are people all over the country, such as people from the organization called "Access" in this city.
I have travelled throughout Canada and have spoken in about 15 cities on this issue. There are large numbers of people who strongly support and demand that this measure be enacted. I say to hon. members, not as a threat but as a statement, that if it is not passed, this government is in even more serious trouble than I would otherwise expect it to be. If, as I suspect is the case, the top mandarins and one or two cabinet ministers who really run this country and flourish in the dark places of the secret society refuse to allow the parliament and the government to pass a law of this kind, then I have to say that the hon. gentlemen who form the government, this group of political dinosaurs, are really ready for the bone-yard.
Whom the Gods would destroy, they First make mad. To talk as they do in the Speech from the Throne about Finding the middle way, to suggest that there will be consultation with different groups in the country, to try to Find that way and then to deny to us, to the public and to the media, the facts and material on which we can evaluate the position of the government is like the prologue to a tragedy. People do not trust the government. They are cynical about its motives. They are fed up with being kept in the dark. That just will not wash any more. The public will live with honest disagreements. They expect that mistakes will be made. But they will no longer sit idly by and be hoodwinked by trickery and deception.
The Prime Minister and the government ought to realize that this is one of the main causes of the voters' disaffection with them, and the Prime Minister is kidding himself if he puts the blame on bilingualism and wage and price controls. The manner of governing and the way these matters were handled have touched the raw nerve of public indignation, and the details we now know make this plain beyond any reasonable doubt. The October, 1975, anti-inflation program was conceived in trickery, born in confusion and deceit and nourished on evasion, secrecy and blunders. There is no wonder that the public is unhappy.
At the time of its passage, the official languages bill was not ill-received in Canada. The anger and frustation of today has come about because it is now plain that the terms of the bill constituted a facade behind which the government had planned and had available from the beginning regulations to use abrasive and ill-judged methods of implementation, but hid the fact at the time of debate. I reject the contention of the Prime Minister and his friends that Canadians dislike the present government so intensely because they do not understand these programs. That is a gratuitous insult to the public.

The Address-Mr. Baldwin
The public understands only too well. If this government had been forthright and honest about all the details of the proposals, and if there had been public and parliamentary debate based on the truth, the situation would not have deteriorated to the present dismal state. But the trouble is that the government is congenitally incapable of being frank and open and the entire country is suffering because of it. With their track record in sensitive and potentially divisive and exceedingly difficult matters, how can the Prime Minister demand sympathetic understanding from people affected by the language policy, or expect wholehearted co-operation from trade unions, businesses and others who are whacked about by the antiinflation program?
To be viable, effective and in the public interest, a freedom of information act has certain minimum requirements, and all the countless instances of government secrecy bear me out in this. There has to be a declaration of the right of the public to access to all government documents which, with certain exceptions, include computer tapes. These exceptions must be clearly and precisely described. All applications for disclosure must be dealt with simply and expeditiously.
Finally, any refusal by the government to give the information must be appealable to an independent court or tribunal whose decision is binding on both sides, and the onus ought to be on the government to establish that the document should not be released. With that in mind, I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), after he had completed his contribution to this debate, a question with regard to a collateral issue; that is, with regard to the right of people to demand access to their own personal and private files and, if the information in those files is incorrect, to demand rectification. That may be all very well, but let us suppose that rectification is refused. Many of us know-because we have seen illustrations from our own constituents-of people who have on record about them false, improper and incorrect information. The right which the Minister of Justice spoke of in his speech today is useless. It is of no value unless there is a final resort to an independent tribunal to compel the government-or a private corporation, when we come down to that stage-to make rectification.
The minister waffled on that. He talked about a review. A review by whom? By Messrs. Michael Pitfield, Gordon Robertson and Gordon Osbaldeston? They are inestimably fine gentleman, but not the kind of people I want to have to resort to in order to challenge the actions of the government. I am reminded of one of my early days in court, as a young lawyer, when I defended a man charged with bootlegging.


Miss Begin:: It shows.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will suppress what I was going to say about the hon. lady. After this man was found guilty-most improperly, the evidence was not there-I told the JP that that could not be done and that the man was not guilty. The JP replied that it was already done. I said that I would appeal. The JP was half out of his chair, but he said, "All right, Mr. Baldwin,

I will hear your appeal right now." That is precisely the system this government wants to adopt; it wants to hear its own appeals. That is not good enough for this House and it is not good enough for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: There are other aspects of the requisition of the required elements of a freedom of information bill, but we cannot settle for less than the above. The sheer size of the civil service, both provincial and federal, makes it repugnant to our sense of fairness, justice and sound government to place in their collective hands the right, at their whim and without challenge or appeal, to remove document of public interest from the scrutiny of parliament, the public and the press.
What has been the reaction of the government so far through its spokesmen in the committees, in the House and in different parts of Canada? There are various objections, but the main bureaucratic resistance-and the government's spokesmen, acting on behalf of the bureaucracy, are making these apologies-is based on three things. The first is an unwillingness to submit to the jurisdiction of an independent tribunal. On that I have said as much as I need to say. The government feels it should have the right to have the last word and to have the final veto. I think it is unthinkable and unacceptable to leave to bureaucrats the opportunity to decide what documents in their possession should be made public. There is a refusal to produce working papers or so-called internal documents. Any exemption of this kind provides a bottomless pit into which all government data can sink out of sight. These are the kinds of objections which precipitate the leakage of documents, a demeaning and humiliating method of acquiring information.
There are some leaks that we know of. Governments leak documents purposely to try to manipulate public opinion. Sometimes people leak documents for revenge or for gain, but I am thinking of the genuine case of the civil servant, torn between conscience and the oath of secrecy, who knows that the government, in breach of factual information put before it, is ignoring facts and statistics and is going off in a direction which it thinks is more politically advisable but wrong. What is the position of the civil servant of that kind? Too often this leads to leaks. I suggest that the introduction of a proper freedom of information bill would eliminate at least 75 per cent to 80 per cent of leaks of this kind.
Finally, the third reason the government advances for refusing is that the government says our system is different. I have heard that argument advanced all over the world. I have heard it in Austria, France, Britain and Australia, and not too many years ago there was a case in the United States where some very eminent lawyers were arguing in the supreme court of the United States. They said, "We have a unique and distinctive system of government in the United States: We have the separation of powers: It is absolutely unthinkable that this material should be opened up to public survey." That was the argument made to the supreme court of the United States by the lawyers for Richard Nixon.
October 25, 1976

I have heard almost the same words repeated in this country time after time by government spokesmen. They maintain that we cannot have a freedom of information bill here, that we cannot allow an independent tribunal to make a decision on it because our system is different. This is a specious argument made by people who see themselves as Horatious standing at the bridge, defending the grounds of privilege and absolutism and the opportunities for vast patronage. This is the true reason why people on the government side are afraid to have a bill that will work.
The rights which we seek to obtain by legislation of this kind are not extravagant or improper. It was said hundreds of years ago that a people which means to govern itself must have the power that knowledge brings. It is their money that is taxed from them and spent by others; it is their property, their privileges, their well-being that is affected. Nobody, not even the Prime Minister, and probably not even the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey), acquires extraordinary gifts by being sworn into cabinet. No civil servant, no matter how high his rank or his experience, automatically obtains the mystique and the gift of divine wisdom.
There is the little story about James I speaking to the judges-a practice you will notice, Mr. Speaker, that has come down to the present day with the executive speaking to judges-that which concerns the mystery of power is not lawful to be disclosed, because to do so is to wade into the mystical reverence that belongs to who sit on the throne of God. I know there are a few of the bureaucracy who do not think they sit on the throne of God; but there are still about 10 per cent for whom the jury is still out.
Mr. Speaker, civil servants and others are subject to the frailties and faults of the rest of us. Because they are dealing with our affairs, they must be accountable to parliament on behalf of the people we represent. I recognize that the business of governing is complex and difficult and requires quick and effective action. I am not suggesting that parliament should govern. We cannot govern. That is for government. But government must exercise that authority on all occasions subject to the knowledge that they will have to account for it. The power to govern is a trust and, like any trust, there has to be an accounting. It is not enough to rely on the clumsy and blunt weapon of periodic elections, essential as they may be. This accountability has to be on a day to day, week to week and a monthly basis.
That is one side of the coin, Mr. Speaker. The other side is the right of people to have easy, simple and expeditious access to facts and information they are particularly interested in: their own files, as is suggested by the terms of the new human rights bill; data about the quality of the food they eat; the products they buy-are they safe or hazardous; information about immigration; environmental and pollution data; information about decisions of boards or tribunals that affect them; claims for social benefits; and the 1,001 things that intimately affect their lives. This will not come easily. People who wield power and great authority which others do not possess will not
The Address-Hon. D. J. MacDonald readily yield it. They will obstruct, argue and rationalize and offer specious and irrelevant excuses. This is a struggle which I suspect will be hard, tough and long, but it can provide a chance for members on both sides of the House, if they want, to bring about a renaissance of responsible government. It may be our last chance.
Mr. Speaker, we have no God-given assurance that our method of governing ourselves will be eternal. Surely no system can, or should, survive when it rests on a shifting foundation of political dishonesty and organized government lying. This applies to most democratic countries at the present time. This is the stage to which they have developed. If people understand that their representatives are unable or unwilling to look after their interests against the actions of big government, they are going to find some other way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with others in this House and pay my compliments to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They have done a commendable job and everyone in this House appreciates their efforts very much. I should also like to express my appreciation for the opportunity to speak on the debate on the Speech from the Throne.
First of all, however, I should like to make reference to the passing of a colleague, Mrs. Morin, who loved her work in this House, who was highly respected and who in the past controlled the proceedings of this House many times. I should like to offer to her family my personal condolences and those of my family.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: My responsibilities to the people of Canada, in my portfolio as Minister of Veterans Affairs, have been varied and challenging during the past months. Today I am happy to say Canadian veterans are enjoying one of the most comprehensive programs for veterans to be found in the world. There are many things that we as Canadians should be thankful for today. One of them is peace and freedom, for which we paid no small price. Another is the natural bounty of this great land of ours. Another is the quality of life we enjoy thanks to our own endeavours and accomplishments. We are fortunate, as a nation, compared to most nations of the world today. But we have largely created our own good fortune by bending our backs to the task of building something valuable and distinctive.
According to the last census, there are still nearly a million veterans living in Canada. A major portion of these are married, and many of them still have dependent children. Accordingly, we estimate there are probably nearly two million Canadian citizens who are potentially entitled to one or more benefits under the various pieces of veterans' legislation. This year, its golden anniversary year, the Royal Canadian Legion has decided to organize a very special campaign known as Operation Service. It is aimed at making contact with every

October 25, 1976
The Address-Hon. D. J. MacDonald war veteran and ex-service person and their survivors, to make sure that they are fully aware of their rights and privileges.
The veterans' charter, one of the best in the world, represents tangible recognition of Canada's debt to those who gave their services and, in some cases, their lives for their homeland. Yet, astonishingly, large numbers of ex-servicemen, and probably an even higher percentage of widows, have failed to seek the benefits to which they are entitled. This has happened despite the ongoing efforts of the Legion, other veterans' organizations and the Department of Veterans Affairs to publicize the provisions of the veterans' charter.
1 would like to tell the hon. members that today it is because of action such as Operation Service that I will continue to respect the voice of the national council of veterans' associations, and especially the Royal Canadian Legion who are always so essentially helpful to both me and my senior officials whenever we sit down to discuss matters such as benefits and hospital care for the veteran. These organizations talk sense and they talk both from the mind and the heart. My department will continue to press for changes in legislation which are in keeping with our times and with the spirit and intent of the veterans' charter. Also, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reiterate what I announced in the House of Commons on September 29-that casual earnings exemptions for more than 90,000 war veterans' allowance and civilian war allowance recipients have been increased by 50 per cent. Veterans and widows will now be able to accept additional casual employment to supplement their allowances and increase their well-being. In other words, it will give those who want to work the chance to do so.
Another important aspect to the operation of my portfolio, Mr. Speaker, is remembrance. This is the responsibility of all Canadians to those who fell in defence of our country, and it is our duty to remember and revere their sacrifice-soldiers, sailors and airmen who secured for Canada the freedom we now enjoy. I trust I have demonstrated to hon. members that my department is well aware of the obligations it has to those who so gallantly offered their services to our country in time of war. We will continue to honour those obligations. I would be remiss, Mr. Speaker, if I did not thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for the kind remarks which he expressed last Thursday.
As we start this new session of parliament I would like to take a look back at the summer months and a look ahead to what has been forecast by the Speech from the Throne. The past summer has been an extremely busy one for me and the other members of cabinet. As well as my travels to Prince Edward Island and my own constituency, it was my pleasure to travel during the summer months to Winnipeg and other parts of Manitoba, to Saskatchewan, to various parts of Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. On each of those occasions I had the opportunity to meet large groups of Canadians and discuss the situations and problems facing our country today, and wherever I travelled I found people very aware of the

effort being undertaken by the government, and very concerned that solutions should be found.
The situations which seem constantly to come to the fore are bilingualism and the economy, and I feel both are well in hand. There are criticisms of the bilingualism program and the way it is being implemented. This criticism is useful and constructive to the government, provided it is founded on reason and not on prejudice. We must never forget Canada was founded by two races of people who vowed to work together in a unique type of country where all enjoyed linguistic and cultural equality. We must not deviate from that, for if and when we succeed in having a country composed of two races enjoying truly equal rights, we shall be unique among countries of the world and will a shining example to other lands and peoples. I have a belief that this particular program is widely, almost universally, supported by Canadians on principle, and while there may be small disagreements regarding implementation, it certainly will lead to a truly bilingual society.
Another area on which discussion has centred for the past year or two is the economy. It is now just over one year since the controls programs was implemented, and to my mind it is a success. On October 14, labour held its day of protest, and to all intents and purposes it could only be described as a failure. Large numbers of union members and labour in general stayed at work because they realized their relative position had improved a great deal in one year.
The rational and thoughtful people of Canada realize we cannot go on taking more out of the economy than we are prepared, through our productivity, to put back in. All segments of society must work together to defeat inflation, and it is unfortunate that one group, big labour, feels it must confront the rest of the country and demand more than its share from business, government and, indeed, from those on limited and fixed incomes who suffer most from the ravages of inflation. It sometimes seems that these disputes centre entirely on the basis of the person's own personal needs, while no thoughts are given to the well-being of the country or to other segments of society. At times like these it would seem more sensible to me if all the participants would take a long, sober look at what is happening and governed themselves and their organizations accordingly.
The anti-inflation program is working, and working well. The economy is proceeding along the path of a moderate recovery, registering about 5 per cent growth in real terms. The recovery is being led by increases in consumer expenditure, residential housing activities and export of goods and services. Business commitment has been weak, as can be expected at this stage of the cycle in view of the fact that not all companies are yet operating at full capacity.
We know where we stand at the present time with the economy. However, we must also look to the future. Bearing that in mind, I would like to mention briefly the general philosophy of the government as expressed in the Speech from the Throne, and the plans which have been formulated for the months and years ahead. Of particular interest to those of us
October 25, 1976

in areas of high unemployment are plans to create a year-round, comprehensive, direct job-creation program directed toward areas of chronic high unemployment. Other programs will provide more job opportunities and improved employment counselling for young people. The government does not intend to compete with the private sector for the services of unemployed workers, but will create jobs in areas where its efforts will be a necessary supplement to private sector activity. As hon. members know, we have already enjoyed, in Prince Edward Island, the benefits of the community employment strategy. This new program should expand on the good work already undertaken by Manpower and Immigration.
Transportation is always an important issue on Prince Edward Island. In the Speech from the Throne the government said "changes will be introduced to the national transportation act to protect against unfair freight rates". This is a step which will fit into two areas of government policy, regional development and the competition policy. We on Prince Edward Island are very aware of the energy crisis and the problems related to our dependence on foreign energy. When he visited us last month, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) officially opened the Ark which is dedicated to the search for alternative forms of energy. In the Speech from the Throne, the government committed itself to-
-place further emphasis on research and development of renewable energy sources and on means of improving the efficiency with which energy is used in Canada, particularly the thermal efficiency of residential and commercial buildings.
Housing is another priority area of the present government. The goal of one million new house owners in the next four years remains a key element of the government's housing policy. In concert with other levels of government and the private sector, the government will work to increase the efficiency and input of Canada's total housing effort.
A while ago I mentioned regional development, a principle to which the government remains committed. This has, of course, been a dominant factor in Prince Edward Island life since the policy of regional development was undertaken. The government has, once again, outlined its commitments to small business, recognizing that these are the mainstay of Canada's economy. They continue to be our economic backbone. The government will provide measures to assist small businesses by improving access to financial assistance and other services provided by government departments.
The Speech from the Throne was an interesting and valuable document giving much reason for optimism across Canada in general and Prince Edward Island in particular. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the privilege of speaking today.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in my many years here I have not gone through a throne speech debate in which all four members from Prince Edward Island have taken part. Whether this intelligent and illustrious institution can stand such an operation, I do not know. However, it is a pleasure to follow my neighbour, colleague and friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald). It is tradition, and I do it very seriously, to congratulate the mover and the
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie seconder of this address. I know both these men well, but perhaps the seconder a little better because I also knew his father who was an illustrious member of this House.
I rejoice with all members and all Canadians in the splendid measure of recovery of His Excellency. The mover described Her Excellency as an example to all Canadian women. I would use a somewhat different expression. I think this great, devoted and brave woman is an example to all Canadians. I was filled with pride during her reading of the throne speech. Over many months her supportive role to her husband and in the performance of her own important duties has earned for her great distinction. She is a credit to the nation; one of the greatest ladies we have produced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is customary to extend one's good wishes to newly appointed or newly reshuffled cabinet ministers. This is a bit more difficult these days because one must check the morning paper every day to see who is still around. But I do wish the survivors well. In the lame-duck category in which they find themselves, they will need a plentitude of good will. I will be plenteously generous with them.
[DOT] (noo)
I am glad my old friend and fellow-islander, the Minister of Veterans Affairs is still in his post. I also hope that the move of a segment of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Charlottetown will take place while he is still minister so that we may both have an opportunity to attend the ceremonial opening.
It is hard to sort out the winners and losers in the kind of shuffle the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) engaged in a few weeks ago. But surely one victim was the man who least deserved it, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen). This distinguished maritimer, skilled debater, and splendid scholar was doing a good job as Secretary of State for External Affairs and was gaining confidence and international respect as day followed day. So he is withdrawn from the international scene, from the world of diplomacy, to what? To be the adjutant in the Prime Minister's last stand. If he were Demosthenes and Plato combined, the President of the Privy Council could not so function in this House as to make this government look good. While it might have been a noble gesture for him to know his true Grit loyalty it will, I fear, prove something less than a brilliant exercise in judgment. How cruel to expect him to avert the inevitable, to arrest the irresistible.
This government's caravan, with its cargo of disillusionment, dissension, decrepitude, and debility is on a downward course and while, from time to time, a square wheel is removed, another one is added and it is always hard to make useful salutary changes when plunging downhill. There are some who say the government is going nowhere. I disagree. I think it is headed for that well known destination described by Mackenzie King in a rare moment of candour as the "Valley of Humiliation".

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Macquarrie
The present government is passing through a phase well known to tottering administrations. I have witnessed it in my own lifetime and I have read about it in the history of Canada. The reaction is traditional: first, blame the press-and that process is certainly under way. The next is to make the same look different by indulging in some sort of cabinet shuffle, making the new look old and the old look original. The third step is to present to the people a Speech from the Throne which will offend none and attract all. Last-and this technique is, I must admit, a new one because of the development of the electronic media-spend millions of dollars on the principle that if you tell the people often enough they will eventually catch on and realize that the government is right and that they are wrong.
How futile is all of this! How many Canadians can recall today even 50 per cent of the glittering generalities contained in the Speech from the Throne-and most of them were more general than glittering? Mr. Speaker, these exercises, these tinkerings will not work, nor should they work. For as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) so rightly noted, the government is seeking not to change itself but to cajole the public into changing its perception of the government.
There is an old saying that Hell knows no fury like a woman scorned. I have not scorned a woman, but I have read this adage. And I would say that a government faces no fury like an electorate misled. What happened in St. John's West and Ottawa-Carleton is but a forerunner of what is to come. If it is too late to say repent, at least I can say "beware". And when the change does come it will not be because of any great difference in ideology or because the country is moving to the left, or to the right-I do not think those terms are very meaningful in Canada. It will be because the people are sick and tired of being poorly governed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: How long has it been since this great, prosperous and wonderful nation has had an efficient government in charge of its affairs? That is what the people are wanting. They are crying out for good administration. But, Mr. Speaker, you know my temperament. You know I do not want to indulge long in criticism, even of the gentlest variety. Being a man of great solace and solicitude, I know there is pain and anxiety across the way. I remember when I sat across the way and the omens were pretty clear; it was not kind to predict what we all knew, in our hearts, was going to happen.
On a much more positive note I would like to say how moved I was to hear the many tributes from all parties in the House and from Mr. Speaker which were tendered to the Hon. John Angus MacLean, then member for Malpeque and, prior to that, member for Queens-one of the last two dual ridings in Canada. For 11 years Mr. MacLean and I jointly represented the people of Queens which contains the City of Charlottetown, the cradle of confederation. A man of honour, wisdom, and ability he was a great colleague and I treasure the opportunity given me to serve as his running mate. I salute him as a friend and political comrade of nearly 20 years standing.

The relatively long recess allowed me the happy opportunity of spending a good many consecutive weeks in my home province-than which there is none more beautiful. Prince Edward Island, like the Atlantic region generally, is particularly sensitive to the dominion government's actions and non-actions.
During the last session I cautioned the then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development against the imposition of fees in the Prince Edward Island National Park. This past summer has shown a striking decrease in visitors to the park. It has also placed heavy pressure on areas adjoining the park. I need hardly say that this makes for a serious environmental problem and increases the strain on the resources of the province and of its government. I am interested in the full story of last summer. How will the cost of establishing toll gates compare with the revenue intake from a reduced number of visitors?
Other members have discussed the gravity of the transportation situation, especially, but not exclusively, as it affects Atlantic Canada. The user-pay policy is as iniquitous as it is against the spirit of Canadian federalism. As my colleague, Mr. MacLean, once said in Charlottetown, the people of P.E.I. have learned that "Otto Lang" is two four letter words!
The whole great nation-building exercise which began in Charlottetown in 1864 was designed to do many things. One of the first was to share the inequalities and to make an effort to redress the imbalances of the extremities of the new dominion, with special provisions written into the original document to compensate for the special needs of certain areas. Almost immediately after the dominion was formed, further special arrangements, subsidies and the like, were provided for. I do not accept the suggestion of certain ministers that you must have policies that are universally applied all across the country. We have had it otherwise since 1867.
Since I am talking about our country's early days and its founding fathers, I should like to make one more plea for a little historical accuracy in today's constitutional discussions and posturings. It has now become popular to use the word "patriation". I suspect that this was the inspiration of some of the brains trust in the Prime Minister's office; I cannot imagine it coming from anywhere else.
Purists might shrink from either word, but if we must use this expression it should be "repatriation". Despite its name, one quite appropriate for the time, the British North America Act is the product not of British but of Canadian statescraft. It was made in Canada by Canadian leaders for the governance of a new Canadian state. As John A. Macdonald said, most of the decisions were made in Charlottetown, a city which I have the honour to represent.
I see the Minister of Veterans Affairs is not here now, but I must say I agreed completely with what he said about the principles of bilingualism. However, I know he will be pleased to recall, as I was, the historic note that among the fathers of confederation French was not the tongue of the majority. Nor
October 25, 1976

was English. The mother tongue of the majority of these illustrious men was Gaelic, as it was of the ancestors of the Minister of Veterans Affairs and myself.
It is demeaning of the work of our founding fathers not to suggest that we are bringing home the constitution, where it was worked out by political men in political discussion in the finest exercise of political statecraft. So let it be "repatriation", if, Sir, you will pardon the reiteration.
Historically, governments have seen the need to make special arrangements for special needs and circumstances. The iron clad, rigid, universalist approach of ministers which has been revealed in recent years does not deal with a nation's basic need. It does not help hold the country together.
Apart from transportation, reference has been made by colleagues of mine to a very grave problem, the high electricity costs in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. On the "late show" last week, to a tremendous audience, I gave specific details of this problem and I know that the appropriate minister- because he was present-will be working on the matter. However, I must renew my plea to deal urgently with an urgent problem.
The answer, of course, in the long run is development of the Fundy tides, but a measure of assistance should be extended by way of a temporary subsidy to deal with a temporary but grave situation. In Prince Edward Island I am proud that steps have been taken by enterprising people in the field of technology to produce wind powered energy, but because of the imposition of stiff taxes on component parts it is difficult for islanders or other Canadians to convert to this form of energy. At a time when one minister is suggesting to Canadian to watch the use of depleting but popular forms of energy and to move to something else, you will find that minister's colleagues, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), making it difficult, through their interpretation of legislation and the legislation they present, for people to convert to this very obvious, useful and I think timely form of energy production. I ask for consistency in this regard as in others.
Since I know there are many great orators waiting to follow me and, since I usually do not take all the time that is allotted, may I finally make the plea, as I and my colleagues have done so many times, that on the matter of dealing with regional economic disparity let all members of the government be on the same course. There is no use in one minister who heads the Department of Regional Economic Expansion trying-and I believe most ministers have tried-to conquer this great problem in confederation, this grave disparity, inequity and inequality, if all his other colleagues in the government pay absolutely no attention to such a concept.
Recently my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), and the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates) dealt with this problem powerfully and well and I support every argument that they made. It is a sham, a mockery, to talk about fighting regional disparity, as the Minister of Veterans Affairs has done, unless the whole gov-
The Address-Mr. Francis
ernment is geared in that direction. It ill suffices to have one minister dealing with the matter within a limited range of initiative if his colleagues do not grasp this central truth, that this country is not prosperous if any of its segments or regions are not partaking of the general prosperity and development.
It is shocking in the Atlantic region and in certain other regions to see that the gulf, instead of narrowing, is widening. There are lots of reasons for conflict within confederation. They are not all over culture, language, and political labels. They are over the lack of fairness, the lack of the use of governmental machinery to distribute the wealth of the nation to all its people. That surely is what a dominion government is for. That surely is the challenge to those in power in a dominion government. That is what I ask, that is what I urge, and that is what I put forward as one of the great priorities, not for my region alone but for the whole country. There will then be in this land a degree of equity and regional equality, and our citizens will not suffer if they do not live in a province that has great mineral wealth or other attributes of great economic success. If this message and it alone can get through, something will have been accomplished in all these long years of pleading, arguing, and trying to give a helpful direction to a sometimes helpless government.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: First, Mr. Speaker, may I join those who have congratulated the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I might say to the seconder that I too served in the House with his father. I had a very great affection and high regard for him, and I am sure that the son will do equally as well, if not better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Along with those who have expressed their deep sorrow at the loss of Madame Morin, may I also express my sorrow. I do not believe there is a single member of the House who did not regard her with the very greatest affection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: On October 10, 1974, a little over two years ago, I participated in the previous debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I have taken the trouble to look back at what I had to say then and it seems to me that these subjects were of interest. There was the problem of amending the law concerning the Public Service Staff Relations Act. The Finkelman report had been laid before us a few months previously, and subsequently a committee of this place and the other place laboured at some length and produced a report. I understand there was reference in the Speech from the Throne to having legislation placed before this House before very long. I welcome it, Mr. Speaker, but it is long overdue.
At that time I also mentioned problems of the National Capital Commission, as did other hon. members. A joint committee of the other place and this House is reviewing these matters. I note that the position of chairman of that particular

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Francis
commission has been vacant for some four months. I hope the government will move promptly to name a replacement.
There was also in my speech an earnest plea for the creation of a ministry of the public service. In no respect have I changed my views. I hope that the government will see fit to reconsider and give some recognition to my suggestion.
I also spoke about bilingualism. At that time I was concerned about complaints I was receiving about public servants who had been moved from Ottawa to Hull and the application of Bill 22 to them. I no longer hear that kind of complaint; I hope this is a good sign. However, the policy of bilingualism in the public service of Canada is in need of drastic review. I welcome references on the subject in the Speech from the Throne and look forward to the presentation of measures in the period ahead.
The Commissioner of Official Languages has told us what a good thing it is to have our youth educated in schools in the two official languages, instead of spending much greater sums of money on an adult education program. Again, I welcome references to this topic in the Speech from the Throne. At the risk of being tedious I suggest that some of us brought forward such suggestions sometime previously. Our suggestions were not as welcome, at least not welcome in the way similar suggestions emanating from the language commissioner and others are welcome today.
I hope there will be a major expansion of grants for second language training in Canada. This of course will involve consultation with the provinces, because education is a provincial matter. The federal government will want to make sure that its funds are actually spent for the purpose.
This past summer a report was brought down concerning language teaching in the public service. The Bibeau Report on language training had some refreshing things to say, and I pay tribute to Professor Bibeau for an honest job. He said that too many positions have been designated as bilingual without regard to the actual need to use a second language. Many such positions should not have been designated as bilingual. This has been especially true in the national capital region. In particular, the requirement that every supervisor of two or more persons in the national capital should be bilingual was extreme and unnecessary and should be removed.
I am sure that hon. members on the other side of the House will contend that the application of bilingual policies in the public service was a factor in the recent by-election in the Ottawa-Carleton constituency.


An hon. Member:: They hated the government.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Well, there is no doubt that the voters intended to convey a message, and there is no concealment of that fact. A victory of 11,000 votes two years ago was turned into a defeat by 16,000 votes in October, 1976. What were the voters saying? That is the question.
Let us put aside the campaign for a moment. I believe that a large number of faithful supporters of the party were turned off from the day of the nominating convention. I believe that

the successful candidate at that convention was not adequately briefed about the implications of the language policy in the public service. He was not made aware of the deep distrust which many voters in this area feel, not only with regard to the application of the policy but with regard to the government's intentions concerning the policy.
In many ways the National Capital Commission region, 40 per cent of its population being Francophone, is a microcosm of Canada. National issues are often sensed here before they are sensed in other parts of Canada.
The credibility of the Liberal party is at stake. Just what does our party stand for in the application of bilingual policies? For that matter, what do the opposition parties stand for, because they have given us no indication in this debate or any other debate of what they would do if they were in power- and this applies to the NDP as well as to the official opposition.


An hon. Member:: Better start reading, Lloyd.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Speaking to the Liberal party in Toronto recently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) faced squarely the implications of what the Gallup poll has been saying about my party. We all know what the implications will be for our country if my party is reduced to one representing French Canada, with a handfull of seats outside French Canada, and if the Conservative party is to represent English-speaking Canada, with a small number of seats in French Canada. We know what the implications will be for our country, and we should all let that knowledge weigh on our consciences. The Prime Minister threw out a challenge to our rank and file. He said that if, recognizing the grave threat to national unity, we were to sit back and allow this to happen, Canada would be destroyed and we would feel guilty for the rest of our lives.
Speaking in this debate the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said that there was a heavy responsibility on English-speaking ministers to explain the government's policies. Many have said that the solution is to hire better communicators. Mr. Speaker, it is not just a problem of communication; it is not just a problem of the rank and file, the "grassroots", to use an expression I do not like, doing its job. It is not just a question of English-speaking or French-speaking ministers doing their jobs. There is, I submit, an even deeper malaise in our party.
The President of the Treasury Board also said something about throne speech debates: they come from the heart, without restriction on subject matter.

I intend to speak about three speeches delivered by government backbenchers; I am referring to the members for Matane (Mr. De Bane), Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal) and Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). First I would like to point out that within the Liberal party, there are two different standards. When a French-speaking government member criticizes the policy of the government-he is free to do so-nobody objects. But when an English-speaking member dares criticize
October 25, 1976

the bilingual policy, some people say: He is against bilingualism, he is against Quebecers and French-speaking people, he is even supposed to be narrow-minded. With this attitude, he will remain a backbencher for a long time. That is true, Mr. Speaker.

I now return to the speeches to which I referred. In many ways they are different; but in many ways they are appallingly alike. They all speak of ancient wrongs. Some of them go back centuries. They demand immediate measures to rectify ancient wrongs. Not one of the three referred to Bill 22, or to the efforts of people such as the former hon. member for Lange-lier, (Mr. Marchand), or to the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) to tell Mr. Bourassa that our efforts to sell bilingualism outside Quebec are seriously impaired by his repression of minority language rights within Quebec. 1 am told that at least two of these there have spoken on other occasions against Bill 22. Careful reading of their speeches leaves me under the impression that all three really accept the bill. They feel that Quebecers have somehow failed to communicate Bill 22's true meaning to English-speaking Canada. Perhaps they too should hire better communicators.
What truly frightens me is the use of statistics by both the hon. member for Matane and the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont. By picking and choosing this department and that department they draw highly inflammatory conclusions. They both refer to the percentages of Francophones in senior management posts in the public service, and infer that no progress has been made in advancing the careers of Francophones. They nowhere refer to the fact that while the percentage of Francophones across Canada is 27 per cent, the percentage of Francophones in the entire public service is over 27 per cent. They nowhere refer to the fact that of 1,122 university graduates hired in 1975-out of whose ranks future managers are likely to be recruited-no fewer than 333 were Francophones, or nearly 30 per cent. There is no mention of the distinct progress made in the over-all levels of management within the last three years-something like 18.5 per cent, according to Public Service Commission statistics, for Francophones in management categories. That figure has gone up to 20.6 per cent.
Distinct progress is being made. But, if one were to read their speeches one would gather there has been an absolutely dismal denial of opportunity to Francophones in the public service. When they pick out this department and that department they do not mention the Secretary of State's Department, for example, the House of Commons staff, or the mint, all of which have high percentages of Francophones at all levels. Indeed, when some activities of the Mint were moved to Winnipeg, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) insisted on a quota of at least one third Francophones for all posts.
When, however, 400 positions in the same Department of Supply and Services were moved to Matane we could well ask
The Address-Mr. Francis
what guarantees if any were provided for Anglophones? The hon. member for Matane cited statistics presumably from the Bibeau Report to the effect that Francophones are not permitted to work in French. A very important part of the answer to that problem is the creation of units working in French. [Translation]
The government clearly intends to set up units to encourage French-speaking civil servants to work in their mother tongue. However, if the government intends to pay bonuses for bilingualism, we must consider the results. For example, will those working in French-speaking units receive bonuses for bilingualism? Evidently not.

Let us just think of what the effect of a policy of bilingual bonuses is. Are we going to pay the people who take their training at government expense for that very modest achievement in bilingualism to which Mr. Bibeau referred? Are we going to say that everybody in a designated position will get a bonus for speaking two languages when it has been very clear that a large number of the designated positions do not use two languages? How can the hon. member for Matane and the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont suggest that the government immediately take measures for bilingual bonuses and then complain that the government does not undertake policies to encourage the greater use of French? French language units are the means by which there is a direct encouragement of French language work in the public service, and one policy works against the other.
In fairness to the hon. member for Matane he implies that he does not really believe in the policy of national bilingualism. He refers to a two-nation solution. On page 351 of Hansard of October 21 he is quoted as follows:
That is one of the reasons why I think the concept of a bilingual Canada is a faulty political solution to the cultural problems that must be posed in different terms. An analysis of the destiny of French Canada and English Canada in North America and their quest for identity Finally always boils down to two national communities with close historical links pursuing their future in an independent way.
I would like to know how many members on this side of the House agree with these views. I, for one, do not.
The hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont was responding to statements made by the former minister of national defence giving his views on entrenching language rights in the constitution. The member's emotional response in the light of the dreadful historical background of Manitoba is understandable. He and others, however, come dangerously close to a doctrine that the rest of us are guilty of heinous crimes by reason of our ancestry. There is no conceivable way by which I, or any other living Canadian, can atone for the sins of the Peace of Paris, General Murray, Lord Durham, or the government of Manitoba in 1890.
What I am prepared to do, and what others are, I am sure, prepared to do, is look at today's situation in a fresh light and to try to do what is fair and just, with full respect for human rights and cultural values. The argument of "cent ans d'injus-tice" simply proves too much. It can be, and has been conjured

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Francis
up to say, that because of the terrible wrongs of the past, other wrongs are justified today. Can't we rise above this level and just once try to forget the past?
I want to say that I am not impressed by the argument of the former minister of national defence, and I have read his statement very carefully. I for one am quite prepared to discuss and consider entrenchment of language rights in the constitution, but on a basis of full equality for the English language minority in Quebec as well as for the French language minority outside Quebec.
My colleague from Ottawa-Vanier refers to the million French-speaking Canadians living outside Quebec. He argues that they are in constant danger of assimilation, that their pre-eminent status in relation to other minorities has not been sufficiently recognized, and demands special programs on their behalf. Indeed, he goes much further. At page 286 of Hansard of October 20 he is quoted as saying:
And so it is that the French-speaking minority in Canada, whether implicitly or explicitly, demands a special kind of protection, greater than that of official equality, in order to defend itself against the risk of anglicization ...
What are the limits of "a special kind of protection, greater than that of official equality"? It seems to me that demands on this basis are capable of being escalated indefinitely. It is this aspect of vague, escalating and never-ending demands that has irritated many Canadians, particularly those whose origins are neither English nor French.
In the city of Ottawa and in this region we have made very substantial gains in protecting the rights of the French minority. I welcome in my own constituency the Ecole Champlain. I welcome a French language secondary school and regret that it was not established many years before. We have made progress; we have done things. A speech which does not give due recognition to the fact that there is some good will and good faith on behalf of a majority in the community is a disservice to those on whose behalf the hon. member presumes to speak.
I am coming to the end of my speech, but I wish to make one further point. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the so-called Laurendeau-Dunton Commission, grappled at length with these problems. At the time I did not appreciate the contribution which they made, but I hereby wish to pay my tribute to them. The solution was that Canada should be a bilingual and multicultural nation. To me, Mr. Speaker, it makes a lot of sense.
Each of the three speakers to whom I referred made numerous references to Canada's "bicultural" character. I really wonder if any one of them has accepted multiculturalism, despite some references to it. Their references on careful reading are not sympathetic to multiculturalism. This is a great pity. The new Canadian communities are not likely to be attracted to the French language if they are not made welcome, and the record of Bill 22 in denying them the basic human right to choose one official language of Canada for their children is deplorable.
I for one would have liked the Prime Minister to have named a special minister of the cabinet with an exclusive

responsibility for multiculturalism. In saying this I mean no disrespect for the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) who is a very much overworked man with a large range of duties.
I am concerned that there is an obligation on our party to define just what we mean by our bilingualism policy. There is an equal obligation on parties on the other side of the House.
I think certain questions must be answered. Do the speeches coming from a number of Liberal backbenchers actually represent policy of the government of the day? I do not think they do. But the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), speaking in this House, cited two of the speeches with approval. He did not in any way criticize them although he certainly gave a pretty sharp blast to the former minister of national defence.
In the present atmosphere the tone of the speeches has contributed to a serious deterioration in relationships between English language and French language communities. The doctrine of guilt by ancestry is a terribly dangerous one to espouse.
The suggestion that the Francophone minorities want something more than official equality is, I submit, something which will take a lot of explaining and a lot of professional communicators to have accepted in this country.
The doctrine of bilingual bonuses in the public service will create a great deal of difficulty in the light of the excessive designation of bilingual positions. There is the need to encourage units working in French and the fact that so many people learn their second language at government expense. It will be difficult to persuade others who did not learn a second language at government expense that those who went to expensive language training schools should also be paid extra bonuses for having succeeded in their modest degree of bilingualism in the courses.
I think the hon. members of this House are entitled to ask the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and those who speak for the government, when the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont said as recorded at page 132 of Hansard on October 20 this year that the resolutions on official bilingualism should be amended so that only persons who are bilingual at the time of appointment can succeed to designated positions in the public service, whether or not this is government policy.
I think there is an obligation on the Secretary of State to make this clear. The Secretary of State presumably read this speech to see whether or not this is government policy. If hon. members want to know why there is concern, confusion, and discontent in the public service, they only have to look at this kind of speech.
There are many reasons why the voters in the by-elections on October 18 expressed their displeasure. In part it was a general frustration after 13 years of government by one party, in part the concern about decentralization, about the immense complications of collective bargaining. But I think fundamental to the issue in the Ottawa area is a grave concern about where we are going and what we are doing in the field of language policy. We are entitled to more than platitudes. I
October 25, 1976

hope that in the period ahead government spokesmen will issue clarifications of the government's position which will assist all of us in defending a policy which I believe is essential.
I believe in bilingualism in the public service across Canada.
1 believe in the rights of Francophone minorities across Canada and of Anglophone minorities in Quebec. I believe in the measures that have to be taken under the constitution for the protection and achievement of these goals, but I believe we have heard in this debate in the House a number of extreme positions that have done nothing to set the record straight.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, in taking this opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne I should like to commend the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance). I would also like to say how pleased I was to hear the Governor General read part of the Speech from the Throne. I commend him on his recovery and I wish to pay a special tribute to Her Excellency, Madam Leger, for the excellent job that she did and for the clear and articulate way in which she read the major portion of the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to point out as an aside, Mr. Speaker, that for us commoners who, of course, are only allowed to stand at the bar in the other place and hear the Speech from the Throne- and some of us are reasonably interested in the contents-it was very difficult to hear it, apart from Mr. Speaker himself and some of the staff, because of the constant noise that was going on. I hope that in the future when the Speech from the Throne is read those hon. members who wish to visit back and forth will refrain from doing so and will stay in their own rooms, or in the Chamber here, so that all this noise can be avoided. To my mind this is a discourtesy to the Governor General and, in this case, to Madam Leger.
It becomes more difficult with every throne speech that this government delivers for those of us in the opposition to respond. It is virtually impossible to respond in specific terms to a throne speech that is simply a mishmash of generalities and theories. I suppose that there is some purpose in this kind of approach to legislation, however. If and when any bills flow directly from the throne speech, no one will be able to tell whether or not they represent the views expressed in the speech. I do not imagine it makes any difference though, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been trying for a very long time to walk down both sides of the street at the same time.
That would be a difficult thing to do, even in the best of times, but it must be especially trying at a time when the Prime Minister is looking over his shoulder to see which of his cabinet ministers is packing his bags. It seems to me that someone could set up a lucrative business ghost-writing letters of resignation for Liberal cabinet ministers. And, since it would not require any more training, that same person could even draw up some new Liberal economic policies. Just as in the case of the resignation letters, the dates could be typed in later.
The Address-Mr. Darling
I could learn to live with these zero content throne speeches and budgets-and in fact we have had to learn to live with them because that is all we have been getting over the past eight years-but I become pretty concerned when I hear the Prime Minister propose two conflicting solutions to a serious problem, usually within the space of a day, or an hour in some cases.
His answers to questions about the future of the anti-inflation program are a good case in point. On the one hand the Prime Minister butters up labour, management, and all the rest of us by saying that economic controls could very well be lifted well in advance of the target date of December of next year. Then, almost in the same breath, he says that we might have to get used to the idea of controls well beyond the cut-off date. The Prime Minister says that controls could become a fact of life into the distant future, and in fact he has stated that some form of control over our economy could become a permanent aspect of our society.
While the Prime Minister might think that that is the easy way out of a tight corner, to try to confuse us by showing both sides of the coin at the same time is simply ludicrous, Mr. Speaker. All you have to do to get the Prime Minister talking out of both sides of his mouth is to ask what we can expect in the way of post-control economic policy. What comes out is a real side-show, with the Prime Minister in the role of Edgar Bergen, and the Finance Minister (Mr. Macdonald) in the role of Charlie McCarthy. When I buy tickets to a side-show, I do so in the full knowledge that I am going to be entertained. But when I ask a serious question about a very serious matter affecting our country, I do not want to be entertained; I want to be informed. I want a straight answer. Anybody can answer a question by saying that it will either be this or it will be that.
When I think of the Prime Minister's dexterity in answering questions I am reminded of a story circulating at the present time about U.S. presidential candidate Jimmy Carter. Apparently Carter has acquired some of the Prime Minister's expertise in fielding questions. Carter likes to compare himself to past figures in U.S. history who have acquired fame. It seems that when Carter was a little boy his father came into the House one day and said, "Somebody has been snipping off the tops of the peanut plants, and I have to ask you-did you do it?" Carter replied, "I cannot tell a lie, father; maybe I did, and maybe I didn't".
Another example of the Prime Minister's tightrope act concerns the controversial bilingualism program, a program that was supposedly designed to unify the country but has instead become the most divisive policy ever inflicted on our country by any government in our history. The Prime Minister has been saying lately that the government is planning measures to modify or soften the impact of the bilingualism program. And yet, only two days after the throne speech, one of the most respected members of the cabinet resigned because the Prime Minister is committed to an entirely different approach to bilingualism.
The Prime Minister is committed to the formula whereby French is to be enshrined in the constitution on an equal if not

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Darling
superior footing with English, with Quebec having a veto over any future proposed amendments to the constitution affecting language or cultural rights. This would give Quebec effective control over the constitution in perpetuity, tying the hands of all elected governments into the future. We now know beyond a shadow of a doubt why the Prime Minister is so anxious to patriate our constitution that he would consider acting unilaterally to get it over here and under his control. I am deeply concerned about what he could do with the constitution, considering that he has a passive and acquiescent majority in this House.
I fear for the future of our country, Mr. Speaker. I have to say that the government's misrepresentation of the true purpose of the bilingualism program has been underscored by the resignation of the minister of national defence and by the statement that the minister gave to the press outlining his reasons for leaving the cabinet. The minister pointed out, among other things, that the government's bilingualism program has been a failure, and that it would be a serious mistake to entrench French language rights in the constitution and give Quebec a one province veto over future amendments to our constitution. My own view is that, as much as I would like to see the British North America Act here in Canada, I would rather leave it in Britain for a while longer than risk the dangers inherent in having it brought to Canada only to serve as the personal political instrument of the present Prime Minister and the premier of Quebec.
There is another example of double-talk in the throne speech, Mr. Speaker, that I would like to comment on. This is not the only example of double-talk in the speech; in fact this document is filled with them. I refer to the statement on immigration policy, to wit:
You will be asked to consider amendments to the Immigration Act, designed to promote Canada's regional and urban development goals, promote family unity, achieve a balance between immigration levels and employment opportunities, and preserve Canada's reputation as an open, tolerant society which welcomes the energy and diversity of people from all parts of the world.
That is a very high sounding and impressive phrase, but I would call it mere puffery. There is no explanation in the speech as to what this particular phrase means, any more than there are explanations elsewhere in the speech for other such phrases. All we can assume from this is that a silly statement uttered some time ago by the former minister of manpower and immigration did indeed represent government policy.
The minister suggested that we might have to consider ways to compel immigrants to settle in rural and even remote areas of the country as a condition of being allowed to come to Canada. We are told that this would greatly reduce the flow of immigrants to our cities, help populate rural areas and even the less desirable areas of the northern regions. How the government could possibly connect this policy with the high-flown phrase "open and tolerant society" we will probably never know. Telling people where they can or cannot live is certainly not my idea of tolerance or openness. It brings to my mind the countries of eastern Europe, and it would be a very

serious mistake to allow this government or any other Canadian government to have the power to decide where our people can or cannot live.
If that is to be a part of the future immigration policy of Canada, perhaps it is time for us to ask ourselves some serious questions about where we are going. If we give our government the power to force immigrants to live in certain specified towns, areas or regions, that same power can be brought to bear on Canadians already living in the country. If anybody doubts this, I ask him to consider the stupid and tragic situation in Montreal and other parts of Quebec with regard to the issue of education. The new law regarding what language the children of immigrant families in Quebec can be educated in reflects the thinking of the Communist countries of Europe, and I doubt very seriously that any of the thousands of Italian immigrants in Montreal write to their friends and relatives about the open and tolerant situation in Quebec.
That reference to family unity in the statement on immigration policy has me puzzled, but I suppose it was just thrown in to give the statement a nice homey touch.
Speaking of homey touches, let us consider the way the government tried to squirm out of the commitment it made to the provinces back in 1969 to share the cost of provincial medicare programs. I do not have to remind hon. members about what a shock it was when the Prime Minister caused a bill to be introduced in this House earlier this year which would allow the federal government to dishonour that commitment. In the federal-provincial first ministers' conference held in Ottawa in the first week of June of this year the Prime Minister said that this was the dawn of a new era in federal-provincial fiscal co-operation. What a farce! It was the dawn of a new era of federal government cop-outs.
In the throne speech we are told that extensive discussions between the federal government and the provinces have resulted in a new framework for the sharing of costs and for making social service programs more responsive. The plain fact is that the provinces have been left holding the bag, and the federal government is concentrating in areas in which it can extend federal control over programs which rightfully belong under provincial jurisdiction.
The public treasury is thus being used to extend federal control without at the same time resulting in an improvement in the level of services. I believe that the government plans to bludgeon the provinces into accepting a universal, federally controlled and financed medicare scheme, and possibly a universal hospitalization plan, and I have no doubt that that is the real significance of the small paragraph in the throne speech dealing with this matter.
There is a veiled reference to the intention of the government to seek extension of the Canada Pension Plan to involve housewives, but no clear commitment. I hope we will soon hear of some concrete steps being taken in this direction. I am a firm believer in the need for and the justice of extending old age security benefits to widows and spinsters from age 60, with a means test, and for including housewives in the Canada Pension Plan. In too many cases these people are forced to

turn to welfare programs to see them through those difficult years until they qualify for the old age pension. This is downgrading, and it is poor economics.
By simply extending the universality of the old age pension plan, we would remove a load from the shoulders of municipal agencies whose primary function is to serve the short term needs of the disadvantaged. That function does not at the present time fall within the sphere of operations of other agencies.
Hon. members will note that I specifically mentioned spinsters and widows and not male persons. I did so because I feel that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) might be willing to go one step further, and I am quite sure that if legislation to this effect were brought in, it would certainly be welcomed by the great majority of Canadians.
As a small businessman of some years standing I have a particular interest in this type of economic activity. I do not require the services or the assistance of a government agency at this point as far as my own business is concerned because, when I last checked, it was being operated reasonably well. Some people tell me that it is being operated even better than when I operated it. It is operated by my two sons, and it is quite a prosperous business. However, there are thousands of small businesses in Canada today which could do with some assistance by way of low or fixed interest loans, preferably from a government agency or a government sponsored private lending institution.
As other hon. members have said about this particular subject, small businesses in Canada are our largest single employer, and if we are going to be really serious about tackling the unemployment problem in a meaningful way then we have to tie our efforts in with Manpower. I am one of those who at times has taken great exception to the unemployment insurance rip-offs in the past, and I still keep a sharp eye on the unemployment figures and also UIC payouts. However, I firmly believe that the average Canadian would rather work than collect UIC benefits, and since it is the government which must find jobs for these people I suggest we start looking in the right direction, and the sooner the better.
We can start by easing the pressure on those who are already employing people. We are burdening small and medium size businesses with excessive paper work and regulations. The additional paper work inflicted on businesses by the Anti-Inflation Board has been the straw which broke the camel's back in many cases. That is not only poor economy; it is also stupidity. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Address-Mr. Darling
Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, prior to six o'clock I was pleading the case for the small businessmen across Canada and pointing out how necessary it is that we give serious consideration to providing every kind of help, financial and in other ways, to this very important part of our economy.
In the United States assistance to small businessmen is much superior to what we offer in Canada. The essence of the Canadian economic system of private enterprise is free competition. Only through full and free competition can free markets, free entry into business, and opportunities for the expression of growth and personal initiative and individual judgment be assured. The preservation and expansion of such competition is basic not only to the economic well-being but to the security of this nation. Such security and well-being cannot be realized unless the actual and potential capacity of small business is encouraged and developed. It is the declared policy of this party that the government should aid, counsel, and protect in so far as is possible, the interests of small business concerns in order to preserve free and competitive enterprise.
We should have an act in many ways following the American small business act which is utilized to assist in the establishment, preservation, and strengthening of small business concerns. This would improve the managerial skills employed in such enterprises, with special attention given to small business concerns located in all rural areas where there are high numbers of unemployed or people on low incomes, or to concerns which are owned by low income individuals. Private as well as public managerial skills and resources should be mobilized in order to reach these objectives.
In Canada at the present time we have the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the federal Business Development Bank, and the General Assistance Adjustment Board under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. One plan which supplies working capital for small business is the general assistance plan which advances loans. This is restricted to manufacturers who have been threatened by foreign imports, however.
I feel we should aid small businessmen not only to get money for equipment so that they can expand but to obtain working capital. They should be allowed an opportunity to get off the ground, that is, they should not have to pay back the principle or interest for the first couple of years so that they may generate some cash flow.
The interest charged the businessman should be 1 per cent over prime for the bank and 1 per cent for the agency which guarantees the loan. At the present time the maximum loan is $25,000. This is a joke, Mr. Speaker. In the United States the maximum is $100,000. With the way costs are today it might be feasible to go higher than this, and in certain cases as high as $300,000. In the Small Businesses Loans Act, 1970 revised statutes, chapter 10 sets the limits on the total assets of a borrower at about $50,000, which is ridiculous.
The relevant act in the United States provides much needed and excellent services for the borrower such as managerial training and feasibility studies. Feasibility and market studies enable a businessman to know where he can sell his product

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Darling
and also whether it is a viable enterprise. He is also given information which will probably enable him to avoid possible pitfalls and errors of which he may not be aware. The United States government has provided a fund of $6 billion for this project for the small businessman.
Our chartered banks should be induced to provide more risk capital for small businesses, say up to $500,000. Banks should be willing to accept security on a much lower basis, say one to three, rather than as in some cases at present, two to one in their favour. Expansion of our Canadian banking system will not improve until banks are influenced to make the types of loans which are available in the United States.
I have had many letters, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure have many of my colleagues, from frustrated businessmen who want to know how they can qualify for the so-called small business loan at a preferred rate of interest. I have a file here and I could read off the names of businessmen who want to expand and are unable to do so. I have figures provided by the Minister of Finance which show that his department has made loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act to the end of June this year of $5 million. That may seem like a great deal of money, Mr. Speaker, but it probably means no more than 200 or 250 loans. Spread across Canada, that is not very much.
In the past couple of weeks I have had requests from businessmen who want to expand their operations. They qualify for loans, having the proper assets and so on. They were not able to get these loans at the preferred rate. The reason they were given was that their credit rating was too good. The bank stated that these loans were for those whose credit was not as good. I am sure the bank would not even recommend a loan to a businessman or prospective businessman if there was not a possibility of it being repaid.
These people were finally able to negotiate with the banks in their home towns, but at a higher rate. I believe the so-called small business loan interest rate is lOVi per cent. One man was able to negotiate a loan at 11 'A per cent, and another at 12 per cent.
I wrote to the Minister of Finance last week as well as to the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Marchand) asking what the new plan will be and whether the government is going to do more than pay lip service with regard to providing money to small businessmen at the preferred rate.
The other night I saw a television report on the new minister responsible for small business visiting in Russia. I presume he will be contacting many small independent capital businessmen there to find out how they proceed. However, if he wants to talk to the most progressive of those, he will have to go to Siberia.


Mr. O'Connell:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) wishes to ask the hon.

member who has the floor a question. This can only be done with consent.


Stan Darling: When I am finished, Mr. Speaker.
More than 50 per cent of the salary and wage earners in Canada are employed by small businesses. If all small businesses in Canada closed their doors at the same time, the economy would come to a standstill. Large corporations and their workers are protected from the vagaries of market conditions, bureaucratic harassment, cash supply, and other matters. The unionized workers are protected by their unions, and by our labour laws. The large corporations have batteries of lawyers to run interference for them, but not so the small businessman and his workers.
Big business has assets and productive capacity to use as collateral for loans. Small businesses very often have to borrow on faith, and there is never enough of this faith to go around. In the United States they have the small business administration to make loans to small businesses, and also to advise and train people in small business or who want to start up a small business. We need something like that in Canada. There is too much disparity between lending institutions, and between regions, with respect to the availability of small businesses to obtain loans for operating expenses, and to finance expansion.
Without a set government program of loan assistance or guarantee, lending institutions in Canada would rather lend large sums of capital to large corporations, against secure collateral, than to lend small sums to small businesses which often cannot offer blue ribbon collateral. In my view we must recognize that there is another kind of blue ribbon collateral; the initiative, resourcefulness, and determination of the small business entrepreneur in Canada. If we support the people who are presently providing the largest percentage of jobs in our country today, then they will be able to create still more jobs. This would be better than trying to solve the problem by paying out still more unemployment insurance, grants, welfare, and all the other government stop gap measures.
A large percentage of the chronically unemployed in Canada do not have the specialized skills and talents required by most of the large corporations. Small businesses do not require these specialized skills and rare technical talents for the most part. The only place where these unskilled unemployed can be absorbed is in small business, and that can only happen if the small business community is healthy and can grow.
Our leader spoke last Thursday in Winnipeg to a gathering of approximately 1,200 people, outlining some of the things this party will do after he is elected Prime Minister in 1978. He stated, and I quote:
-I place considerable emphasis on the role of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs. We all know the Liberal and socialist bias toward bigness and bureaucracy. I do not share that bias.
It is worth noting, too, that economies such as the United States, Japan and West Germany-all of which have achieved productivity performances as good or better than our own in recent years-all have a larger small business component within their economy than we have.
October 25, 1976

Each of these countries have governments with a genuine commitment to the small business sector and who support that commitment with concrete and positive policies... Tax policies that encourage-not discourage-the development of small family or employee-owned businesses and which permit such businesses to be passed along to new generations without prohibitive tax penalties.. .
On the available evidence at least, there is no indication that the Trudeau government has given even serious study to these successful policies of other countries. Its preference here-as in so many other areas-is for the quick and the cosmetic . .. name a Minister of State and hope that no one watches long enough to see whether he actually does anything.
I think my time is up, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to join those who have spoken before me in this debate to express my congratulations to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I also wish to pay my respects to the memory of the hon. member for Louis-Hebert, an Assistant Deputy Speaker, for her very fine and courageous contribution to this House. It will be remembered for many years to come.
This debate has almost come to an end. I listened closely to the remarks of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling). I commend him for his attention to and thorough work on the policies relating to small business. I wish he would have done the same with regard to the whole question of national unity and bilingualism. If he had, he would not have made the remarks he did before the dinner recess.
As I understood the hon. member this afternoon, he expressed the hope that the constitution would not be patriated to Canada if the language rights of English speaking Canadians would not be protected, as indicated in a newspaper article published last week in Montreal. He insinuated that it would be the intention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to patriate a constitution that could endanger these language rights. That was a very unfortunate statement by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. He would not have made that remark if he had read the letter which the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) sent to the editor of the Gazette that same day in which he stated, in essence, that it was erroneous to suggest that under Article 137 of the BN A Act English language rights could be abolished by a single act of the National Assembly of Quebec once the proclamation had been effected, and that Article 30 of the draft proclamation was most explicit concerning language rights. The letter went on to say, and I quote:
Article 30 of the draft proclamation is most explicit concerning language rights currently existing in the BNA Act:
"English and French are the official languages of Canada, but no provision
in this Part shall derogate from any right, privilege or obligation existing
under any other provision of the Constitution".
I shall quote one further paragraph from the letter:
"The provisions of the draft proclamation respecting English and French language rights were designed to supplement existing constitutional rights at the federal level and not to replace, abrogate or lessen existing rights in the British North America Act at the time of patriation."
The Address-Mr. Caccia
How can a credible opposition claim on a Sunday, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has done in the course of a CTV interview, that the country should calm down over the bilingualism issue, when on Monday a member of his own party makes an irresponsible statement of the kind to which I have referred? How can people have confidence in an opposition which behaves in such a way? This is a real sham but, as I say, I am sure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka would not have made the statement he made earlier if he had read, or had an opportunity to read, this letter from the Acting Prime Minister. I would hope that when he returns to his riding, when he goes back to Ontario-


An hon. Member:: He is in Ontario now.


Mr. Caccia:: -when he talks to people in his part of the province he will urge the government of Ontario to adopt bilingualism as New Brunswick has done, that he will become a proponent of a policy designed to secure national unity, to demonstrate that French Quebec made a mistake in moving toward unilingualism with Bill 22. That is the attitude I hope the hon. member will adopt for the sake of the nation.


Stan Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You cannot reply. You have had your say.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense!


Stan Darling: The hon. member is taking me to task. I would point out to him that I am not against bilingualism. I have never stated that I am. For the benefit of the hon. member for Davenport Mr. Caccia let me say I have taken French lessons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is debate rather than a point of order; at the same time the interruption did give an opportunity to the hon. member to make his position clear.


Charles L. Caccia: It is good to hear that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is in favour of bilingualism. He could demonstrate this attitude in practice by refraining from insinuating that the Prime Minister wants to patriate the constitution with the thought in mind of reducing the language rights of the Anglophone community across Canada. I wish the hon. member well with his immersion courses.


An hon. Member:: That is more than you have going for you.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No, he can speak French fluently-Italian, French and English.


Charles L. Caccia: The Speech from the Throne is rich with exciting goals. It speaks of national unity, the subject which has been engaging much of our attention today. It deals with employment. It deals with labour management relations. It deals with collective bargaining information centres. It brings

The Address-Mr. Caccia
up the question of industrial safety and the establishment of health centres. It deals with the question of testing new methods of improving working conditions. It has to do with promoting competition in the market place, with placing emphasis on research and development in connection with renewable energy sources, and with means of improving the efficiency of energy use at home and at work. It speaks of a new social services act to help the aged, the children and the handicapped. It has thoughts on promoting partially subsidized day-care through a system of fees relating to income. It envisages improvements to the Canada Pension Plan, including the indexing of family allowances. It speaks of setting a goal of one million new homes over the next four years.
Other topics in the Speech include the amplification of Canada's role in the world in connection with shaping a new international economic order, for example, changes in the Law of the Sea, environmental protection, human settlements, food production, population growth, the control of nuclear armaments, and economic development. These are the issues of our time, Mr. Speaker, and these issues are dealt with in the rather fine document we are considering, perhaps one of the best ever produced by a Liberal government within our memory.


Mr. Epp:: That is quite likely.


Charles L. Caccia: I wish the opposition would deal with some of these issues and put forward alternative approaches which might be taken with respect to them.
I shall devote the limited time remaining to me to only one or two of these topics. I shall deal, first, with the subject of renewable sources of energy because it seems to me that this is a matter of particular interest to Canadians today. At present, far too heavy an emphasis is being laid on research and development on the nuclear side, as well as on the development of non-renewable sources of energy as we have known them so far.
Far too little of the total budget-I believe less than 1.5 per cent-is devoted in the field of energy to renewable resources such as solar, wind and tidal power. The present approach of cutting up the research and development pie has to be changed. I was most impressed to learn last May that the U.S. Senate had appropriated an amount of well over S300 million to be expended on renewable resource research and development. This is not ten times-which is usually the ratio between performances south of the border and our own-what we allocate to this kind of research and development, but is well over 100 times what we spend, if the reports in the newspapers are correct.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that our present approach to research and development is too timid and too one-sided. We are endeavouring to discover how we can economically store energy in one medium alone-in water. Out of all the projects I have seen or heard about throughout the country, nine out of ten of our demonstration projects try to find out whether and at what costs we can store solar energy in water. Surely there are other alternatives which need to be tested and demonstrat-

ed. This is one of the suggestions I should like to put forward in relation to the trend of our present research.
There is another aspect in the field of renewable sources of energy which is very significant to our over-all energy conservation policy, that is, whenever it is planned to introduce systems of heating by means of power from the wind, the sun, or other such sources, we become very conscious of the need for conservation principles-anything which will reduce heat losses in the structure to be built. The two processes, solar heating and conservation, are closely related.
In regard to energy conservation and thrift in the consumption of today's energy resources, I find it rather unfortunate that there has been a lack of support on the part of hydro companies in Canada for the concept. Ottawa has been urging Canadians and other levels of government to reduce their consumption of energy. This has been done in a variety of ways and I hope that we have given a good example. Nevertheless it is rather discouraging to find hydro utilities today, from Yellowknife to Halifax and Vancouver, charging rates per kilowatt hour which, instead of rewarding thrift and saving of energy on the part of the consumer, result in the consumer paying a lower per kilowatt hour if he consumes larger quantities of energy rather than smaller quantities. In other words, there is no incentive toward lesser consumption on the part of the consumer. There is a flat rate up to a certain ceiling, which varies from area to area, and then above that ceiling, as consumption increases, the rate declines. If hon. members are interested in a detailed breakdown of rates in major centres I have this background information available.
I suggest that uniform electricity rates, something we do not have now in any given area, would reward the careful consumer and provide an incentive to save which is much greater and more significant in the eyes of the average consumer than the sort of rather costly advertisements that are sometimes published in newspapers by public utilities like Ontario Hydro. On October 18 they placed an advertisement in the Globe and Mail which attracted my attention and has prompted these remarks on my part.
Returning to solar energy, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the following observation. We need to develop a technology in the field of solar energy that is suited to the Canadian climate. In this way we will create new jobs and a new industry, not only for Canada but eventually for developing countries that are suffering serious trade deficits because they have to import oil. This would benefit their technology and allow them to capture the energy stored in the sun, energy that is available free of charge, which is non-polluting and renewable. In this way they would be able to reduce their dependence on imported oil and thus achieve more readily a healthier economy than they have at the present time.
I am told that in the United States large companies like Corning, Phillips, Owen-Illinois, to mention just a few, are planning to open up markets worth millions of dollars, creating new jobs and developing a new industry in this field, in the
October 25, 1976

hope that they may capture one day not only their own market but foreign markets as well.
It is true that in the U.S. climatic conditions are more advantageous than ours, but there is really no excuse, particularly on our prairies where there is an extensive number of hours of radiation through the year, for us not to develop technology in this field. In this regard I was very impressed to observe on the roof of the legislature in Winnipeg last month a set-up made possible by the co-operation between the federal and provincial governments, whereby solar collectors manufactured by companies in different parts of the world will be tested during the next 12 months or so, and the results of these tests, which are designed to determine the quality of this equipment, be made available to the public.
I also suggest that we need tax credits. Canadians who change their heating systems in their homes, not only by improving insulation-on which we have already removed sales tax-but by making use of wind power and solar energy, should be rewarded. This would apply to those who renovate existing homes or build new homes. Use of these energy sources is, in the end, to the benefit of everyone.
We need a special program by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to encourage manufacturers in Canada to enter this field and compete in developing an industry, rather than our becoming importers of products developed by other countries such as Holland, which I understand is very much interested in this field, and by the United States.
Responsibility for solar energy is presently dispersed among three different departments, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Ministry of Science and Technology and the National Research Council. We need to bring these responsibilities under one minister. I am glad to see the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Faulkner) turn round and look in my direction as if to indicate that this makes some sense, in theory at least, to him.
I should like to close this subject by referring to the Ark which was inaugurated a few weeks ago by the Prime Minister in Prince Edward Island. This is an experiment in the utilization of solar energy and it carries the following inscription:
The Ark-an early exploration in weaving together the sun, winds, biology and architecture on behalf of humanity.
I think it appropriate to put that quotation on record because it contains a statement of policy and also poetry. It seems to me that in solar energy we can bring together once again hope, policies, and poetry for the good of mankind. We have arrived at the point in our development where we do have the technology to harness solar power which is available to us daily, as we are all aware.
In the remaining time I should like to move on to another subject, namely, the statement on employment policies contained in the Speech from the Throne. I should like to refer to the very fine intervention made by the minister the other day. I should like to congratulate him on the speech he made because quite clearly it is a first step in the right direction. It shows the intention of the government to begin utilizing better our
The Address-Mr. Caccia
economic resources, namely, funds available through unemployment insurance, plus those available through general taxation, in an innovative manner. First, we would need to base our actions on the experience of preceding years and I hope his announcement will be regarded as the first step towards an employment strategy.
It will be a strategy when it contains certain elements of flexibility which the policy does not yet seem to contain. We can speak of a strategy when there is flexibility in our approach to institutional training. At present our hands are tied in relation to the provinces when it comes to the matter of spending money for the training of the unemployed. Our hands are tied by long-range agreements which do not permit us in periods of high unemployment to change the direction of our spending; we cannot decide that, instead of having institutional training programs, we could better serve Canadians with direct job creation. We do not have this flexibility now. Therefore I urge the minister to look at the nature of these long-range agreements with the provinces, and see how we can regain that flexibility which will enable us to have funds available when they are needed for direct job creation. I am speaking of times when the government concludes that direct job creation is a better answer for the reduction of unemployment. At present such flexibility is not available.
In order to have a strategy we must overcome our hang up, or the idea that we have to trade off inflation against unemployment. In the past decade we thought that we could have either high unemployment or high inflation, but not the two together. In the 1970's we have learned that both can exist together at the same. We can have high inflation, plus high unemployment; yet we still seem to think that if we reduce unemployment we may increase inflation. I do not subscribe to that economic theory, Mr. Speaker. I think we can reduce unemployment if we embark on proper policies and programs, particularly those related to direct job creation, without affecting the rate of inflation.
In order to have a strategy we need to know the effect of current programs such as the Community Employment Strategy. We must know the effect of other current training programs. What is the over-all picture? How do specific and specialized measures fit into the over-all scheme?
Our approach must be much bolder to unemployment insurance utilization and job creation. The minister mentioned this aspect the other night in his speech. I am glad. But it seems to me that we have reached the point at which the concept underlying the aims of the unemployment insurance fund needs to be changed.
I suggest that in Canada we need a system of employment insurance; second, we need unemployment insurance, as a position on which to fall back. I am sure Canadians would be willing to pay premiums to create jobs for unemployed Canadians. That concept is not far removed from that mentioned by the then Minister of Manpower and Immigration in 1974 when he addressed the Vancouver Board of Trade.

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Symes
Having mentioned government policies in the field of manpower and employment, he said, if I remember correctly, that "if we can have unemployment insurance in Canada, why not employment insurance?" I think those were the words of the then minister.
We also need in connection with a strategy of manpower and employment a specific and clear statement relating to those who find it difficult to remain in the labour force, namely, older workers, and injured workers. I mention in particular older workers because they feel their skills are becoming obsolete, or because their waning strength does not allow them to work as vigorously as they did in preceding decades, making it necessary for them to look for lighter jobs. We must be concerned about them. We must be concerned about the injured, whose numbers are increasing in industrial centres across this country. In times like ours they find it particularly difficult to re-enter the work force. It is hard for them to become engaged in meaningful activity, to be gainfully employed; yet they need employment, for the sake of their families, and for their own sakes.
Since my time is running out I will conclude by saying a few words about the performance of the Anti-Inflation Board set up by our government. Canadians perceive clearly that measures implemented by the Anti-Inflation Baord and the administrator have affected wage and salary settlements. This much almost everybody in the country knows. But we have failed to convey the message that the performance of the Anti-Inflation Board is exceedingly fine in relation to profits, dividends, excessive revenue and, in some cases, prices. I urge the government to make certain that in coming months the Anti-Inflation Board will make known to all Canadians its fine performance in relation to that side of controls.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in the closing minutes of the throne speech debate I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of the problems facing Canada, problems which are the direct result of the government's lack of leadership and lack of sound policies.
The Speech from the Throne reminded me of the 1974 election campaign. In that campaign the Liberals made promises left and right; after they were elected with a majority government they did not fulfil those promises. We are seeing that process repeated. This evening I shall criticize the government and recite a litany of government errors and inaction. Then I shall try, through constructive criticism, to suggest alternative policies which I and my party think will put Canada back on the road to a healthy economy in which most are employed and enjoy a decent standard of living.
My first point concerns the infamous anti-inflation program which the Liberal government imposed on the people of Canada. We in the New Democratic Party have been persistent and consistent critics of this program, not because we are against controls, not because we do not want to see inflation limited in this country, but from the simple point of view that we think this program is unfair and unworkable. I fail to be convinced by the arguments of my Liberal colleagues opposite that the situation in 1975 was different from the situation in

1974,	and therefore was the reason why the government did an about-face and implemented controls to which it was so violently opposed less than a year ago.
We heard from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and from his cabinet colleagues that inflation was a world-wide phenomenon which could not be controlled merely by policies taken in Canada, and that no matter what policy this government followed it would not affect the prices of imported goods. In addition they said that if wage and price controls were imposed they would come down harder on the worker and that there would be inequities in the program, that it would create a bureaucratic nightmare, and that it would not only disenchant labour but would cause skepticism in the business community.
I fail to see that that situation has changed. In fact what the Liberals said against controls in 1974 is just as valid today in 1976. I think the Liberal members of parliament, many of whom were elected on the coat tails of the Prime Minister in 1968 and are currently down in the mouth because of his unpopularity, should look not just to their leader and point the finger of blame, but should look at themselves and at the kind of statements and promises they made to the Canadian electorate in 1974, and realize that now the chickens are coming home to roost. They should realize that they could not deceive the public in 1974 and expect to get away with that without repercussions.
There is a lack of trust in politicians by the people of Canada and much of that lies squarely on the shoulders of the Liberal party and the way they deceived the electorate by campaigning against controls in 1974 and imposing them in
1975.	At least the Conservatives are consistent. It is the Liberals who do an about-face and try to get away with it. I think the Canadian electorate in 1978 will pass judgment on that kind of political manipulation.
The anti-inflation program certainly has been effective in controlling wages. The unorganized find that their wages have been limited to an average of 7 per cent. We were told of course that this program was designed primarily to help the unorganized, those people not in unions, fight the ravages of inflation. Yet they have gained the least in terms of wage settlements. Organized labour has been able to obtain average wage settlements of about 11 per cent. The inequity is that they have not been based necessarily on the productivity or profitability of the particular industry in which workers find themselves. However, their wages are now arbitrarily set by the Anti-Inflation Board, or, more frequently, rolled back in an arbitrary manner by the administrator. I know my Liberal colleagues like to tell us that already they have controlled wages, or that they have kept prices rising at a slower rate than before the program was established. That of course is based on the assumption that wages are the primary cause of inflation.
In most industries today the wage component, especially in the manufacturing area, is somewhere around 10 per cent of
October 25, 1976

the total operating cost, so one cannot automatically make the equation that because wages go up prices will spiral. When one looks at the Consumer price index one finds it has been increasing at a significant rate, especially when one takes out the food component which of course the anti-inflation program does not control.
I shall not bore the House with the figures but the cost of housing, energy, and other things is rising at a rate of 10 per cent or better. If there has been a moderation in the consumer price index I am prepared to substantiate that it is not basically because of the anti-inflation program but because of changes in the world economy and market conditions especially as they relate to food.
We also claim that the program is unfair. The latest report of the Anti-Inflation Board gives a further example. We were told that under the program there could be an increase of 8 per cent in the first year, 6 per cent in the second year, 4 per cent in the third year, 2 per cent for productivity, and a 2 per cent adjustment for catch-up, with a dollar limit of $2,400 per year.
The figures have come in with respect to professional incomes. We find that a great percentage of them are double the $2,400 limit. The point made by the opposition is that of course if a doctor, lawyer, or engineer sees more clients or works overtime he will be compensated. However, their compensation in proportion to the kind of compensation a worker can get for working overtime is away out of line.
We have also found from the Anti-Inflation Board report that about 40 odd per cent of the professional firms have not as of now reported to the board. Therefore one is even more suspicious of the loopholes which exist. I would challenge any supporter of the anti-inflation program to come to my riding and explain it to a group of very dissatisfied workers, mostly retired or semi-retired gentlemen in their fifties or sixties, known as the commissionaires, the men who hand out parking tickets. They had a magnificent wage increase of from $3.90 to $3.95 an hour.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I would like to be on the record, Mr. Speaker, as accepting the challenge.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of my constituents I would point out that the member who is accepting my challenge and defending the program is a Conservative. He believes this program is fair.
As I was saying before my challenge was accepted, these commissionaires negotiated a wage increase of from $3.90 to $3.95 an hour. The Anti-Inflation Board considered that their wage increase was excessive and rolled it back. Then the employer also changed their hours of operation and denied them the amount of overtime they could have in any one month.
The sum total of these two decisions by AIB and the employer is that these gentlemen are now earning less than
The Address-Mr. Symes
they did when they entered the negotiations! These are the kind of people who fall victim to this very unfair program.
The hon. member can come into my riding and try to explain to the paper workers who were on strike for six months the rationale behind the Anti-Inflation Board's decision on the kind of roll backs that were applied. I do not think he would have much success in convincing them of the justice of this program.
What we are saying is that this anti-inflation program as it is designed is not fair and, if there is success at moderating inflation, it is only marginal and basically the result of conditions over which the government does not have control. The program should come to an early end.
The other great problem facing Canadians, and where the government has again failed so miserably, is unemployment. I was speaking this afternoon to a group of West German trade unionists who are visiting this country. They asked me about the employment situation in Canada and were shocked to hear that we had an unemployment rate of 7 per cent, or over some
700,000	unemployed, whereas in most modern European countries an unemployment rate of 1 per cent to 4 per cent is considered horrendous. We lived with high unemployment in this country for too long, to the point where I believe governments and the general public are accepting it as the natural condition in Canada. In my party we reject that complacency. We argue that not only does unemployment degrade the man who cannot find work, not only does it bring hardship to his family and demoralizes both his family and himself, but in terms of crude economic costs to our economy it cannot be tolerated year after year.
When we tolerate that kind of unemployment at levels of 7 per cent, it means that the Canadian economy is losing each year some $7 billion in lost productivity. Add to that $1 billion in federal tax money to supplement the unemployment insurance program, and we can see the tremendous cost of unemployment to our economy. Rather than recognize this as the primary problem, the government continues its attack against inflation. Meanwhile the unemployment figures continue to mount and our economy continues to suffer in the way I have described.
We are growing rather tired in this party of the kind of band-aid approach the government takes toward unemployment. At the urging of many Conservatives and right-wing editorial commentators the government got on the bandwagon of cut-backs in government spending. Of course where did it begin cut-backs but in the meagre programs which exist to aid the unemployed? The Opportunities for Youth Program was scuttled, the Local Initiatives Program budget was cut in half, and people who were already in desperate straits took little solace from the fact that they could even get temporary employment through these programs.
Now with great fanfare the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) unveils a great new employment strategy. What it turns out to be is just renaming the band-aid programs we had in the past, such as OFY and LIP, and putting them together on a year round employment basis. But
446

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Symes
in light of the $7 billion cost of unemployment to our economy, in light of the human tragedy to the 700,000 unemployed, do we see great new sums of money put into the employment program? Not on your life. All they do is take the money that was saved by the cut-backs to the original programs and shove it into this new program. So we are no farther ahead; it is just a lot of fancy footwork which this government is so used to performing. It is puffery instead of substance, and we will continue to have high unemployment in this country as long as we have that kind of half-hearted approach to this very serious problem.
If we are to be serious about employment and getting people back to work, then we have to be courageous enough to infuse the massive amounts of money that are needed on a short-term basis to recoup this long-term financial loss, in terms of lost productivity, in terms of taxes collected from workers who are working rather than being handed out payments via unemployment insurance and welfare. If we are serious about getting Canadians back to work, then the government should make a commitment and live by it. Just as it made a commitment to reduce inflation to 8 per cent, 6 per cent, and 4 per cent over the next three years, likewise let us see a commitment to reduce unemployment by a certain percentage over the next three years.
Let us see some kind of massive employment program in co-operation with the provinces in terms of public works, in co-operation with the municipalities which have projects which they want done but cannot find the money to do. Let us see massive intervention in the economy in the way that capital is allocated, in the way that industry plans its expansion. Let us see some government involvement in terms of Crown corporations where private industry is unwilling to expand or invest.
What I am saying is that, if we continue in the traditional way, the unemployment problem will get worse and we as a country cannot stand indefinitely the kind of financial loss this means, nor the loss in terms of human dignity and well-being. Those are some positive suggestions I can make. Time limits me from making others.
Now I would like to turn my attention to another area in which I find the government lacks policies. It has to do with matters concerning environmental and industrial health. On the issue of environmental health I know there is a jurisdictional problem between the federal government and the provinces. However, there should not be a hesitancy on the part of the government to show some leadership and to set some examples in terms of federal legislation and activity to protect the environment.
There are two concerns to which I would like to address myself this evening and over which the government has direct control. One concern has to do with native people, and the other is the issue of uranium and the problems of radiation pollution. First, on the issue of native people, there is a growing problem of mercury pollution among native people in northwestern Ontario and also in northern Quebec. This pollu-

tion has already destroyed the economic viability of two reserves in northern Ontario, Grassy Narrows and White Dog, which I had the privilege of visiting in September. Mercury pollution from the Reed Pulp and Paper Company polluted the English-Wabigoon river system to the point where all commercial fishing had to be banned.
Then of course fishing, which was the livelihood of the native people of that area, was no longer possible, and those people were reduced to receiving welfare and to receiving handouts of frozen fish from the provincial government. The provincial government did not take action against the polluter, Reed Paper Company. The provincial government dragged its feet in terms of meeting the request of the native people that sports fishing in the area also be banned. Many natives were still acting as guides to sports fishermen, eating polluted fish and showing symptoms of mercury poisoning. No action was taken.
Then, to the amazement of all Canadians, the province of Ontario last summer met with the federal government, and both governments came up with a proposal to solve the mercury pollution problem in the English-Wabigoon river system. The proposal was to create a national park. This was without consulting the Indians to see whether this was what they desired. This was without any attempt by the federal government to use the clean water legislation already on the books, to take action, to try to restore the environment of the area and compensate the people involved.
No, they decided that they would establish a national park along that river system where the water is polluted. Perhaps they will call it "Mercury Pollution National Park". I do not know how it could be successful or who would want to go there, but the real problem is that, once a park is established, hunting will not be allowed, commercial fishing will not be allowed, nor the gathering of wild rice for commercial sale, which was a mainstay of the people there. Instead they will be limited to a life of perpetual destitution because there will be no more than a handful of jobs as park personnel. Meanwhile the problems of the people there will not have been solved. That is the kind of cynical and unrealistic thinking and action which take place when the government becomes serious about environmental cleanup and the health of native people.
Another example is the situation at Elliot Lake, where there is a very large uranium mine. Uranium comes under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and in particular, the Atomic Energy Control Board. There has been negligence on the part of the government and that board in supervising the disposal of radioactive waste. We have seen that at Port Hope, and it now looks as though the problem will be of even greater magnitude at Elliot Lake, yet there has been no ongoing survey of the situation. There have been no public hearings and no public releases of the information already gathered, but rather an attempt to cover up and keep the people in darkness regarding the dangers of radiation pollution in that area.
In addition to that, of course, is the problem the miners face. Working in the mines, they face the possibility of lung cancer and silicosis. Here again there is a lack of leadership on the

October 29, 1976
Artificial Food Additives
There is some concern that hyperactive children may have emotional disorders as adults. Hyperactive children may be at high risk for teenage alcohol and other drug abuse. The characteristics of these children, including, impulsivity, short attention span, attention seeking behaviour, low tolerance to frustration in the face of social and educational difficulties suggest that this group may become abusers of alcohol and other drugs in their teenage years. One study suggests that there may be a relationship between hyperactivity and subsequent alcoholism. A higher incidence of alcoholism and hyperactivity amongst the biological parents than the adopting parents of adopted hyperactive children was found in this study. In addition it was observed that hyperactives have a high incidence of hyperactivity and alcoholism amongst their relatives.
With respect to other types of anti-social behaviour, there are reports of cases of explosive personality characterized by aggressiveness with a "hair-trigger" temper. In these cases the explosive personality was preceded by hyperactivity in childhood.
While there are few follow-up studies of hyperactive children, most of the evidence indicates that there is a relatively poor outcome for these children. There is usually a high incidence of anti-social behaviour and contact with police, and many have become institutionalized as delinquents or become psychotic. Follow-up studies suffer from lack of comparison groups, small samples and inadequate analysis of behavioural pathology. The incidence of alcohol, and drug abuse in particular, has not yet been examined in detail. The study being supported by the Department of National Health and Welfare will address itself to some of these concerns.
Hypersensitivity reactions, commonly known as allergies, to foods have been described in the medical literature for centuries. In fact hypersensitivity reactions have been observed in humans following exposure to pollens, dust, certain chemicals and, in a few isolated cases, to some artificial food colours and additives.
Food allergies of various types affect 30 to 40 per cent of the human population while milk allergy in children alone range between 10 and 20 per cent. Individuals hypersensitive to foods will have symptoms ranging from rash to anaphylactic shock and even death. A person hypersensitive to milk, for example, may upon ingestion of milk or after eating milk-containing foods, develop nasal stuffiness, hives, eczema, migraine headache, nausea, diarrhoea, or even a serious attack of asthma.
The range of foods to which people can be allergic is almost limitless. The most common causes of food allergy are milk, grains-especially wheat-eggs, fish, shellfish, fruit-especially strawberries-chocolate, nuts. In addition to natural foods, food additives such as tartrazine, parabens, vegetable oils, protein additives, caffeine, cyclamates, flavors, etc., have been implicated in allergic reactions. The symptoms elicited vary from chronic and generalized urticaria, anaphylactic type of reactions, contact dermatitis, hives, itching and edema.
This belief in the relationship of food additives and hyperactivity has evolved primarily as a result of clinical studies

conducted by Dr. Benjamin Feingold, a San Francisco physician. He recorded a marked clinical improvement in 50 per cent of hyperactive children treated with his "salicylate free diet" (also called the K-P diet). This treatment permitted a discontinuation of all drug therapy and resulted in a substantial improvement in scholastic achievement in these children. The diet given to the children contained no food additives or foods such as tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers, squash, jams, nuts and virtually all fresh fruits, that naturally contain salicylates.
These initial clinical studies, as Dr. Feingold agrees, were empirical in nature, and although beneficial effects were observed it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions from these data. Strict adherence to these diets necessitated a dramatic modification in family lifestyle to accommodate the child's needs. Therefore, it is unclear whether the improvement in the children was due to the diet or to the additional care given the children in these particular circumstances. In addition the severely restrictive diet has been criticized by many nutritionists as being nutritionally inadequate. It is worth pointing out that in Canada the addition of food colours to baby foods is specifically prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act.
Other investigators have designed projects with the purpose of determining whether a relationship exists between food additives and hyperactivity. In a pilot study, conducted by Dr. Esther Wender of the College of Medicine at Utah, six of eleven children demonstrated an initial behavioral improvement. However, the report states that of the responders, five out of six showed a return to pre-diet behaviour over the challenge period even though diet was continued. Conclusions from this particular study spring mostly from impressionistic observations and do not lend themselves to statistical analysis.
An important preliminary attempt to investigate the hypothesis is the study designed by Connor of the Pittsburg School of Medicine. This study involved 15 children diagnosed in accordance with the American Psychiatric Association's definition of hyperkinetic reaction of childhood.
In this study statistically significant difference was found between the K-P diet and baseline measures on both parent and teacher ratings, as well as between the special diet and the control diet based on teacher ratings, but no significant difference between the special diet and the control diet based on parent ratings.
Dr. Connor concludes that "the special diet may reduce hyperkinetic symptoms" but warns that:
-it would be hazardous at this point to draw too many conclusions from this experiment, given the small size of the sample and the lack of complete consistency in the results. Any thoughtful observer will understand that a major intervention into dietary habits of a family will produce behavioral effects, regardless of the specific diets, a phenomenon well understood in the management of such conditions as juvenile diabetes. The results would have been substantially clarified if it had been possible to have objective measures of function uncontaminated by the psychological factors which are bound to operate in the family-school-child system. At this point the results point to the need for considerable further investigation.
October 29, 1976

It is important to point out that there was no direct evidence that the use of any of these additives had caused any ill effect to humans. However, in several cases the animal studies conducted on the compounds suggested that it would be prudent to discontinue their use. There are at present 344 food additives listed in the regulations.
Health Protection Branch will continue to examine old and new food additives and, in the light of the best scientific evidence available, take whatever action is considered necessary to protect fully the Canadian consumer.
In view of increasing public concern about food additives, the department is continuing to review and, if necessary, modify present policy and regulations on all food additives, pollutants, pesticides, etc. as resources become available. In this regard the department has completed a review of its policy on pesticides and heavy metal pollutants and has modified the regulations to reduce or eliminate tolerances for some pesticides. New, stricter regulations are being drafted to control the amounts of heavy metals in foods.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) made some reference to the government not taking any interest in the health of Canadians or Canadians not being healthy. Looking at the other side of the House that probably seems to be true but 1 can only wonder with whom he is comparing Canadians in terms of health and health standards. The whole world agrees we have one of the healthiest populations on the globe. I wonder whether he is comparing us with a country like India, for example, a country which certainly has a great many health problems but little problem with food additives.
At first glance I am tempted to agree with the motion of the hon. member for Athabasca. Upon closer examination, I am not. If he is suggesting that the Canadian government undertake research to examine the relationship between food additives and hyperactivity, then in fact this is already being done, as I will point out in my speech. If on the other hand, the hon. member is suggesting we should duplicate research already being undertaken in other countries merely in order that we, in nationalistic pride, can say that Canadians are involved in the area, then I completely disagree.
Science is international in scope and it would not be prudent for each country to duplicate the research of other countries. The costs for a complete understanding of the causes and treatment of hyperactivity are enormous and might be related to many factors which have not been identified. Surely we should not waste our resources in vain duplication of effort, but ought rather to engage these in areas which are not already covered but which show some promise.
Certainly with a new condition such as hyperactivity, the most urgent research needed is on the causes, but that involves a much wider list of possibilities than just food additives.
Today there is an increasing public belief that foods and food additives may be a major cause of hyperactivity in
Artificial Food Additives
children. However, there is some evidence that hyperactivity in children may be a manifestation of an allergic reaction. A child may be allergic to certain foods or components of foods. For exemple, it is known that some individuals are allergic to the food colour tartrazine, others are sensitive to certain analgesics, particularly aspirin. The Health Protection Branch is currently assessing the magnitude of this problem and possible courses of action to alleviate any potential problem in this regard.
Hyperkinesis or hyperactivity is the term used to describe a syndrome in children whose unusual behaviour becomes a major problem in the home and at school. These children may be described as being constantly active, flitting from one object or activity to another, restless and fidgety; exhibiting voluble, uninhibited speech, disorganized thinking and impulsivity. They are irritable and aggressive, have a short attention span and are easily distracted. This is how parents and educators describe children classified as hyperactive. Available evidence suggests that these behavourial characteristics may lead to other social problems such as mental illness, delinquency and alcoholism in later life.
Statistics on the incidence of hyperactivity in school children vary considerably among investigators. This variation stems primarily from the lack of agreement among scientists on either terminology or definition of the syndrome. For example, school authorities report the incidence of hyperactivity in children to be as high as fifteen to twenty per cent, while psychiatrists estimate the prevalence to range from four to ten per cent.
Little is known of the etiology of this syndrome. However, perinatal brain damage, genetically inherited metabolic disorders, accidental poisoning in infancy, environmentally associated psychologic disorders and hypersensitivity reactions to foods or food components all have been implicated as possible causes of hyperactivity in children.
Abnormal brain waves in some hyperactive children have been related to physical brain damage and/or damage due to hypoxia during birth; however, the relationship between brain damage and hyperactivity is unclear.
Hyperactivity occurs four to ten times more frequently in male than in female children. Consequently, genetically inherited metabolic disorders have been considered as a potential cause of hyperactivity. It should be pointed out that similar sex ratios have been recorded for many congenital syndromes in medicine but no firm evidence exists that the sex chromosomes are involved in the transmission of these abnormalities. Whether the hyperactivity syndrome is genetic or sex-linked is not known, because of a lack of knowledge of inheritance patterns involved in hyperactivity.
Some investigators have associated hyperactivity in children with accidental poisoning by chemicals such as lead but the clinical evidence to date is inconclusive. It is known, however, that hyperactive children have a greater tendency to accidental poisoning in the home, presumably due to their intense restlessness.

October 29, 1976
Artificial Food Additives
chemical must meet. The food additive must be safe for continuous use. Based upon all available toxicological data, the food additive must have been found by properly qualified scientists to be without appreciable risk for human consumption. If the use of the additive is considered to constitute a hazard to the health of the consumer in the amounts which may be present in foods, its use will not be provided for under any circumstances.
The use of a food additive must be effective and its primary effect must not lead to deception. Provision for the use of an additive will not be granted if its use results in deception regarding the merit, composition or value of the food.
Although it has been shown that an additive is safe and its use will not result in deception, provision for such use will be granted only if one or more of several criteria are met. For example, the food additive must improve or maintain the nutritive value of a food. This may be accomplished by the addition of a food additive to preserve the natural vitamin content of a food.
Although added vitamins, minerals, and amino acids serve the same purpose, they are not presently classified as food additives. The additive must improve or maintain the quality or acceptability of a food. Preservatives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, antimicrobial agents, filtering agents, and thickening agents are examples of food additives which improve the quality or acceptability of the food. The additive must improve or maintain the quantity of food. This may be accomplished by the direct addition of substances to preserve the nutrient value of foods. For example, anti-oxidants preserve the natural vitamin content of food, while anti-microbial agents are used to prevent microbial growth, thus decreasing food wastage due to spoilage.
These principles of safety, lack of deception, and benefit to the consumer are consistent with those enunciated by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization, and the U.S. White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health.
1 would like at this point to summarize the data toxicologists require when evaluating a food additive or a pesticide before a maximum level of use or a tolerance is established in foods.
They require that the chemical be tested-


Walter David Baker: On the Liberals and the NDP.


Mr. Maine:: -on at least two species of animals for both short-term and long-term or lifetime studies. During the course of these studies daily observations of the general appearance and behaviour of the animals are noted. Weekly observations are made on bodyweight and food consumption, initial and subsequent observations are made on haematology, urinalysis, enzyme activity studies, and organ function tests. At the end of the study all appropriate organs are carefully examined.
Reproduction studies are also required. Observations in the parent animals should include fertility, length of gestation,

loctation index and tumour incidence. In the offspring the following data are required: stillbirths, litter size, foetal malformation, newborn weight, sex ratio, rate of growth, and 24-hour, five-day and 21-day survival data. If there is any indication of embryotoxicity, then further teratogenic studies are required.
After all these data have been carefully reviewed, the highest level of the chemical in the diet of the animal which caused no harmful effect is determined. This level is divided by 100 and the resulting figure is the amount which is permitted for human use; that is, if 100 parts per million in the diet of the rat caused no ill effects, then one part per million would be permitted in man's diet.
Let me explain the term "the acceptable daily intake" as it applies to food additives and to pesticides. Expert committees of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization have established over the years "acceptable daily intakes" for a large number of food additives and pesticides. This is defined as "the daily dosage of a chemical which, during an entire lifetime, appears to be without appreciable risk on the basis of all facts known at that time." It is expressed in milligrams per kilogram of bodyweight.
The two following examples relate the acceptable daily intake of food additives to the actual amount which is being consumed in Canada. Sorbic acid is an antimicrobial preservative which may be used in such foods as bread, cheese, pickles, jams and pie fillers. Assuming that it is used in all of these foods and assuming that one individual were to eat a reasonable amount of each of them in one day, then the intake of sorbic acid would be approximately 200 milligrams.'
The acceptable daily intake for sorbic acid suggested by the World Health Organization is 1750 milligrams for a 150 pound individual. Sodium nitrite may be used in preserved meat and preserved poultry. Again making the assumption that all preserved meats contain this chemical and that one ate these foods every day, a person would be ingesting approximately ten milligrams of sodium nitrite per day. WHO has suggested that a 150 pound individual could safely consume approximately 60 milligrams per day.
Once a chemical is on the list it does not mean that it is there forever or that it is forgotten. Health Protection Branch is constantly examining the world's scientific literature, as well as conducting its own research on the toxicity of these additives.
When one realizes that 85 per cent of all the scientists who have ever lived are living today, and when one knows that the techniques and instruments used by these scientists are becoming increasingly sensitive, it is not surprising that new facts regarding some of these additives are becoming available. These scientific facts are carefully evaluated and, when appropriate, action is taken to prohibit the use of a certain additive. Since September, 1964, when specific food additive regulations were introduced, some 26 food additives have been delisted. Included were several food colours, non-nutritive sweeteners, flavouring agents, antioxidants from stabilizers, bleaching agents in flour and so on.
October 29, 1976

cherries are either bright red or a crimson colour similar to the colour of the jacket worn by the hon. member from Nova Scotia opposite, or bright green. We know that cherries are neither bright red nor bright green. We are used to seeing chocolate cake depicted in advertisements as dark brown. Is chocolate really so dark? Years of advertising have convinced us that that is how it should look. Similarly we think that lemon pie should be a bright yellow colour, whereas only the skin of the lemon is bright yellow.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, I should like to comment briefly on the use of chemical additives in Canadian foods. The major fact responsible for the inreasing use of good additives has been the development of the prepared convenience food and the snack food type of product. "Instant" has become a magic word, and the family of "instants" now includes coffee, tea, chip dips, dressings, hot cereals, soup, potatoes and even breakfast. We now have such convenience foods as cake mixes, frozen pies, TV dinners, dehydrated potatoes, frozen fish sticks, brown-and-serve rolls, powdered breakfast drinks, dessert mixes, dessert toppings and so on.
In spite of the consumers' concern regarding the high cost of food, there appears to be an increasing interest in more sophisticated, more flavourful, more exotic foods. Certain consumers are avidly buying and eating frozen pizzas, frozen, Chinese dinners, frozen shish kebab, asparagus hollandaise style, breast of chicken a la Kiev, and broccoli au gratin, to name only a few.
I understand that people generally have more leisure time today and have developed a marked preference for informal dining. We are apparently spending more time around our TV sets, or on the patio around the charcoal grill. These trends have rapidly increased the demand for snack foods-pretzels-popcorn, cheezies, onion-flavoured crackers-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Please, no commercials.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: -bacon-flavoured potato chips, cheese dips, barbecue sauce and soft drink mixes. Many of these products depend upon the use of food additives.


Mr. Paproski:: What about holopche and perohee?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Foods are being shipped greater distances and are being stored for longer periods of time. Consequently there is a need for food additives to prevent or retard spoilage. In
Artificial Food Additives
addition, there is a trend toward buying convenience foods, for which additives are necessary.
I should like to discuss the role which food additives are playing and will continue to play in the processing of foods. While the use of chemicals in our foods has greatly accelerated in recent years and has been given increasing publicity, their use is not new. Faced with the uncertainties of climate and rainfall, and of hunting and fishing, primitive man had to learn how to preserve his hard-won food. Thus it came about that methods of drying, salting, and smoking were discovered. Hence the use of chemical additives in foods probably began when man first learned that meat could be preserved by the addition of salt.
A committee on food additives was convened in Rome, in 1956, by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. This committee was given the task of drawing up general principles governing the use of food additives, and it concluded that, provided a food additive is safe when consumed over a lifetime, its use could be justified when it served one or more of the following purposes: the maintenance of the nutritional quality of a food; the enhancement of keeping quality or stability with resultant reduction in food wastage; making foods attractive to the consumer in a manner which does not lead to deception; and providing essential aids in food processing.
It perhaps should be also mentioned that the committee pointed our certain situations in which the use of food additives would not be in the best interests of the consumer and should not be permitted. These were as follows: (a) to disguise the use of faulty processing and handling techniques; (b) to deceive the consumer; (c) when the result is a substantial reduction of the nutritive value of the food. These principles are being used in Canada when assessing the justification for the use of food additives.
Perhaps at this point I should say what a food additive is, as defined by our regulations. A food additive is any substance including any source of radiation, the use of which results, or may reasonably be expected to result in it or its byproducts becoming a part of or affecting the characteristics of a food but does not include: (1) any nutritive material that is used, recognized or commonly sold as an article or ingredient of food; (2) vitamins, mineral nutrients and amino acids; (3) spices, seasoning, flavouring preparations, essential oils, oleoresins and natural extractives; (4) agricultural chemicals; (5) food packaging materials and components thereof, and (6) drugs recommended for administration to animals that may be consumed as food.
This rather clumsy definition encompasses the chemicals which are added to foods as colours, stabilizers emulsifiers, preservatives, anti-caking agents, non-nutritive sweeteners, bleaching agents, pH adjusting agents, and for other purposes.
Before accepting a food additive for inclusion on a permitted list in the Food and Drug regulations, officers of the Health Protection Branch have developed certain criteria which the

October 29, 1976
Artificial Food Additives
simply waiting to see the results of that project before we take action.
The hon. member for St. Boniface seems to be rather uneasy today. He has been quiet ever since the former minister of national defence resigned-in the hope that if he were quiet and good he might fill in the blank.
Mir. Guay (St. Boniface): The hon. member is not even on the subject.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Obviously the hon. member has given up hoping-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind the hon. member that he should speak on his motion. It must be important, otherwise he would not have brought it forward. Let him speak on his motion instead of speaking about everybody else and his dog. If he feels his motion is important, let him speak on it and stick to the notes he is reading.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) wishes to discuss an important point, and that hon. members will hear him.


Paul Yewchuk: I should be interested to know to whom on his side of the House the hon. member opposite referred when he spoke of everybody and his dog.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can be sure that I was looking at the opposition side when I said that.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that the hon. member for St. Boniface will not make it to the cabinet and has reverted to his old, noisy self. I suggest that he should not give up hope, because he may yet be appointed to a cabinet job.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Go back to your notes.


Paul Yewchuk: As 1 said, the Americans banned Red Dye No. 2 on January 19. They have also looked seriously at nitrates which, in certain experimental conditions, have been suspected of causing cancer. On January 28 the Minister of National Health and Welfare called that conclusion premature. Since then the matter has lain dormant in this country, maturing. That, at any rate, seems to be the minister's position.
On September 22 the U.S. Federal Drug Agency banned Red Dye No. 4, and another food, colour, carbon black; both food colours are suspected of having carcinogenic qualities, or qualities which produce certain types of cancer. Soon afterwards the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare announced that Canada has no immediate plan to ban these dyes and that available information suggests there is no serious hazard connected with their use. That was the conclusion of the minister. He found there was no serious hazard; on the other hand the Americans concluded that there is a serious hazard and banned these food colourings. We must ask ourselves, who is right and who is wrong, or, who is to take the necessary action out of concern for the health and welfare of Canadians?
1 suggest, if the minister has no immediate plan for action, that he had better have some long range plan in this area. I doubt if there is any such plan. In any event, when there is a dispute about the meaning of "available information", the public should always be given the benefit of the doubt. The expression, "There is no serious hazard," when applied to our food supply is contemptible, to say the least.
Cyclamates, better known as artificial sweeteners, have been totally banned in the United States for a long time. Cyclamates were banned in Canada as well but are still available in this country on prescription. Here again Canadians are exposed to a danger to which Americans are not exposed.
Clearly Canadians tolerate more readily than the Americans the possibility that there may be dangerous additives in food. I am concerned about that. I think it is a great mistake to consider chemical additives to our food supply as "innocent until proven guilty." That is a fine principle in legal proceedings. But I would sooner consider chemical additives to our foodstuffs as "guilty until proven innocent." If we approach chemicals from that point of view we are much less likely to be sorry, for we have been sorry for past negligence.
In this country we need a coherent approach to the entire field of food additives. We should not tolerate this business of doing a little here and a little there, or reacting to what the Americans are doing. We should not simply sit back and watch our American neighbours, that is, watch without reacting. We need a commitment that the evidence others have gathered will be reviewed, and that there will be a proper evaluation supported by scientific studies carried out in this country. They should be carried out under conditions found in this country. After all, conditions here are not the same as in the U.S. We can do better than merely keep in touch with what is happening in American research, which is what we have done so far. As reported in Hansard for last November 14, the minister indicated that that is his official policy at the moment.
What the department is doing would be laughable, if it were not so serious. In 1976 the Department of National Health and Welfare was sending letters to the food industry asking for information on which to base a list of permitted food colours. I understand the department sent out letters on or around July 16, 1976, to all parts of Canadian industry concerned with food colour; those letters requested information from the industry on which to establish a list of safe additives. I am concerned at such an approach because it suggests that the government is not overly concerned about research and establishing its own research program. It is simply asking industry for opinions.
Let me return to the questions of colouring and flavouring. As a result of many years of commercialism, people think that

October 29, 1976

with the increase in the addition of colouring and flavouring to food. The graph was identical to the one showing increases in the amount of general crime in North American society.
This matter was raised again in the House and on November 14, 1975, and as reported at page 9068 of Hansard the minister replied:
I must report to the hon. member that up to this stage there appears to be no scientific evidence on which we could act in support of the thesis he has been promoting.
If we look at the action taken by the United States we will see that they were sufficiently convinced to order studies into these matters. A panel of 29 specialists suggested there was sufficient evidence to relate hyperactivity to food additives and found that the evidence was sufficient to merit further investigation. This is rather contrary to the position taken by our minister.
Perhaps it would be useful to define hyperactivity. Children of pre-school and early school age have great difficulty paying attention to what is happening. They move about too much in school, disturb classes, and are subject to temper tantrums. Their intelligence is not any less, but because of their inability to pay attention their ability to learn is severely affected. We should give further consideration to this problem.
A great deal of concern has been expressed by the public over the past number of years, although the minister seems to be impervious to it. This public concern is expressed in such newspaper headlines as "U.S. Will Examine Artificial Colouring"; "U.S. Panel Finds Role of Cyclamate in Cancer Unproved"; "Preservatives linked To Cancer"; "Food Dye Banned in U.S. Under Study in Canada"; "U.S. Bans Colour Additive"; "Government Decision Soon On Use of Red Dye." Mr. Speaker, the United States has already banned the latter's use.
The United States seems to be much more responsive to the possible dangers. When dye of one kind or other, or an additive of one kind or other is suspected of causing hyperactivity or being related to cancer or any other problem the U.S. authorities seem to take immediate action not only to ban the use if there is a connection with a serious effect, but also to do careful "double blind" scientific studies to prove or disprove the effects.
Dr. Ross Hall of McMaster University recently stated that some five years ago the World Health Organization recommended that Red Dye be banned. He says that from a biological viewpoint the dye should have been banned years ago. He maintains that it is very dangerous, but that manufacturers prefer synthetic dyes such as Red Dye No. 2 to natural ones because of their chemical superiority. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is not here today, nor is his parliamentary secretary nor anyone else connected with the department either directly or indirectly. I think it is a shameful reflection of their interest that there is no representative to listen to debate on this very important subject.
Artificial Food Additives


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Chair that the hon. member is wrong. The member representing the department in this matter has gone to the telephone and will be back immediately. These things do occur.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the hon. member has been cajoled to come back to the House. Obviously he was not interested enough to stay to listen and he should, as he has only started in his new job.


Mr. McRae:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am very interested in this subject. I left the floor for about two minutes because I had an emergency telephone call. I hope we will not have these remarks flying back and forth. The department is interested in the whole area of food additives, as is everyone in the country.


Paul Yewchuk: I seem to have struck a rather sensitive chord on the other side, Mr. Speaker. I am talking about hyperactivity, and it seems to be very well demonstrated.
Before I was so rudely interrupted I was referring to a statement made by the World Health Organization, concerning Red Dye No. 2. At the time they were indicating it should be banned, five years ago. The Minister of National Health and Welfare was saying in a recent news report that it was premature to ban it. It appears that the minister thinks he is better informed than the World Health Organization and the other experts who expressed the concern which resulted in the United States banning use of this dye.
I have to say that on the subject of food additives my patience with the government is becoming rather thin. Obviously it does not care. In face of steadily mounting evidence that particular additives are possibly or unquestionably harmful to human health, and the increasingly more positive view that additives have combined effects at which we can only begin to guess, the minister has done nothing but stall. In this he has been supported by those members who sit behind him. I should like to illustrate this with a few more examples.
At the present time the United States is funding a double blind study into the relationship between food additives and hyperactivity in children. In Canada, in typical Liberal fashion, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has sent an observer to see what they are doing. That is the extent to which he is willing to concede that there might be a problem. He is not sufficiently concerned to do something in this country but has simply sent an observer, such as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), or one of the others, to see what they are doing and what they come up with. As a Canadian I am not satisfied that he is showing sufficient concern about this problem. It is certainly not the kind of concern that the Canadian people want their government to demonstrate.
The United States has a project in Oklahoma which is trying to determine the relationship between mood and food in adults. We are not doing anything like that in Canada but are
80001-39j/2

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
Agriculture" from letting those people use the legislation Canada provided for them. I am surprised at that. Am I not supposed to defend the legislation that the best producers of our whole society used to increase their productivity 100 per cent per capita in the last 10 years when in the rest of the world the figure is 30 per cent or 40 per cent per capita? When legislation from the most democratic institution in this land is passed, and we are told not to use it, that is wrong. What in the world are we talking about?
That is what the consumer critic for the official opposition is suggesting in his questioning. On the one hand he wants to help broiler producers. Then he says we should not help them because we would be using the legislation parliament passed. There is no other institution which goes through such exercises or holds public hearings. Unions market their labour. Do they have public hearings before they are franchised as a union? No, and I know because I was a member of a union. However, they are marketing their labour, and farmers are marketing their products.
Hon. members opposite should ask the new member for Ottawa-Carleton what she thinks about supply management. She has written me letters and told me that she could not run her business successfully if she did not have a supply management system. When anything like that is suggested for farmers, that is ungodly, but the Canadian Wheat Board was foisted on us, without a vote and without an expression of opinion, by a Conservative government which said to farmers that they must deliver by quota, according to the number of acres and so forth. Farmers were told that that is how they must supply the market; that they must not rush in and deliver their products.
They were told that they were not to plug the elevators so that those out further in the country would not be able to supply the market. They put some fairness and equity into the system, and that is all I want for farmers. 1 do not want to take away the incentive to be creative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Whelan:: I know why the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton said what he did, because I know his mother-in-law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: She likes you too, Gene.


Eugene Whelan: If 1 were running against the hon. member, I think she would vote for me because she has a farm background.
1 am not going to say any more, but I promise that as far as this minister is concerned any constructive suggestions coming from any member of the committee will be considered. If we can make this legislation better and more workable, that is what we want to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Four o'clock.


@Acting Speaker: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is an agreement and a disposition in the House that the matter to be dealt with today is the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), Notice of Motion No. 6, and that all the rest shall stand.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: That is agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Paul Yewchuk: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take independent action to examine the relationship between artificial food additives and hyperactivity in children as well as between additives and behavioural changes in adults.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about this subject in parliament because it is a matter which shows what we already know about hon. members in the government at the present time. It is a matter which shows nearly total neglect in so far as the health of Canadians is concerned.
Today we have somewhere in the vicinity of 3,000 to 4,000 chemicals added to our food supply and which are consumed nearly every day. I think it is quite safe to say that in the vast majority of cases the chemicals have not been adequately tested to convince me and many other Canadians that they are safe for human consumption.
The matter to which I particularly want to refer today deals with artificial colouring and flavouring, and it was brought to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) for the first time in this House on October 20, 1975. At that time the minister refused to acknowledge that there was a problem in relation to these additives. It was again brought to his attention on October 24, 1975. It was pointed out that somewhere in the vicinity of 7 per cent of North American children were suffering from a condition known as hyperactivity, and that certain researchers in the U.S. had related hyperactivity in children to artificial colouring and flavouring in food. Further, other researchers suggested that not only does this artificial material perhaps cause hyperactivity or over activity in children, but also that perhaps it has a relationship to crime or criminal activity among adults. I saw a graph indicating a very parallel growth-nearly identical-
October 29, 1976

on the record today. For instance, hon. members on the other side have referred to beef production. What in the world do they think President Ford is trying to do in the United States for his beef producers? He is trying to run a supply-management system by means of his meat import law. He tried it with the economic might of the United States and he hoped that people would co-operate. He said, "So much of that meat from your country can come to my country etc.," but they did not live up to that agreement.
People are asking. "What is Whelan trying to do with this legislation?" Let us go back to the inception of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Who put it into force? It was a man after whom they called buggies out west for a while-it was R. B. Bennett. There was no vote after 1935 until the late forties on whether or not they really wanted the Canadian Wheat Board set up. That was the Canadian Wheat Board which was imposed on the farmers in Canada. Then there was the Canadian Grain Commission.
The hon. member for Battle River is circulating a petition against the supply-management of beef. Let me tell him that 1 cannot do it to the farmers of Canada unless they want it, because it is not in the legislation. He is using scare tactics. I can tell him that there would be nothing but chaos on that market in the foreseeable future. Even the Canadian Cattlemen's Association is saying that perhaps by 1981 we will get out of trouble. Last year at this time when I put quotas on the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand, they told me to lift the quotas, free the market and let it operate in its own fashion. Now they tell me to get back and do something. Every editorial in the agricultural papers is saying it is time the government acted. Last year they told the government to mind its own business and stay out of action.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has dairy farmers in his riding and I know exactly how many of them in his area are in trouble. Let me say that I do not distribute that quota to the people-it is the provincial marketing board which distributes it. We are putting a program into effect now and if producers do as we tell them to do-which we tried to tell them last year-there will be more fairness and equity. We are trying to put right some of the injustices that occurred.
To say that this legislation will be rigid is nonsense. Anyone can tell that this legislation is broad enough to include most producers. When I am accused of not having consulted agricultural producers before coming out with this legislation, let me suggest that hon. members opposite should read some of the farm newspapers nudging us before the throne speech to bring in an advance payment program. They asked "Where is the advance payment program of the Minister of Agriculture, the one he talked about three or four years ago?" It is unfair to say I have not consulted anyone about this program. They thought probably that we would not do anything about it, and now they are surprised it is in place. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton should read some of my speeches that come to his office and he would find a record of the times when I spoke about it to different farm groups in this nation.
Advance Payments for Crops
I said that I wanted to put Canadian agricultural producers, regardless of whether they were grain producers or producers of other foods, on an equal basis so that they would not have to rush their crops to market to pay the bank an 11 per cent or 12 per cent interest. Hon. members opposite are saying we will freeze them in. If they want to sell their commodity somewhere else, they can pay in cash, but they will have to pay the interest on that if they do not sell their commodity or deliver the product on time. They must pay in cash above the exempt $500 on the total loan, or 10 per cent, whichever it happens to be.
Hon. members who have spoken have said that they agree with the principle of the legislation, but then I have never heard so much pessimistic talk about what it is liable to do or not do. I just do not understand, with the little bit of trouble we are in in some areas of agriculture-and I say little because I compare those troubles with the troubles of other nations of the world-how can hon. members be so pessimistic? We have a tremendous production entity called agriculture in our country. I cannot be that pessimistic. I think even my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), is a little pessimistic. He should thank God that we have a tremendous wheat crop because the production facilities in the U.S.S.R., for example, are about as unpredictable as the weather. Who knows what will happen next year in the U.S.S.R.? What incentive is there for its people to be productive?
The hon. member for Battle River talked about land use and suggested I bring in a bill with regard to land use. We do not have that authority. That is under provincial jurisdiction, and the hon. member should know that. He has been a member of this House long enough to realize that.
Hon. members opposite are asking us to co-ordinate some kind of land program. We have a complete land map of Canada. We are always redesigning it with regard to urban encroachment, but we do not have control at the federal level. If we walked in and made demands with regard to land we would be called dictators, but that is difficult to get across to the public. The public thinks we have that authority, but that is wrong, wrong, wrong! All hon. members have to do is check my record in municipal politics and they will find that I was involved with some of the first plans and zoning for any rural municipal corporation in the province of Ontario. I realize the importance of land.
Some weeks ago, I believe before the House adjourned, I remember the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Graff-tey) asking me what I would do for the broiler producers of Canada. He said that they were going broke. Then when the broiler producers decided to do something themselves and we did not spend money on them, the hon. members suggested that that was immoral and wrong and that they should follow the legislation passed by this parliament for them. The head of the consumers' association wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) saying that he should "stop that Minister of
604

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
orderly marketing purposes, but I think there are people in the agricultural community who, unlike some of their colleagues, do not necessarily agree that it is best.
We have had problems in regard to milk quotas in my part of Ontario. We have had a dreadful situation in regard to the milk producers in eastern Ontario, indeed in all parts of Ontario and in Canada. 1 do not have to tell the Minister of Agriculture about that. He knows all about it. He has received letters from me in respect of it. The minister said that he had warned the milk producers what would happen. If he did, then that message did not get through to the milk producers of Ontario, at least in my part of Ontario according to what I am told.
Another problem in regard to this part of the program-and I know you, Mr. Speaker, have an interest in this because of the nature of your constituency-is the problem which faces the farmer when he attempts to obtain an advance from the government under any act or statute in respect of compensation for herds affected by brucellosis and a number of other things. There are always complaints that payments are not high enough, and only producers know that. But what concerns me is the complaints that one receives that payments are not made quickly enough. I am not suggesting that all the bureaucracy is putting stumbling blocks deliberately in the way of the financial stability of agriculture, certainly not, but I hope that if an arrangement is made under this stature, whatever payments are to be made under it will certainly be carried out and facilitated at a much better rate than is the case now.
The reason I rose in this debate-and I listened to colleagues whose constituencies are basically agricultural in nature-is that my constituency not only has a large agricultural area but has more than that. There are small businesses, farm equipment dealers, feed dealers, stores and shops, artisans, tradesmen and professional people in the smaller towns of eastern Ontario which I do not want forgotten in terms of their dependence upon the agricultural industry. If the agricultural industry is to proceed properly, we must take into account the difficulties and the rather unique risks to which they are subject, the physical risks of farm production and storage, bad weather, disease, pests, price risks, imports from other countries, etc. This statute will advance that kind of stability. 1 imagine that there will be questions about it on second reading and, as the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) said, subject to the answers to those questions and to the input which we receive from farm organizations which have not yet had the opportunity to study this statute in detail, our party is prepared to support it.
In closing I should like to say that I hope the Minister of Agriculture does not look upon himself merely as the defender of agricultural interests in Canada. I do not think he does, but when I read his speeches-and I get them by the bale in my office-sometimes I think he does. I hope he will look upon his responsibilities as part of the over-all responsibility that the

government has collectively to provide stability in the agricultural industry, and that takes into account the responsibilities of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If in the speeches I find that from time to time the Minister of Agriculture has become defensive, it may well be because perhaps the attitude of the government which he serves-and he serves agriculture in good faith, I think, although he may well be misguided-is such with respect to agriculture that he must feel his neck becoming a little red. However, it is important that we not lose the essence of the collective responsibility and that he should realize that while he is Minister of Agriculture he also has responsibility to the consumers in Canada, as does the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have collective responsibility also to all agricultural producers in Canada. Part of their responsibility is to create an atmosphere of understanding between these two groups, and unfortunately- I say this with regret-that has not happened thus far.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I should remind hon. members at this time that the minister's speech will close the debate.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it has already been mentioned that I am supposed to catch a plane. Perhaps I should not tell anyone at what time I am to catch it because I will not be allowed the 40 minutes to which I think I am entitled in which to answer all the questions that were put to me. 1 was asked to go to Toronto with the Prime Minister of Jamaica, and I have to be at the airport at 4.15 p.m.
I should like to put a couple of points on the record. First and foremost 1 should like to reply to the point made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I realize that my job as Minister of Agriculture is not just to be responsible to the agricultural producers of this nation. My responsibility is to the total Canadian society. Also, as has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), 1 am responsible to a great many people outside Canada who benefit from our food aid programs, and I must ensure that our producers are able to fulfil our commitments which we as a government made to aid other people in the world.
On listening to the hon. member for Battle River one might think we were not doing anything with regard to distributing food in the world. Let me point out that in this regard we are doing more per capita than any other nation in the world, not only in actual food aid but in per capita dollars from Canadian taxpayers who are paying into those programs.
I have been making notes of some of the things that have been said this afternoon, and unfortunately I find it would take much longer than the time I have today to answer all the questions that have been put, but I intend to do it in committee. However, if we stick only to the bill in the committee, it will be very difficult to answer all the questions and to reply to the character assassinations by innuendo that have been placed
October 29, 1976

1 think groups generally have supported the principle of this bill, and all speakers on this side have said that we support what the bill is trying to do, However, as I have pointed out, there are a few things we want to know. There should be equity between western and eastern producers with regard to advance payments, but the department has not been able to detail how this is going to be achieved.
In general, my main objection and concern are with regard to the two crops that mean a whole lot to the economy of the farmers in the area I come from, and we are a little unclear as to how these farmers can benefit under this bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) a few moments ago that I should like to say something about this bill. I do so because a large part of my constituency, certainly in terms of area and interest, is agricultural and the people in that area depend very much on the agricultural policies of the government.
One thing which concerns me, because of the policies of the government in part, and because of certain other circumstances perhaps in smaller part, is that fewer farms are being occupied by bona fide farmers. I see a change in the agricultural industry. I do not express concern for that merely in political terms but also in terms of the community.
What seems to have happened in respect of agriculture in my constituency, and in Canada to a great extent, was exemplified by the charade we saw this morning during the question period. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) asked whether or not the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) would mind at some stage going over and chatting with the Minister of Agriculture to underscore the truth of the division between those two responsibilities. For some reason unknown to me, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs got up in the full glare of the press gallery, marched over and sat down beside the Minister of Agriculture, and shook hands with him! It was a charade. I understand it was intended as a joke, although perhaps a joke in poor taste.
I do not blame the Minister of Agriculture who received the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but perhaps it was symbolic as well because it seems to me, as an observer of the attitude of the government and the way it functions, that it functions on the basis that it assumes there will be some conflict and that there must necessarily be some conflict between the interests of the consumer and the interests of agriculture. If I am right in that assumption-and this is the information I receive from agriculturalists as well as consumer groups in my constituency-I think the assumption is wrong and that the government should act in terms that there can be some real basis for understanding between those two important communities in Canada.
I have never said and do not say that the agricultural industry in Canada is not in all its parts basic to the prosperity
Advance Payments for Crops
of the nation. I have said publicly, here and outside the House, that people in this country must understand that food and the food industry do not begin at the refrigerator door and that there is much blood, sweat, tears, and investment which go into that industry in its basic form, namely, at the farm inside the farm gate, before food finds its way to the consumer's table or cupboard.
I have followed parliament and the development of government and governmental responsibilities ever since I went to university in this city, and as I look back over the history of recent times there seems to have been an assumption that there must be a dichotomy or division. I say with some sadness that perhaps the attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the attitude exhibited this morning by the government House leader in the discussion we had on the rules of the House, indicate that the leaders of the government in the House of Commons do not believe in the principle of collective responsibility. It was perhaps since 1968 that this breakdown has occurred. Coincidentally that year was the year the Prime Minister became leader of his party.
The concept of collective responsibility is a very important practical element in the matter of understanding and shows itself in many ways, but particularly in the way in which an attitude of confrontation has developed.
The farmers face many risks, not the least of which is the weather. Some of my colleagues have said that in terms of weather perhaps 15 per cent may be added ultimately to the price of any commodity. In other words the Canadian farmers are faced with this atmosphere and climate which we have by the grace of God. If you believe, as I do, that the government's job is to create an atmosphere in which business, including farming, can operate properly, then that point alone places an additional degree of responsibility on the government. That is why, like my colleagues who represent much deeper agricultural interests than 1 do in terms of size and the nature of the business, I am concerned about the lack of interest in agriculture and the dearth of any initiative in respect of agriculture in the Speech from the Throne.
As I understand it this really is a bill to help agriculturalists finance their operations in respect of the crops covered by the provisions of the legislation. In that sense it is a good initiative. However, it raises some questions in my mind. The hon. member for Norfolk-Haldimand (Mr. Knowles) spoke of the corn producer in southwestern Ontario. There is a large corn industry in the sense he mentioned, in eastern Ontario. It is subject to the weather and to all the other vicissitudes and so on which other members have mentioned in respect of crops which interest them.
I would hope, either in committee or elsewhere, the minister could answer the question which was put and which interests me concerning whether the Corn Council would constitute an organization or whether it is necessary for a producer's group to be established. I am also concerned that the legislation does not seem to cover independent producers who may or may not belong to this organization. There may be a reason for this which I hope will be explained. Perhaps it is necessary for

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
With respect to the tobacco grower, I personally do not see how at the present time he can benefit from the bill at all because tobacco grown on the farm, cured and packed for sale, is not in a condition to be stored on the farm. The only way to store it is to send it to a processing and packing plant, have it redried to proper humidity, packed in hogsheads and stored. This has been done by the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, I believe since 1964, when they entered into an agreement with certain processing companies whereby it was processed, packed and stored at a flat rate. The committee that the board set up at the time really had the control of it, and whether the act would recognize that the farmer still retains control through his committee of the marketing board is something we will have to find out.
Even prior to this the tobacco growers set up a co-operative, the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Co-operative, and they have a plant right near Kingsville where the minister lives; I think he knows all about it. They operated there for a year or two. The co-operative bought the tobacco and paid money for it on the exchange. 1 am sure that tobacco that was stored in this manner would not qualify under the bill because the farmer no longer owns it and therefore does not control it. I ask the minister to explain in some detail, when he has the opportunity, precisely how the tobacco grower can benefit from this plan.
I suppose one immediate criticism of the bill is that of discrimination. For example, the corn growers-the other group I want to talk about in some detail-of southwestern Ontario were one of the major advocates of this type of legislation, an advance payments plan similar to that of the Wheat Board in the west. Now that Bill C-2 has arrived, these corn growers will find themselves ineligible because they have not set up a corn marketing agency.
This is a pretty important crop in southwestern Ontario. I do not have to remind the minister of that; he is right in the centre of a big corn growing area. Actually, the crop has been grown throughout southern Ontario since the advent of the new early-maturing hybrids, seeds that are now available in Ontario. Corn has become a crop all through the province. In 1975 the crop was 130 million bushels. In 1976 the estimate is about 125 million bushels, down a bit. The figures I have quoted come from the Ontario Corn Council. The value of the 1975 crop was estimated to be about $320 million. 1 suggest this is an indication of the size of the industry, and a significant number of farmers have a lot of money at stake and certainly would benefit from this legislation.
As I have said, however, they have no organization that would really qualify under the bill, as I read it. This council is an organization comprised of representatives of all facets of the industry, such as the growers, elevator operators, brokers and so on. I would doubt that they would qualify, so I repeat that we should find some way in which these individual farmers can receive some of the benefits of the legislation.
Another comment with respect to corn that I want to make is that the formation of a corn marketing board or agency in southern Ontario was discussed a good number of years ago,

but the plan was never put on paper in a concrete form that could be presented to the growers for a vote on it. Therefore I repeat that there is simply no organization for them.
1 do not know whether it would be fair to accuse the government of trying to force farmers to bring themselves under marketing agencies or marketing boards. Could these marketing agencies be the forerunners of compulsory supply management on a general scale? Or is this simply a means whereby the government is trying to appear helpful while really doing next to nothing? For example, producers will have to ask themselves whether advance payments are worth the bureaucratic cost of marketing agencies' administration, especially since these costs will have to be borne by the producers themselves. No wonder the government has limited its liability to $200 million.
By and large farmers-I do not need to tell the minister this because he is one himself-are rugged individuals and they like to have control of their product, especially when it comes to selling it. They like to be able to decide when is the time to sell or whether to hold their crop till next summer. So for a third time 1 return to the suggestion that we find some way whereby an individual, without belonging to an agency, can participate in this plan.
At the federal level the grains and special crops division of Agriculture Canada will administer the program. It is not expected that more manpower will be required, I suppose because the paper work and the detailed work of administration will be done at the local level, at the agency, as the bill provides.
The bill defines what are crops, and it is interesting to note that they are grains, oil seeds, root crops and so on. I should just like to make reference to two provisions of the bill which are a little confusing and unclear, to say the least. In the interpretation section "crop" is defined as "grains, oil seeds, root crops and such other field grown crops as are prescribed." However, when we come to the application of the bill, clause 3 provides that "This act applies in respect of crops grown in Canada" period. So evidently there is no limitation.
When I asked the departmental officials about this, the grains division could not give a definite answer as to whether potatoes would be eligible. I do not see why they would not, but that is the answer they gave. They said that apples were eligible, but not strawberries. As a result there should be a complete listing to clear the matter up. The minister, either in the bill or perhaps by way of regulation, should give a listing of what products are eligible.
The maximum advances set out in the bill, $15,000 for individual producers, $30,000 for partnerships, and $45,000 for three or more partners, are the same as on the prairies. In the Wheat Board area a producer can apply for an advance payment at his local grain company. The company is allowed to pay the producer one half of the total advance applied for on the spot, a good feature. The remaining half is forthcoming after the Wheat Board has checked the application for accuracy. This might also be incorporated in the bill or put in the regulations.
October 29, 1976

raise in committee, and we certainly want to voice at this time our objection to the government for failing to pay greater and needed recognition to the agricultural industry. Take the situation which has allowed the beef industry in this country to go into its fourth year operating at below the cost of production. We should stop and recognize that the meat industry is the third largest manufacturing industry in this country, a business involving nearly $3 billion. Yet the federal Department of Agriculture has failed to take the initiative it ought to have taken to find markets, to cut off imports from the oceanic countries that are literally making Canada a dumping ground for beef. The minister might respond that he has already done so, that he has put on some quotas-


Eugene Whelan: I put them on last year.


Arnold John Malone: Then he cannot go out to Western Canada and tell the farmers with a clean conscience that he has done anything to protect the meat industry when he recognizes that they are now in their fourth year of operation at below the cost of production. Otherwise it is not possible to gather together 300 ranchers at two day's notice in a protest meeting about what's happening to the meat industry. We know what has happened.
It is obvious to those on this side of the House what has happened to the Minister of Agriculture. He may well have a good conscience in terms of what he wanted to do in the agricultural industry, but he has lost his power in cabinet because at least twice, and probably three times, this summer there were policy pronouncements that something was to be done for the cow-calf operator. They never naturalized. Deadline dates came and went telegrams were sent by premiers to the minister, and there were never any responses to them. The truth of the matter is that the minister has failed to get his policies past his cabinet colleagues. In other words he has failed as a minister to demonstrate the importance of agriculture to the whole country, and that is obvious today when we look at the Speech from the Throne and notice the insignificant amount of attention given to the industry which built this country, the industry which is still the backbone of Canada, the industry which is still among the greatest of exporting commodities that we have in terms of helping to improve our balance of trade position.
Whatever feeling we may have on this side of the House that these is some acceptability attached to Bill C-2, that this is a bill the minister has not goofed up as much as some of the others, we have to chastise him most severely for his failure to recognize that the agricultural industry has been underplayed and underscored. Everyone in this House and everyone in Canada traditionally eats three times a day-I would suspect the minister may do so even more than that but we must recognize that if we are to have a productive land, if we are going to use slogans like "The Land is Strong" it is high time agriculture was given its proper place in our society.
I would hope that at the next opportunity the minister has he will be announcing policies that will deal with international sales of food products such as might be a stimulus to the
Advance Payments for Crops
agricultural producers of this country, encouraging them to produce to their maximum capacity with full assurance that the government will play its proper role in seeing that those foodstuffs are sold to the Third World nations and help alleviate what has been an obvious and most critical problem-four-fifths of the world suffering from malnutrition. The fact that there has been so little mention about agriculture in the Speech from the Throne underscores the government's failure to recognize Canada's most important resource, agriculture, and those engaged in it.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some comments about Bill C-2, particularly with regard to two specific products which are produced in large quantity in the area which I represent and about which I think I have some knowledge. What I have to say will be directed to the bill, supplemented by a few questions to the minister which I know he will take the opportunity to answer either here or in committee.
Bill C-2 authorizes the federal government to guarantee loans to producers in advance payments on their farm stored crops. Those advances would give producers some operating capital for the following crop year, that is, the producer would have some money for seed, equipment, etc. Once his crop has been sold, the producer would repay the loan with the interest on it being paid by the federal government. The bill before us extends to the other producers of Canada advantages which the Canadian Wheat Board producers have enjoyed since 1957. Bill C-2 has been modelled on the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act of 1957-58. However, there are certain differences, which will be pointed out later.
Under the terms of the bill before us, advance payments will be paid out by a producer organization. Bill C-2 defines an "organization" as an organization of producers. However, the intent of the government is that the producer organization be a marketing agency. Thus the bill is rather misleading. Would there not be some way to ensure that individual farmers might receive the benefits of this legislation? I suppose, on reflection, that the administrative difficulties of doing so might be too great; the department is obviously expecting that the organizations referred to would be responsible for the book work and the administration. One of my hon. friends suggested that the banks be involved in this type of program and the minister might well give that suggestion some thought. The problem as I see it is that certain farmers are going to be disqualified from the benefit of this legislation, as I shall point out later.
Presently there are only about 12 marketing agencies which would qualify immediately under the provisions of this bill. These are provincial agencies, such as the agencies for B.C. apples, Ontario wheat, Ontario white beans, and the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers Marketing Board, of which I am a member. These agencies are generally centred in B.C. and Ontario. This leaves many producers and many areas of Canada out in the cold and ineligible for advance payments.

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
1 challenge the minister to stand in his place and clearly demonstrate what kind of a program he has for the sale of crops in the international market place. It is my belief that if anything is weak in our society today it is the failure to sell aggressively agricultural products in the international market place.
We talked about the minister's inability to recognize the major problems of agriculture by introducing only this one bill. Bill C-2. The assumption that must go with that is that Canada has a lot of land and therefore agriculture is really an unimportant industry. In truth, only about 13 per cent of Canada's land area is agricultural, nearly one half of which is limited to permanent pasture. Only 7 per cent is suitable for cultivation, and subsequently, field crop production. The real restriction lies in the fact that only 2.4 per cent of Canada's land area is of excellent quality, namely class one and two soil. Most of the urban growth is taking place over these top two categories of soil. Now, the data shows a very different situation. The case is not .4 per cent out of 100 per cent, but rather .4 per cent out of 2.5 per cent, or approximately 20 per cent of our best land has been destroyed by urbanization.
During the past five years 200,000 acres of Ontario farmland were removed from agricultural production for other uses. At Ontario's present rate of farmland destruction, one half of the present foodland will be out of production by the year 2000, and 100 per cent destroyed by the year 2025.
Canadian cities now cover more than 9,000 square miles, most of which were once the very best of a food-producing resource. In the five years between 1966 and 1971, Canadians lost four and a half million acres of prime farmland to urban growth.
It is important to note that of the major cities on the prairies, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Lethbridge, Red Deer, Edmonton and Grande Prairie are all built in the middle of old geological lakebeds. That means that every major prairie city except Calgary and Medicine Hat is built on silted out soil; a prime resource for food production. Nearly one half of all land used for urbanization is from the top one twentieth of our food resource land. The reason for this phenomenon is a natural one; towns and cities sprung up and flourished in those areas where the pioneers were able to maintain productive and profitable agriculture.
At the present rate of farmland destruction in Canada, our remaining 24 million acres of class one and two soil could be reduced to as low as nine million acres by the year 2000, at which point Canada could suffer a significant food shortage. To destroy such a vast amount of a non-renewable food-producing resource is morally wrong when four fifths of the world suffer from malnutrition.
Moreover, we need to bear in mind that the world's population increases by 70 million people per year. Therefore the farmer will have to increase his present production by more than 60 per cent before the year 2000 just to maintain our current miserable level of inadequate food supply. I would like to repeat that. Therefore the farmer will have to increase his present production by more than 60 per cent before the year

2000 just to maintain our current miserable level of inadequate food supply.
These are only two sources of food; they are fertile soil and water. In the temperate zone it takes 20,000 years to produce an inch of topsoil. Farmland should obviously be considered as a non-renewable resource. More than 80 per cent of Canadians live on land that is zoned or restricted. Cities have zoning departments to plan and organize growth. Note, however, that planning is practised only when land is treated as a commodity, but void of consideration on resource land. Why has food production become second rate to housing and industrial development? Why does the Minister of Agriculture permit continuence of the use of black soil for backfill for houses and factories, when at the same time the world's greatest need is for food to stave off conditions of malnutrition?
Some will choose to cling blindly to the false position that we have ample farmland. Those who previously took such views have left an unfortunate example but a valued lesson etched in history. The Coliseum in the Roman City of Thys-drus with its 65,000 seats is a conspicuous remnant of a mismananged land. So is much of North Africa, Tunisia, Ceylon, of the Indie region, the slopes of Peru and the City of Jericho, Southern Russia, etc.
It is too easy to conclude that agriculture is secondary to civilization, that industry and commerce are all-important to an advancing culture. The truth is that every human achievement to which the current technology world bears witness is based on successful agriculture, be it domestic or foreign. People who are hungry do not concentrate on cultural advancements as long as there is not enough food. I simply want to underscore, Mr. Speaker, that it is an absolute shame that in a land such as Canada with the food producing capacity we have, with farmers who have the managerial skill, the technical know-how and the willingness to produce in this country, we find only this one bill being placed before us in the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament.
I think it is an incredible mistake that we have been so late in our history coming forward with some piece of legislation showing a federal initiative in terms of the protection of agricultural land. It is one thing to talk about advance crop payments but how can we have any crops at all if we don't have any soil to grow them on? The federal government for example, confiscated 88,000 acres for Mirabel Airport, and talks about confiscating land by the thousands of acres for an airport north of Toronto, all on prime agricultural land. The truth of the matter is that we will not even need an agriculture minister if we are going to wipe out the one resource that produces almost all are food. The fact of the matter is that he only needs to stay around to the year 2,030 at the rate of our present destruction and there won't be any soil, and we won't need him at all. That might be the only advantage attached to the rate at which we are destroying our own farmland.
I just want to underscore that while we don't find fault with the principle of Bill C-2 we have some serious questions to
October 29, 1976

I hope this sort of thing will not happen under Bill C-2. I hope changes will not be made unless they are announced well in advance. We all recognize that change must come from time to time, but I hope they will not occur in the sort of circumstances I have mentioned in which people face awkward and then uncomfortable situations. Indeed, Department of Agriculture officials at levels below the minister make rulings such as the one which denied purebred status to registered animals. I am not convinced that the minister is aware that that change took place. Yet that decision cost one farmer in my home province nearly $500,000 when his purebred herd was destroyed because it had brucellosis.
To turn to other aspects of Bill C-2, let me say that the advance payments program will not really encourage the production of crops in this country. As I said before, if we are to take our agricultural industry seriously and make it produce even more, we must sell our produce aggressively on the world market. If we do so, our farmers will produce as never before and make a good living. Our present system is less than satisfactory. The ups and downs of the market are often governed by the size of crops. When there is a scarcity, prices go up; but when there is an abundance of produce, as there is at present, it tends to depress the world market. This, in turn, tends to have a depressing effect on the farmer.
Advance payments will not provide the farmer with more money than he would earn from the sale of crops. They are simply an advance of the money he would earn, paid to him at an earlier date. The truth of the matter is that a man cannot operate in that kind of climate.
We on this side of the House are prepared to approve in principle Bill C-2, but we will want to have many details cleared up in committee, because some matters have yet to be specifically dealt with, one of them being consultation with other farm organizations. We shall want to know more about the mechanism through which advance payments will be paid. In other words, is there to be another bureaucracy established, or will the government allow the private sector, which already possesses the necessary organization and structure, to conduct this business?
I forewarn the minister that approval in principle by members on my side of Bill C-2, an act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, is by no means to be construed as an indication that we on this side of the House, or farmers across this country, will allow the government to become more involved in agriculture; and 1 am particularly referring to any supply-management system in respect of beef. In that regard 1 would like to respond to one of the answers the minister gave in this House in reply to a question by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga). I quote from page 147 of Hansard for October 18, 1976 where the Minister of Agriculture is reported as stating:
-it is obvious that the beef industry needs a supply-management program. It is obvious these producers cannot deal in the world free market under the present conditions and exist.
Advance Payments for Crops
If there has ever been an example of something in which lack of consultation has taken place, that has to be one of the clearest examples that could be placed before this House.
About two weeks ago, on two days' notice, 300 ranchers gathered in the city of Lethbridge to protest any intentions the minister might have in relation to a supply-management system. On October 22 of this year in the town of Stettler 800 ranchers gathered. They were attempting to disseminate across the four western provinces, on very short notice, a petition which we intend to table in this House. One of the main points of that petition is that we do not want a supply-management system in the beef industry.
1 hope the minister will soon recognize that any approval of Bill C-2 and the government's involvement with advance payments on grain is by no way a licence to consider that the Department of Agriculture can go forward and manage all parts of the agricultural sector.
The petition that will be circulated for a very brief period of time has caught on like wild-fire in my province. People from other provinces have started to telephone to see where they can get this petition. What they are saying is that they do not want a supply-management system for the beef industry. That underscores one of the real cautions that we must have with regard to government involvement in industry of any kind.
In the beef industry, there were 29 ad hoc short-term policy pronouncements in a two-year period. That surely is good reason to recognize why the industry is presently in trouble. If supply management is not working well in the poultry business, and not working well in the dairy business, and the minister should be well aware of that, surely it cannot be a program that will work well in the beef industry which operates on a three and one half to five year cycle.
Advance payment on crops is not nearly as important as increasing the amount of foodstuffs. That ought to have been within the programs and obligations of the Minister of Agriculture. His thrust in this legislation ought to have been to recognize the world need for food. In light of that recognition there should have been more than 48 words in the Speech from the Throne related to agriculture. There should be more than Bill C-2 coming before us to give us something that talks about a guarantee to farmers that, if they produce at their maximum, they will be justly rewarded for their production.
There is nothing more urgently needed in world society today than an increase in the amount of foodstuffs. It is abundantly clear that in a year like this, when there has been a surplus of grain and cereal grain production in Canada, one thing that is required is an assurance to farm people that this will not depress their prices. However, no sooner did they raise a bumper crop than the price began to plummet. That came at a time when the Anti-Inflation Board was holding all other people in this country to essentially a 10 per cent increase. However, this group of people, the most important people in our society, have to run the risks in the market place, not because the market is weak but because the Department of Agriculture is failing to sell their product abroad.

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
and, at best, to 17 million acres. The minister should realize it is not enough to bring in ad hoc or short-term policies, or policies that affect only one sector. We should have an over-all agricultural policy that would help meet the worldwide demand for food.
This bill falls far short of what is needed. It will give an advance payment to farmers, and I have no argument with that; but it does not take into consideration the increased crop production of this country. When we stop to consider that four-fifths of the world's population is suffering from malnutrition, and that every year there are 70 million more mouths to be fed, surely the minister should encourage farmers to produce to maximum capacity. I know he will make the response that our farmers are efficient and have increased their production faster than the non-farming sector of the country. Of course, I do not disagree with that. The minister makes good speeches in this regard. But the fact is this country is falling far short of its capacity.
This year we have abundant crops from the Atlantic to the Pacific. But the Soviet Union, Australia, America, and other major wheat producing countries also have abundant crops. It simply does not make sense, in a year of abundance, to depress prices or be discouraged about finding an outlet for our crops on the world market. The truth of the matter is that Canada's major failing is that it does not sell agricultural products abroad aggressively and forcefully. This country puts agricultural products on the shelf and hopes a buyer will come.
1 feel that the Department of Agriculture is under the important obligation of encouraging farmers to produce to the absolute maximum. The department should adopt the attitude that we can sell aggressively on the international market, that we cannot tolerate any longer people living in dire poverty. I challengt the minister, who I know will speak shortly because he wants to catch a flight away from here, to tell the House how he intends to sell food products abroad and how the performance of the agricultural industry, one of this country's major industries, compares with that, say, of the automotive industry.
Let us consider what is happening in the field of meat. We know that the meat industry is one of the three largest in Canada. It is a $3.5 billion industry in Canada, ranks second in the cost of materials used-it spends about $3 billion on materials-spends about $6 million a day on livestock, and employs nearly 33,000 people. Yet when you compare that industry with General Motors or any other industry of the same size, you note that its product is not being sold as aggressively on the markets of the world, markets which obviously have a tremendous need of food.
There is not even full consultation with our producer groups, with farm groups in this country. My colleague for Wetaski-win has justifiably said that there is no reason at all to seek the establishment, through Bill C-2, of a new organization or structure through which advance payments could be paid to farmers. There is no reason at all for any new bureaucracy.
[Mr. Malone.)
The necessary mechanisms already exist in the private sector in the form of banks which have the personnel for administering the program and for keeping records of transactions which take place. But the government must take the responsibility for the payments.
1 should like to underscore three things which ought not to happen as a result of the passage of Bill C-2. First, we feel that farmers do not need, as so often happens when the government passes a law, any extra burden of paperwork. When the government passed its anti-inflation program, one of the biggest complaints of small businessmen was that they were overburdened with paperwork. I hope that will not prove to be the case following passage of Bill C-2.
Second, and more importantly-I hope the minister will lend a careful ear-I hope the payments will not be late, as is traditional when payments of this kind are made through the Canadian Wheat Board.
One of the things that frustrates farmers is that they expect money to come in, but then realize that they can place no dependency on the federal government as to when the payments will be made. If we are to operate a really efficient agricultural industry in this country and maintain it as one of our largest industries, we must make such payments predictable. We must let the farm producer and manager have some clearly defined idea as to when these sorts of finances are to be made available. We must give our farm producers a sense of assurance; they must know that there is a guaranteed period within which advance payments will be made.
Third, if I may raise another point relating to what may happen after the passage of Bill C-2, I hope that this government or this minister will not, as has been traditional, permit a change of the rules in mid-stream. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) should make particularly sure that once the rules have been established they are not changed without due announcement.
1 will underscore my concern by relating an example which will show how the Department of Agriculture inflicted a tremendous injustice on certain people in this country by changing certain rules without notice. I am alluding to what happened within the health of animals branch in relation to cattle suffering from brucellosis and Bang's disease. At one time it was held that any animal termed as "registered" was considered a purebred. Then suddenly a case involving diseased cattle ended up in courts because the Department of Agriculture lawyers said that "registered" no longer meant "purebred" animals.
One farmer in my province who owned a purebred herd, a herd registered as sixteen-seventeenths Charolais, was not able to collect. He lost a $500,000 herd because a change had taken place without announcement. The final statement of the judge presiding in the trial was, "1 have done my duty; I have ruled in accordance with the law, but I do not believe 1 have done justice." That is how the judge felt about rules being changed without notice.
October 29, 1976

seems to me that this has to be the solution, particularly when we have agricultural commodities in the cyclical position in which many of them are.
If in good years when a farmer has a high income he is allowed to put a certain amount of that money away into his own stabilization account, which would be non-taxable, when the cycle turns down he would be able to draw this money from that account. It would then become taxable, but it would take away the apprehension we see in the cattle industry, in the hog industry and in a number of other agricultural industries. When there is an aggregate stabilization plan, the farmer is at the beck and call of the aggregate situation. It could be that this year the western grain stabilization plan will be kicked off because the price of grain may drop a small amount. However, that may not be true because the volume this year is substantially increased and the aggregate income this year may still be very high.
In conclusion, I think the best answer for prairie farmers is not to give them more credit. Even though the situation with regard to advanced payments is not really credit, it still could amount to an interest payment for him. The answer has to be individual income stabilization, and not aggregate stabilization. In the committee we will have many questions to ask about this bill. We will be asking why banks cannot make these advance payments directly to farmers. There will be a number of other questions which I have asked in my speech and which have been raised by other hon. members on this side of the House.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the honour of following the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and to reiterate some of his excellent remarks. In speaking about Bill C-2, an act to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, one thing that can be granted to the minister is that he has not fouled up the farming industry as much this time as with most of the other legislation he has brought before the House,
There are some questions about this bill, however, even though it has not done the damage we have witnessed in other legislation put before this parliament. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin noted that one of the very serious concerns we have about the bill is that it speaks about an "organization" being established to administer the funds in the advance payments for crops program, extending beyond the traditional Wheat Board system that has been the practice. But what is the rationale for establishing a whole new organization, a whole new bureaucracy to administer financing to a group of people in the major regions of the country, when the banking institutions are already equipped to handle such an obligation? No response has been forthcoming from the minister, but when we get into committee of the whole I hope he will recommend that we use the existing mechanisms of the banks and treasury branches, etc., to finance the program rather than establish a new bureaucracy.
Advance Payments for Crops
We do not disagree with the bill in principle. One objection that we make most strongly, however, is that it is the only piece of legislation to flow from the Speech from the Throne. I think it is an insult not just to the Canadian people and not just to the Canadian farmer but to the whole world that there were only 48 words on the subject of agriculture in the Speech from the Throne. No greater problem faces humanity today than the need for food. We know that there are only two sources of food: one is soil and the other is water. Four-fifths of the world's population suffers from malnutrition. We know that 12,000 children each day die of starvation. This means that 12,000 died yesterday, today another 12,000 children died, and 12,000 will die tomorrow. That is the average death rate due to lack of food. That the Speech from the Throne devoted only 48 words to agriculture, and this is the only bill to be brought in as a result, is a shame, Mr. Speaker.
Previous speakers have mentioned the lack of consultation between the government and producers, and this fact cannot be underscored enough. The minister claims there has been consultation with various producer organizations, but he has not established which organizations were involved and investigations on this side of the House have not revealed any consultations. The organizations deny any consultation with the minister in regard to Bill C-2. Obviously, any consultation should come before the enactment of this bill into law, and not as an afterthought.
Clearly, this is the only bill affecting agriculture that will flow from the Speech from the Throne and, clearly, the minister has failed to recognize the serious problems affecting agriculture today. Where is the legislation in respect of soil conservation? The minister well knows that a promise was made to the provinces a decade ago that the federal government would undertake a soil mapping program. This was to establish and unify a soil classification program from coast to coast, indicating areas of rich and poor quality soil-but it has never been completed. The only classification that exists was done more than 30 years ago, so the promised program is long overdue. If we are to have a productive agricultural industry, one of the most important aspects is preservation of present agricultural land, but the minister has taken no steps to establish the promised soil classification and mapping program.
In 1978, Mr. Speaker, the International Soil Science Conference will bring some 3,000 soil scientists to Edmonton from all over the world. The last conference was held in Moscow. As these scientists look at what is happening to agriculture in Canada, they will realize that as a country we aregiot paying enough attention to this valuable resource. You cannot grow crops unless you have soil, Mr. Speaker. It is all very well for the minister to speak about advance payments for crops in Bill C-2, but he is missing the major point about what is happening in agriculture-that you cannot grow crops if the soil disappears.
There are 24 million acres of class one and class two soils in Canada today. At the present rate of destruction, that figure will be reduced, at worst, to 9 million acres by the year 2000

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
hundred thousand dollars may be a significant amount to carry.
The final difference is that whereas grain producers market their produce through the Canadian Wheat Board, there is no requirement in Bill C-2 that producers must market their crops through the organization. Presumably they are free, as they are today, to choose their own marketing channel. One wonders what is the purpose of setting up a number of producer groups if, first, they are not necessary to the act as a marketing channel and, second, the banks could perform the lending function more efficiently and more directly. There seems to be little point in getting producer organizations involved in the extension of advance payments when banks are perfectly well equipped to provide loans under the government guarantee.
When we look at the experience with cow-calf grants, we see that farmers in western Canada today go to their district agriculturalists to pick up a form which provides a government guarantee; then they go directly to the bank for the loan. This seems to be a very efficient manner of getting a grant or a loan, but under this proposal the farmer will have to belong to an organization. He gets word from the organization that he is eligible, and the organization then borrows the funds from the bank and turns them over to the producer.
Why involve the organization at all? It seems to me that an amendment could be proposed here to clarify the position and to make it much simpler by allowing the farmer to go to a bank, declare his interest, declare the amount of crop he has, provide the necessary security and get an advance with a government guarantee that if he fails to produce the crop there is some security beyond the collateral he has put up for his loan. So I question the whole procedure advocated in this bill. If in committee we are not satisfied with the answers to these questions, I think it would be logical to propose an amendment to make this a much simpler procedure.
In clause 5(A)(b)(i) of Bill C-2 there is mention of a named buyer. Does this mean that the individual producer must provide the details of the future sale of his crops in order to obtain an advance payment? If so, what would be the implications of this requirement? I have visions of a producer being forced to give the details of his sale well in advance of actually making that sale.
When we look at the case of rapeseed producers in western Canada, we see that many of them sign contracts in advance of seeding to supply to a crusher so many thousand bushels of rapeseed, and the price is set then. But we are talking here about many other commodities the future marketability and price of which we do not know. The price may fluctuate, and if producers tie themselves into a contract they could then get a very much lower price than if they allow the market to work as it will and take the best price possible for their commodities. This is where the advance payment comes in: it allows the farmer to hold on to his commodity until such a time as he can get the best price. But why put this clause in the bill whereby

producers must provide the details of their future sales by naming a so-called named buyer?
I must also express my disappointment about the fact that we have this mysterious term "organization" in the bill. Has the minister contacted these organizations and asked whether they are prepared to take this bill under their wing and set up the required mechanisms to put in place the advance payments to the farmers? I have been reading the farm journals and 1 have been talking to a number of organizations, and none of them has mentioned that they have been asked whether they are prepared to set up this type of arrangement.
As a westerner, 1 am very familiar with the problems of the prairie farm economy. By and large, these problems are the same as those which plague farmers right across Canada. While it is true that realized net income for Canadian farmers is up 8 per cent over last year, there is a continuous spiral in the cost of farm input-the costs of fertilizer, petroleum, electricity, operation and depreciation are up 15 per cent over last year-and this gives farmers little reason to be happy with their position.
We just heard from the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) that the situation in the export market does not look very bright this year. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) recently returned from the Soviet Union. He said there has been a tremendous crop in that country and that the Soviet Union may not be prepared to provide a market this year. This causes farmers some concern, because they have been getting reasonable prices for their grain for the last couple of years. This year there was a tremendous crop of high quality grain, but things do not look good with regard to a market. They are still faced with these high costs.


Eugene Whelan: They have the grain stabilization program.


Mr. Schellenberger:: I have here a table of the Canadian farm input price index and we can compare the index for a number of commodities. We can take the period 1974-1975. The fertilizer index was 161.9 in 1974. In 1975 it jumped to 204.6. While we realize the necessity of the increase in the price of petroleum, petroleum is a major input for farmers and that index has risen from 144.8 to 173, an increase of some 30 points on an index of 100. The index on farm buildings has risen some 24 points, farm machinery from 153 to 178-and we can go on through electricity, hired farm labour, and feed costs. They are all substantially increased. Looking at the same figures for the first two quarters of 1976, we see that they have again increased substantially in every case but fertilizers. So the farmer in Canada is looking at the price for his product, then he looks at the cost to bring that product to market and there is much apprehension.
The minister mentioned that we have the Western Grain Stabilization Act, and perhaps this gives some farmers some comfort, but not very many. 1 still believe that even though we passed the Western Grain Stabilization Act, the best way to cause farmers the least apprehension about their future is to set up an individual stabilization account for each farmer. It
October 29, 1976

It would seem that the feed grain policy of this government has had the effect of the producer's barley being sold on the open market at upward of $1 less than what it has been trading for on the world market. In a Cargill Grain Company Limited newsletter it is suggested that the Wheat Board has been selling the new barley crop at very respectable prices with premiums over corn. In effect, the Wheat Board has been selling in excess of $2.30, while sales on the open market are at $1.90, which is much less than its real value.
The article in the Western Producer goes on to say that dry weather in Europe, and weather concerns in the United States corn belt, have combined to increase export feed grain values, and that barley had risen in value at Thunder Bay to $2.78 a bushel. It was considered that there would be a bumper crop of wheat which might be present in the world, but there was not a bumper crop of barley.
The policy of the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) of pricing barley on the Montreal market in relation to Chicago corn has obviously caused a great disservice to western producers. It has meant that somebody has been able to buy a substantial amount of barley at about $1.95, when in effect the selling price was closer to $2.75 or $3. It is not altogether clear who owns this barley, whether it is the Eastern Feed Grain Board or whether it is the brokers and exporters who may well reap almost $1 or $1.50 for it on the open market.
That policy has probably caused the western producers losses of up to $100 million to $200 million, and it has perhaps caused the loss of foreign currency and foreign exports of an equal amount. In effect, it is an attempt to say that two products which are not alike, are alike. In effect, the feed grain policy of the government which tries to equate corn and barley in the Montreal market is not functioning, and in the end it can only lead to losses for everyone concerned and may well bring substantial windfall profits to the people who are fortunate enough to buy barley at this reduced price. That is all I have to say about this bill at present, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak on this bill today I welcome the proposed legislation because I think it provides greater equity between the Wheat Board area and the growers of crops who do not come under the Wheat Board. This legislation should help the rapeseed grower in particular because in the past he has been unable to get an advance on his crop since it did not come under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
One of the principal questions that has been asked by various members who have spoken on this legislation is about the mysterious wording in which it is couched, specifically the definition of the word "organization". The bill defines "organization" as an organization of producers, and that is as clear as it gets. I suspect that the organization to which the minister refers means such organizations as the Agricultural Federation of Canada, the Rapeseed Growers of Canada, and the potato associations in the various provinces. However, this is unclear.
Advance Payments for Crops
1 suppose we will only get a clear definition of this word in the committee, unless the minister, in concluding the debate, clears up this matter.
It is probable that the producer groups which could gain the greatest benefit from these advance payments at present do not qualify because they do not belong to any organization. Let me refer, again, to the rapeseed growers in western Canada, many of whom do not belong to any organization. They grow rapeseed as a cash crop, a crop that has had a good quota in the past. As a result, if markets for this commodity decline, the only way in which they could qualify for an advance is by joining an organization.
Before this legislation becomes acceptable, a number of questions must be answered to satisfy the legitimate concerns of many of the farmers who will be affected. The first question is: If there is no existing organization and producers are forced to set one up in order to qualify for advance payments, who will cover the costs of the expenses incurred in setting it up? The second question is: Who will cover the administration expenses of such organizations? The third question is: What happens to the independent farmer, of whom we have many and who want no truck or trade with producer groups? Will he lose out because of his independent status? The fourth question that comes to mind is: What crops are really covered by this legislation? The bill states that root crops and other field crops will be covered, but I think it should be stated more specifically.
While there are similarities between Bill C-2 and the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act of 1957, three major differences separate the two. The first is that the administration of advance payments for grain is carried out by only one organization, namely, the Canadian Wheat Board. Because a number of organizations will be entrusted with the implementation of Bill C-2, there is greater latitude for inequities and inefficiencies, in my view. The disparity in the size of the various organizations and the financial resources available to them are only two of the problems which they will be facing.
The second difference is that while the Canadian Wheat Board is not liable for advance payments made by it, the organizations expending advance payments under Bill C-2 will be liable. Although this liability amounts to only 10 per cent of the actual advance, it is a significant risk because many of these organizations are small. This risk may be particularly onerous for new organizations which will have to be set up to reap the benefits of this act. Under the Advance Payments Act, the amount of money that is still owing to the Wheat Board is not really significant when you consider that over $1 billion has been lent, and of that $1 billion only about $9,385,000 has not been refunded by producers. But when we read further, we find that by January 31, 1976, everything other than another $4 million has come in, which leaves a balance of $3.8 million to be collected. This is a credit to the farmers of Canada. They have been able to deliver the goods that they promised to deliver to the Wheat Board. The $3 million to the Canadian Wheat Board may not be a significant amount. On the other hand, when it comes to an organization, a few

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
their products shall be marketed through the marketing board. There seems to be substantial reason to believe that an element of supply management and government control over the products encompassed by the bill could be instituted through the application of this legislation. 1 would be glad to hear the minister explain this point.
I hope the minister will explain that this legislation will not act as a back door for marketing boards and supersede the right of the producers to decide through a plebescite whether or not they desire marketing boards. We have heard a good deal about the plight of agriculture in the last few days. It would seem that there will be leaner times in the immediate future.
Yesterday's Globe and Mail reported the observation of the Anti-Inflation Board that food prices are going down. I think it can fairly be said that most of the decline resulted from prices at the farm gate and not, as has been suggested by the AIB, in the retailing and processing or distribution end of the business. For instance, the outlook for sales by the Wheat Board does not appear to be good. Certainly on the Chicago exchange the world traders indicate they feel that what they think should be the price of wheat has shown a drastic fall in the last year. Perhaps media sources and worldwide communications tend to exaggerate the effects of drought and natural disasters and the expectation that food sales and food exports will always continue to rise.
Indeed, with the anticipated rise in world oil prices in the immediate future we can anticipate that world trade in food products may drop. Certainly it can be said that the world can only consume the most that it has in its worst year. There are bound to be periods of surplus far into the future. Indeed, if there were not, it is obvious that many people would starve when the inevitable natural disasters reduce the world supply.
Exports of agricultural products are an important source of foreign exchange and have a great effect on the standard of living of Canadians. Generally speaking, we have exported more agricultural products than we have imported. This has not always been the case. Should world trade drop, we would find severe competition from American grain growers who seem to have increased their efficiency substantially more than the western Canadian farmers. The structure of the western grain industry, which provides nearly all the exportable surplus of food from this country, has changed substantially in the past eight years. Many people have left the farms, which means that productivity is dependent on greater use of machines. However, with the expected and, indeed, inevitable rise in farm costs both in respect of machinery and fuel there may well be a relatively greater rise in the cost of production in Canada than in some of the other exporting countries. Indeed, we hear a great deal about how much higher prices are in Canada than in the United States in respect of comparable commodities, both in relation to production and transportation. Agriculture is no exception. Certainly, our cost of produc-

tion and transportation will be higher than is the case in respect of our neighbour to the south.
Canadian agricultural policies in many instances appear to help denude the farms of manpower. It is true that farms are not as attractive for most people as are alternative jobs in towns, villages and cities. Many agricultural policies projected by the federal and provincial governments seem to have hurried the change-over from labour-intensive agriculture to capital-intensive agriculture. This has promoted the holding of larger farms and perhaps more immediate efficiency, but it also raises the question of whether or not this is important in relation to strong agricultural industry. Much of the efficiency of agriculture during the past 25 years can be attributed to relatively cheap oil and gas and the attendant input of fertilizer and herbicides made from oil and gas. With the projected rise in prices of these inputs, agriculture could face some rather severe adjustments and in the long run there could be relatively higher prices for food for the consumer.
I should like to turn to a few comments about our present agricultural policy which I think deserve attention. There is an editorial in the Western Producer of October 7 under the headline, "It's time to make changes in two-price wheat policy". This article points out that since 1973 Canadian millers have been buying wheat from the Wheat Board at S3.25 per bushel for Canadian consumption, with the difference being made up by the federal treasury when prices were between $4.75 and $5., and the farmers contributed to the program when world prices were above $5.
Now, wheat prices have dropped drastically. In September the selling price of No. 1 CW red spring wheat at Thunder Bay was $3.43, almost $2 less than a year ago. It seems likely that it will go even lower, given the amount of wheat on hand throughout the world. It is pointed out than an immediate review of this two-price system should be instituted. The Wheat Board has said it has sold large volumes of grain on international markets for future delivery, but it is not altogether clear whether this grain is in the hands of the importers or whether it has merely been sold to brokers and will have to be resold on world markets some time in the future.
Certainly, the farmers of western Canada face greatly reduced prices. The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has announced that he asked the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to ascertain what is the proper floor for wheat sold to Canadian millers, and that they stated they need cost-plus, and so on. I think it is important that this be done immediately.
1 would also like to point out what I think has prevented the sale of a considerable volume of Canadian barley abroad and has reduced the sale value of Canadian barley to the producers by perhaps $100 million, and which has perhaps prevented the increase of foreign currency by that amount. I refer to the policy in respect of barley sales into the eastern market. In the Western Producer or October 7 it is reported that Cargill Grain Company and the Palliser Wheat Growers' Association suggests that farmers should hold their barley off the open market, as selling prices will be much higher.
October 29, 1976

like the federal Liberals, seem totally unconcerned about the future or the well-being of the farm community. Having heard some of the speeches made by hon. members to my right, I am not convinced they are prepared to offer effective policies to help farmers in the uncertainties they face today. Simply providing advance payments to certain crop producers is not enough to alleviate those uncertainties. Adequate stabilization of farm income should be the first priority of the Minister of Agriculture. The same message should be passed along to hon. members to my right. They, in turn, could tell the provincial government of Ontario what is needed to help farmers.
I should like to reiterate a number of points which have been made by speakers before me of which I trust the minister has taken note. To begin with, there was little or no consultation with farm groups while this bill was in course of preparation. Then, again, the bill comes to us without the customary explanatory notes, so we are left up in the air in some respects. Further, I would ask the minister this question: When will payments be made? No dates are specified in the bill, and I would point out that payments made by government are invariably late-witness, for example, crop insurance payments.
I have another question: What happens to a producer if he has accepted a payment and fails to find a market for his produce? Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives appear to be willing to endorse the provision of adequate marketing measures to ensure there will be a market for particular crops. Neither, it seems, is willing to institute a system whereby a fair price and a fair market are ensured.
In conclusion, let me say I am sure the ambiguities we find in the bill will be ironed out in committee. One may be forgiven for thinking that farmers generally are likely to be thankful for anything they can get. At the same time, the government should not delude itself into thinking that this bill alone will solve the many problems facing farmers. I congratulate the minister on having brought forward this measure. To date I have not received much reaction from the farmers in my community, but next week I intend to discuss the legislation with them to get their views. I hope their criticism will be constructive, and I undertake to pass it on to the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).


Some hon. Members:: One o'clock!


Mr. Ritchie:: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At 12.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, when I called it one o'clock I was somewhat discomfited by the comment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)
Advance Payments for Crops
that that was the best speech I had made. I should like to say that I hope to do a little better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I said "the most effective".


William Gordon Ritchie: I welcome the introduction of Bill C-2 which appears to provide a vehicle that might help producers of grain who find themselves in a position of oversupply, as some certainly will in the future. The introduction of this bill is an indication that the government anticipates surpluses building up in the very near future in various fields. We do not need to look too far ahead to anticipate severe build-ups of some of our export grain. As a matter of fact, this appears to have already occurred with wheat.
Before passing judgment on the feasibility of covering in this program much of our storing crops, as the minister calls them, I should like to hear from tthe minister a more detailed explanation of how the program will be administered. He mentioned that the Wheat Board has indicated a very low level of default and that the program showed a very small amount was not recovered. However, the minister, not being from western Canada, is perhaps unaware that the Wheat Board, through the permit system, has pretty well absolute control over the disposal of grain from the farm. A producer must register with the Wheat Board at the beginning of the crop year his acreage, and extensive aerial photography can easily disclose any discrepancy between what is actually under cultivation and what the Wheat Board permit indicates is being cultivated.
In this way any great discrepancy in acreage is fairly readily checked and at least gross excesses can be covered. As a matter of fact, it is illegal to sell wheat outside the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board in most instances, and indeed there are very few avenues for the sale of feed grains, oats and barley not covered by Wheat Board permits. About the only avenue is farm to farm sales, which usually are not in large quantities.
As the minister said, this bill covers many different products. Most are not under the rigid control that the Wheat Board exercises over the movement of western wheat, oats and barley. Therefore, I will be interested to hear from the minister in detail during committee stage how he intends to cope with many of these products, each with numerous marketing avenues in which growers may be very loosely organized through their growers associations. The minister mentioned the word "organizations" a good many times. For example, does he have reference to the Canadian Seed Growers Association, or the Canadian Forage growers; and how will he police this provision? 1 suggest it is a different matter from policing it under the auspices of the Wheat Board, with their rigid and far-reaching legal controls on grains.
There is also another effect that we have to consider, and that is, is this a back door to the industry for marketing boards and supply management? I think it is most important, wherever supply management or marketing board policies are introduced, that the producers be made fully aware of the consequences and that a plebiscite be held on whether or not

October 29, 1976
Advance Payments for Crops
Fed*	NFD	N.S.	P.E.I.	N.B.*	Que.*	Ont.	Man.*	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	NWT	Yuk.1971	1897	N-A	952	50 app	677	5775	9152	995	864	4107	7953	79	N-A1972	1678	N-A	1055	50 app	924	6129	11030*	1183	906	4457	9024	83	N-A1973	2116	563	1365	50 app	1079	8460	12489*	1167	1191	N-A	9412	100	N-A1974	2481	757	1574	235	1369	8907	15634*	1485	1441	5608*	9766	104	207*
N-A: Not Available.
*: Fiscal year from April 1, to March 31.
Note: Although statistics regarding federal incorporations have been maintained by the government of Canada, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had to rely on the provincial authorities for their individual statistical report on the number of incorporations granted within their jurisdiction for each year, from 1964 to 1974. Figures relate to the calendar year, except where otherwise indicated.


PUBLICATION &quot;CONSERVATION CANADA&quot;
Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many copies are printed of the publication Conservation Canada'!
2.	What is the cost per copy?
3.	In the Autumn 1976 edition, what is the estimated cost saving if the format had been bilingual pages with only single reproduction of the photographs?


B. Keith Penner: 1. 37,025 copies were printed of the most recent issue, Autumn 1976.
2.	25.3 cents per copy.
3.	It is estimated that bilingual pages with only single reproduction of the photographs would result in an additional cost of three cents per copy. Such a format was used prior to June, 1976. Cost of printing at that time was 28 cents per copy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Whelan that Bill C-2, to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak very briefly. That is not because the bill is unimportant; It is extremely important. However, I am not able to be here this afternoon. We in this party believe that Bill C-2 is long overdue. The farmers of Ontario, eastern Canada and in some instances western Canada, have been waiting for as long as 18 years.
As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said in the House on Wednesday, producers of wheat, oats and barley in Canadian Wheat Board designated areas have been able to receive advance payments for their crops since 1958. I might add that to the best of my knowledge it was the CCF government in Saskatchewan which pushed for this back in the fifties. Why have crop farmers had to wait 18 years to receive somewhat the same benefits? I hope other farm related legislation will not have to wait the same length of time to be introduced.
It was interesting to note that the Minister of Agriculture went on to discuss other programs which he claimed provided stability to farmers. Specifically, he referred to the Agricultural Stabilization Act. 1 remember, and farmers across the country also recall, the debate surrounding Bill C-50 in the first session of this parliament. That bill amended the act so that producers could receive 90 per cent of the last five-year average rather than 80 per cent of the last ten-year average. We argued then, and farmers since then have expressed their dissatisfaction with the fact that the Agricultural Stabilization Act as presently written does little or nothing to take into account present production costs. An historical average offers no price protection at all unless it is fully and fairly indexed to production costs.
As a brief aside, I would also like to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) in last Wednesday's debate. He suggested, and I agree, that Bill C-2 is simply piecemeal legislation which will not resolve the major problems of the farm community.
At the same time, 1 would be interested in hearing the hon. member's comments on the stabilization plan introduced by his colleagues at Queen's Park. The provincial plan is much along the lines of the federal plan in that it would provide minimum support for named commodities at 90 per cent of the average for the last five years. The provincial Conservatives,
October 29, 1976

raise questions in the House of Commons. Others of us have used different forums, which all members know exist in Ottawa, to make representations as members of parliament. The hon. member chooses one forum; we choose others. That does not say we are any less concerned or diligent in the efforts or representations we make on behalf of the people of Newfoundland with regard to this very vital issue, particularly on behalf of our fishermen. We are just as diligent. The facts will show that we are just as effective.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that aspersions like this should not be cast by the hon. member against those of us on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) has taken the time of the House on a matter about which he has demonstrated an unusual degree of sensitivity. I refer to the fact, and it is a fact, that the hon. member has been conspicuously quiet in this House since this matter was first raised, at the commencement of the year, as the first of four disasters we have had since January. What prompted my question today was an announcement made outside the House yesterday, on behalf of the government, by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.
In view of repeated representations made in the House by members on this side, and in view of the fact that a petition was presented to the House with some 40,000 names on it, a unanimous resolution presented to the government by the Newfoundland legislature, and a very serious tragedy occurring last week in which 13 lives were lost, surely it is not too much to expect the government to make such an announcement in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both hon. members, for whose contribution I am grateful, realize, 1 am sure, that there is a difference between them that does not constitute a question of privilege.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), I want to make it clear that no plants are under detention. I did not want to create the impression that there are plants operating which do not meet our inspection criteria. Every plant in Canada under CBA inspection that is shipping beef is operating according to our rules and regulations. Consumers in Canada have the safest meat in the world.
Fed*	NFD	N.S.	P.E.I.	N.B.*	Que.*1964	917	N-A	512	50 app	N-A	57391965	897	N-A	562	50 app	414	59801966	1018	N-A	524	50 app	N-A	57031967	1085	N-A	487	50 app	N-A	52531968	1207	N-A	681	50 app	N-A	56461969	1552	N-A	806	50 app	N-A	56261970	1797	N-A	691	50 app	664	5754
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[ Translation]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 87, 284 and 330.
1 beg, Mr. Speaker, that the other questions be allowed to stand.


KEDCO PRODUCTS LIMITED
Mr. Cossitt: Did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs communicate on June 21, 1976 through their Sherbrooke, Quebec Office with Kedco Products Limited, Box 340, Brockville, Ontario, entirely in the French language and, if so
(a)	for what reason was this document sent in French only to an English business operating in an almost entirely English speaking area (b) how is this consistent with the government's policy of ensuring that every citizen of Canada can expect communication with the government in the official language which is their mother tongue (c) will steps be taken to immediately rectify this situation by sending a similar document in the English language?
Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): On June 21, 1976, the Sherbrooke, P.Q. office of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs forwarded a Notice for Trustee Discharge to Multi-Advertising Specialties, P.O. Box 94, Brockville, Ontario. This document was in the French language only and was relative to the bankruptcy of a Mr. Leo Berube, 209 Bellevue, Sherbrooke, P.Q. (a) It is by error that the document was sent in the French language only to an English business firm operating in Brockville, Ontario.
(b)	The original document relative to this bankruptcy was sent to Multi-Advertising Specialties in Brockville, on June 10, 1974 and was a bilingual notice of bankruptcy, (c) On July 15, 1976, an English version of the document sent on June 21, 1976 was forwarded to Multi-Advertising Specialties, P.O. Box 94, Brockville, Ontario.


INCORPORATIONS
Mr. Huntington: What was the total number of companies incorporated (a) federally (b) provincially in each year from 1964 to 1974?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: See following table.
Ont.	Man.*	Sask.	Alta.	B.C.	NWT	Yuk.6292*	N-A	903	2650*	4111	N-A	N-A7276	1043	1085	2640	4646	N-A	N-A7309	907	984	2696	4746	N-A	N-A7425	887	912	2849	5080	N-A	N-A7699	893	1057	3373	6342	26	N-A9593	1117	1043	3838	7414	36	N-A8091	1110	742	3172	6406	59	N-A
October 29, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
parliamentary secretary to the House leader, followed the development of this issue as it arose from time to time. 1 was particularly attentive to replies made by parliamentary secretaries relating to information sought. I never heard any parliamentary secretary even attempt to announce a question of policy or attempt to reply to any question seeking information about government policy.


Walter David Baker: That is nonsense.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, if that is nonsense, I invite the opposition House leader to indicate where that has taken place.


Walter David Baker: 1 will.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in a question asked for information. He obtained that information.


Erik Nielsen: No, I did not.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Perhaps he is not satisfied with the reply he obtained yesterday. He forgot to mention that the problem relating to Dorchester had been sorted out. Evidently, the precautions referred to yesterday by the parliamentary secretary had been taken. The result was that the hostage-taking incident was completely deflated.


Erik Nielsen: But my question was not answered.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, 1 am serious about this matter. I am not trying to enter into a partisan political discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Smile when you say that.


Jean-Jacques Blais: 1 readily accept the honourable effort the opposition House leader made to justify the position of the right hon. member for Prince Albert. I sympathise with the opposition House leader's attempt to defend a losing case. As a practising lawyer, 1 have often been in that position. It is a most frustrating and difficult experience. However, I think we are taking up valuable House time on a point sorted out on a number of occasions previously.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 have the matter under very careful consideration. Regrettably, one of the most interesting aspects of the question so far as the Chair is concerned is this: it is a well recognized principle of the operations of the House that although members of the House have the right to put questions during the question period, there is no corresponding obligation to answer. The failure to answer, or the quality of an answer has been ruled as not being a ground for a question of privilege. The quality of an answer, the failure to answer, the quality of performance-or content, if that is the right description-which may lead to any continued failure to make an answer are matters of long-time political responsibility, not technical responsibility, under the procedures of the House.

If, therefore, there is no obligation to answer questions put, it is difficult to say that a mere attempt to answer on the part of a parliamentary secretary, acting minister or another acting in his stead is not an adequate response when no response is required by the rules. That, to me, is an interesting procedural aspect of the matter which was not raised in today's discussion. In any case, to get back to the procedural point raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), obviously it is a matter of great concern. The Chair must always recognize that there are occasions when the niceties of procedure simply do not enable the rules exactly to fit the kinds of tensions and difficulties that can arise from the practices of this House.
While the technical requirements of a question of privilege may not apply to this particular situation, it is like others that arise from time to time when the intense interest in the debate at least signals to us that we have an area of deep concern which touches all members of the House and raises great concern on both sides in respect of the rights of members to seek information through the question period, which all defend as not only a vigorous exercise but one that sets us apart in terms of quality from some other parliaments of the world, and one about which we can be justifiably proud. Certainly, all of us want to do everything possible to ensure that the question period in this House of Commons continues to have the vitality for which it is famous. Therefore, the points that have been raised and discussed so vigorously are not lost.
Whether there is a procedural answer to the problem is very difficult for me to say. However, I do say to the House that I have no obligation to carry on in this matter because there is no motion associated with it. I do want to assure the House that I will continue my interest in these remarks today to see whether some solution can be found in the near future to clarify the status of parliamentary secretaries in this regard.


MR. ROMPKEY-REMARKS OF MR. McGRATH DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege. It arises out of remarks made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) during the question period with regard to search and rescue operations in Newfoundland. I wish to point out that there is more than one forum for making representations in Ottawa as a member of parliament. The hon. member may choose the forum of the House of Commons. That is a legitimate way to make representations. I give him full marks for the way he makes use of that forum: his constituents will, too. However, let him not give the impression that that is the only way in which a member of parliament makes representations.
We on this side have been diligent in making representations, even though they may be made in different ways. My colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) is a parliamentary secretary and, therefore, is unable to
October 29, 1976


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 realize that the question raised affects the privileges of all members of the House. By coincidence or design, it affects my own personal privileges as they relate to the question 1 raised yesterday.
The deputy prime minister, the government House leader, has made a critical attack on the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I was a member of this House when my party was sitting on the government side, hon. members opposite were sitting on this side and the deputy prime minister was sitting in the opposition gallery. I can compare the conduct of the two ministries and say that there is no foundation for the attack by the government House leader on the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. I say that from my point of view.
Today, the government House leader convicted himself with the very words he uttered. He said that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should not be burdened with questions, but that they should be directed to individual ministers or acting ministers. It has long been the custom and invariable practice in this House-and I am sure it still is-that when ministers are away, acting ministers are appointed. Yesterday I directed a question to the Prime Minister. My words will be found on page 538 of Hansard for yesterday. I directed a question to the Prime Minister, or to the acting solicitor general who was sitting in the House. The acting minister was the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand). My question concerned a life which was in danger in Dorchester penitentiary. I asked my question yesterday, Thursday, the day when there is normally a cabinet meeting in the morning. It would be a callous cabinet indeed which would not have discussed the danger of the situation in which a prison guard had been taken hostage. That knowledge was fixed in the minds of cabinet members, but not in the mind of the parliamentary secretary.
In our system, sir, where ministers of the Crown are accountable the principle of responsibility of ministers is paramount. Parliamentary secretaries are not accountable. They are not responsible for the actions of the government and they are certainly not privy to cabinet decisions. Therefore, they cannot answer properly and informatively questions such as the two I raised yesterday which were answered by the parliamentary secretary. Indeed, the very answers will disclose how irresponsible and non-accountable parliamentary secretaries are-and I do not say that in any denigrating sense in this case.
In substance, the parliamentary secretary responded to my questions by saying, "I can assure the hon. member that we are taking all necessary precautions." That, essentially, was his reply to my question concerning the Farris recommendations, or the inquiry into the riot involving the hostage-taking incident in the B.C. penitentiary which eventually resulted in the death of one of the hostages. I wanted to know if the policy of controlling the situation from Ottawa was being followed in the Dorchester incident, because Mr. Justice Farris had found that that control from Ottawa of the B.C. penitentiary situa-
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
tion was a major, contributing factor to that death. He felt that the responsibility should be left with the administration of the prison on the spot because the people who were there could see what was developing and deal with it. The parliamentary secretary answered my question by saying, in so many words, "I can assure the hon. member that we are taking all necessary precautions."
The acting solicitor general would have known if Ottawa was in control or if Dorchester was in control. The Prime Minister or any member of the cabinet would have known, the cabinet undoubtedly having discussed the matter at the regular Thursday morning cabinet meeting. It would be a callous cabinet that would not have discussed it. For those reasons, sir, I submit that the general question of privilege raised by the right hon. gentleman is valid and should be dealt with. My own question of privilege which is involved in this matter illustrates that the original question of privilege as raised has substance and should be dealt with. We should not have parliamentary secretaries who are not accountable or responsible for the ministry answering questions such as the ones I raised.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. The question raised concerns the responsibilities of parliamentary secretaries in replying to questions. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated, previously he sponsored the Parliamentary Secretaries Act. He is on record as recognizing the right of parliamentary secretaries to reply to questions in the House, in accordance with section 3 of that bill which includes the following language:
The parliamentary secretary . . .to a minister shall assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs.
It has been the practice of this House for ministers, when they are to be absent from the House, to direct parliamentary secretaries either to take notice of or reply to questions relating to information sought by members of the opposition. Yesterday, information was requested by way of a question. That information was supplied by the parliamentary secretary. No one denies that a parliamentary secretary cannot, in replying, state questions of policy. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) argued that in effect the parliamentary secretary represents in this House, in the absence of the minister, the minister who has responsibility for that particular department.


Walter David Baker: No.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The minister must accept responsibility relating to the administration of his department. Mr. Speaker, that has been the practice in the past and it has been accepted. The opposition House leader quoted the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Roberts), as he then was; he is now Secretary of State. It is clearly indicated, according to the words quoted, that the parliamentary secretary has a responsibility within the confines of his minister's responsibility. Those are the responsibilities which a parliamentary secretary in this House has accepted. In the previous session of this parliament, I, as

October 29, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker


Walter David Baker: I shall continue, Mr. Speaker. You must forgive me; it is sometimes too difficult to restrain myself. In any event, he is the heir apparent to that sagging carcass of a government over there. He had something to say in the same debate. He was a prestigious member of the government. This is what he said on the same subject as reported at page 1061 of Hansard:
Then this whole question could be aired, as it should, because it involves the rights of private members who, despite the fact that they are appointed parliamentary secretaries, have no responsibility in the ministry, do not take that oath and owe responsibility to their ministers alone and to the Prime Minister.
They do not take the oath, Mr. Speaker. That is a vital difference.


An hon. Member:: Wrong.


Walter David Baker: I refer to the cabinet oath. The right hon. member for Prince Albert was correct. I have here the report of the debate in this House on April 8, 1959, when the right hon. member participated on the question of establishing the position of parliamentary secretary. In answer to a question from the hon. member for Kootenay West in the course of the debate, the right hon. member, then prime minister, said:
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked whether the parliamentary secretaries are to be given the status of junior ministers-
Not regular ministers, Mr. Speaker, but junior ministers, bearing in mind that in our system we have a single level of ministers. With respect to his intentions at that time, he said:
-and without any qualification in this regard I say that they are not.
The facts are that under the Standing Orders of this House, in accordance with all parliamentary precedent that there is, in accordance with the report that was made years ago by Sir Grant Murray and referred to in the debate by the right hon. member for Prince Albert back in 1959, out of the mouth of the former member for Ottawa-Carleton, out of the mouth of the present Secretary of State in this government-such as it is-all those statements label as absolute trash and nonsense that which we just heard from the government House Leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I am very happy that the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised this question. It is a matter that has plagued this House-and the more ministers travel, and legitimately-


James Aloysius McGrath: The more ministers resign.


Walter David Baker: -the more ministers, by their responsibilities, are taken out of this House, the more important it is that members of the opposition, if they are to exercise their right in the question period, obtain authoritative answers from either an acting minister-not a parliamentary secretary-or from the head of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, sir; that would destroy our system for political purposes.


Walter David Baker: Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I add that there is some value and some problems attached to being a parliamentary secretary. My predecessor-and I believe Your Honour as well-has stated that they occupy a special position, and that is a position which deprives them of certain rights in the question period and certain access to the question period. That question has been debated in this House before. But, sir, when a prime minister asks a member to serve as a parliamentary secretary he gives him a choice, that is to either accept or reject. If he accepts, then he is bound by the strictures of the office. If he rejects, then he has all the freedom which the rules and traditions and you, sir, give to members.
That does not take away the clear delineation of responsibility, ministerial responsibility and collective ministerial responsibility. 1 think the right hon. member has raised an important matter and I am very happy to be associated with him in this debate. He was the instigator of this privilege to enable backbenchers to get some training. It does not lie in the mouth of any parliamentary secretary, any minister, any government House Leader or the government whip-who always has something lying in his mouth-to suggest that in order to provide a training ground for parliamentary secretaries they must step into an area where, by tradition, by practice, by precedent and all reasonable understanding of the parliamentary system, they have no right to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been endeavouring to get the floor. We are faced with two very serious difficulties. I think all hon. members realize that, first, the point was raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) as a question of privilege. The Chair is relieved of having to decide at the moment whether there is any validity to the question of privilege, because the right hon. member said he did not have any motion to conclude his remarks; therefore, no action is asked of the Chair.
We are having a very interesting discussion about the position of parliamentary secretaries. We are doing it, however, on what is now well recognized as a non-question of privilege which has no motion attached to it. It is, therefore, at least very difficult for the Chair to let it go on very long, and in any case it is difficult to take action on. Whether the question could be resolved now, or in some other way, I am not sure. Certainly, the debate is very enlightening; but I do not want to prolong it, on the basis that it is essentially a non-question of privilege.
The hon. member for Yukon has been seeking the floor, and if he has anything to add I would be very happy to hear him.
October 29, 1976


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the principal participants in this discussion are more than able to look after their own interests in the debate, without support from either side, and I would appreciate being able to hear them.


Walter David Baker: 1 was just going to say, before those jackals went at us-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: *-that if it is the desire of the government leader in the House of Commons to give parliamentary secretaries a greater role in the work of this House, 1 suggest he should set a better example. He could set an example by referring directly to the question of privilege which was raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), rather than engaging in his own polemics with respect to a matter which is rather important to this House and which has been raised before.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I do not know whether it has occurred to the government House leader, but the Standing Orders of this House-which govern our proceedings- have something to say about the role of parliamentary secretaries in these proceedings. I shall refer to those rules because, the matter having been raised, I think it is important that it be settled. Standing Order 15(3), at page 10 of the Standing Orders, reads:
On statements by ministers, as listed in section (2) of this Standing Order, a minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy.
That Standing Order does not refer to parliamentary secretaries.


Jean-Jacques Blais: We are dealing with the question period.


Walter David Baker: Let me finish. Standing Order 39(5) of that rule reads "as follows:
Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, questions on matters of urgency may be addressed orally to ministers of the Crown-
Again, not to parliamentary secretaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Proceeding to Standing Order 40(3), we read the following:
The member raising the matter may speak for not more than seven minutes.
This is where the parliamentary secretary is allowed to make a parliamentary response, in the adjournment debate, and that is the only place he is given authority, under our Standing Orders, to answer for anything, policy or otherwise, whether parliamentary secretaries like it or not. Standing Order 40(3) continues:
A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary speaking on behalf of a minister, if he wishes to do so, may speak for not more than three minutes.
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
That is what the Standing Orders say. The reason the parliamentary secretary is singled out particularly with respect to the adjournment debate is that that was the place where the Procedure and Organization Committee, in advancing these rules in the context of the law as it existed-as explained by the right hon. member for Prince Albert-determined parliamentary secretaries could take part in that capacity. The committee, having singled that out, it is my respectful submission that the omission with respect to other responsibilities is very clear: they have no responsibilities in those other areas. Why ought they not to? The right hon. member for Prince Albert referred to that, and other members who will speak will refer to it. But there is a very good reason, Mr. Speaker. One of the more distinguished members of the House of Commons who told us why parliamentary secretaries have no responsibility is the present Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts), at that time the hon. member for St. Paul's. On November 5, 1974, a question was raised in this House and the Secretary of State, who unfortunately is not here and perhaps could contribute to the further understanding of the point put forward by the government House Leader, said as reported at page 1062 of Hansard:
There is a difference between the position of a parliamentary secretary and that of a minister. Ministers are collectively responsible-
Not individually, as the government House Leader said, but collectively responsible.
-for the presentation of government policy and programs; they speak with many voices.
Of course, that is the problem with this government, Mr. Speaker; it speaks with many voices. He went on to say: Parliamentary secretaries are not part of the government; they are not part of the collective responsibility of the government; they are not bound by the obligation to speak with a common voice, as are members of the cabinet. Governmental responsibility, in so far as it exists, exists within the confines of the responsibilities of the minister whose parliamentary secretary one is. Outside the bounds of that responsibility the parliamentary secretary does not participate, nor does he have special access to the decision-making process of government.
That is why we do not ask him questions, Mr. Speaker. He does not have access to the decision-making process of the government. The hon. member went on to say:
Within the bounds of their departmental activities they do not have that right-
Another distinguished member of the government who left to occupy the board rooms of Bay Street-the barefoot boy from Bay Street, the former member for Ottawa-Carleton- had something to say about that. You will recall him, Mr. Speaker: he is the one who suddenly found his tongue with respect to freedom of information at the Canadian Bar Association meeting.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He is the one, as well-


Some hon. Members:: Order!

October 29, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
of Canada realized exactly the arrogance to which we are subjected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I say, sir, that you, as the protector of the privileges of parliament, have a duty in this connection. 1 will not move a motion today; 1 will give consideration to it. But I hope the Prime Minister will not be cowardly enough to disappear again when a motion comes up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that it has been the custom in the House to extend additional consideration to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


John George Diefenbaker: Never, at any time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I believe it is really going too far to permit him, under the guise of a question of privilege or a point of order, to make a direct, personal attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not believe that, if he has the respect for parliament that he alleges he was, he would behave in this way, in the absence of the Prime Minister and on a matter in which he introduced all sorts of preliminaries. It is true that the Prime Minister had to leave the House. He had to leave the House to meet Cardinal Slipj, the primate of the Greek church-


John George Diefenbaker: He left because he was afraid.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with whom he had an appointment at twelve o'clock.


James McPhail Gillies: Which is more important?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that Cardinal Slipj saw the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert earlier in the week, and I am sure the right hon. gentleman was quite punctilious in keeping his appointment with this person.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are accustomed to receiving these little homilies from the right hon. gentleman about parliament and how it ought to operate, but his views about the operation of parliament were fully disclosed when he was prime minister of Canada and attempted to bring under his own control all the aspects of government and failed to recognize the principle of ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I want to remind the right hon. gentleman and all hon. members of the House that when persons are

sworn into the ministry under the principle of ministerial responsibility, those ministers-and not the Prime Minister- are responsible to the House of Commons for the administration of their portfolios. No prime minister, under the principle of ministerial responsibility, can substitute himself for a minister with respect to responsibility to the House of Commons.
Hon. members opposite have totally misunderstood that principle because they have increasingly attempted to ask the Prime Minister questions which ought properly to be directed to ministers who, under our system, are responsible to parliament. This is not the responsibility of the Prime Minister. The right hon. member for Prince Albert has never understood that-not today, and not when he was prime minister of Canada. But as government leader in the House I advise the Prime Minister to leave it to his ministers to answer questions in the House and, in the absence of a minister, to leave it to the acting minister or the parliamentary secretary to deal with these questions.
1 believe it is an abuse of our system of ministerial responsibility to attempt to substitute the Prime Minister for every minister in the House and to make him responsible for every particular item which ought to be the responsibility of the minister concerned. As far as I am concerned, that is the philosophy 1 will support, with the Prime Minister, in his conduct in the House.
The right hon. gentleman said that he had asked the Prime Minister for an answer on a question of policy and the answer was given by the parliamentary secretary. With respect to parliamentary secretaries, 1 believe they ought to have a role in the House, and I believe that the right hon. gentleman ought to be among those in the House who would encourage parliamentary secretaries to participate and to gain experience in the House of Commons during the question period. However, he has conducted a vendetta, really, against parliamentary secretaries, and particularly against the present Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) when she was parliamentary secretary to the secretary of state for external affairs.
If the right hon. gentleman expected an answer on a question of policy on the orders of the day, then, again, he misunderstands the rules of the House of Commons, because questions of policy are not to be answered in reply to questions on the orders of the day. Mr. Speaker, you have frequently ruled, and other Speakers before you have frequently ruled, that the question period is not an appropriate occasion to seek statements of policy from ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the statement we have just heard from the government House leader is the worst pile of trash I have ever heard with respect to this important question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: If it is his desire-
October 29, 1976


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: My question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that CMHC is no longer lending moneys to organizations for the financing of nursing homes, and the construction of many of these facilities is being delayed or cancelled because of this fact, would the minister reconsider this policy?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, CMHC was never really in the business of lending funds for nursing homes. There were some extended facilities for senior citizens' housing projects. This has been suspended because a lot of that work comes under provincial ministries of health. We do work in close co-operation with them, however, and are reasonably flexible in extending our facilities to accommodate the residents. The difficulty we have is partially one of jurisdiction, but also of budgets. If we get into another area of health care in which we are not expert, we will not have funding for housing for many more senior citizens in this country.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
\ English]

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Stick around, Pierre.


John George Diefenbaker: 1 want to deal with him, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Don't go away, Pierre.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I have been watching the Prime Minister in the last ten minutes or so and-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: -his whole attitude implied that he realizes what he did here today. Instead of staying in the House, not having his canoe available he leaves the House because he realizes what he has done.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: You are wasting the time of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Today I tried to ask a question that is of deep concern to Canadians everywhere, regarding the serious
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
situation in penal institutions in which inmates are taking it upon themselves to punish sexual wrong-doing as they see fit. They have their own set of values in this regard. I asked the Prime Minister a very simple question, namely, whether, having regard to what happened in Millhaven and the hostage occurrence in Dorchester, in the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) he would direct or suggest that those who have committed sexual perversions should be placed in one institution where they will be away from the danger of kangaroo courts, and also have treatment available to them. This is a question that people across this country are asking.
What was the attitude of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). I have been here under three prime ministers, and I have never witnessed a more degrading and contemptuous attitude than the one he showed here today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He turned around to a parliamentary secretary in order to reply to a responsible question from a member of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I heard a "moo" over there, Mr. Speaker. It just shows the degree to which he and others over there are being cowed today. Parliament lives if respect is shown to it. There was no respect today on the part of the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: So what's new?


John George Diefenbaker: As I have said before, I know something of the position of parliamentary secretaries. It was my government that brought in the legislation to provide for parliamentary secretaries being so designated, rather than as parliamentary assistants which was the previous designation to give them a position in the House. That was the reason for the change. A parliamentary secretary has no authority or right to answer on questions of policy, because he is not a member of the Privy Council or of the cabinet. However estimable are those who hold that position, they have certain duties that they can perform, but not to assume the position of a minister of the Crown. So far as the Prime Minister's attitude today is concerned, he will be applauded by his friend, Castro.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lalonde:: Even your colleagues are ashamed of that.


John George Diefenbaker: Never have I seen this House treated as contemptuously as we were by the Prime Minister today. We recall 1956, when those occupying the treasury benches followed a similar course-and we know what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have risen on a question of privilege and I shall give consideration to making a motion. But when you have a Prime Minister who treats the House and members of parliament with that attitude, it is time the people

October 29, 1976
Oral Questions LOTO CANADA


POSSIBILITY WINNING TICKETS NOT SOLD-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE TICKET PURCHASERS OPPORTUNITY TO WIN
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board who i believe answers for Loto Canada. In view of the revelation that three million dollar winning tickets in the Olympic lottery were not sold, can a similar situation arise with regard to Loto Canada and is this in the spirit of the legislation?
[Translation}


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, for some time yet Loto Canada will still be under my responsibility, the first drawing to take place in December. The point raised by the hon. member was very carefully considered by the Loto Canada Commission. Of course the problem of unsold tickets remains and we have to find an effective way of protecting ticket buyers, making sure that profits from such lotteries go to those who buy tickets. I will get the necessary information in order to give a precise answer to the hon. member, but I already talked with the head of Loto Canada, Mr. Cousineau, and he will give me his views about what should be done in case the minimum number of tickets to be sold is not reached.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises from the fact that, because of the government's failure to develop a long-term textile policy for Canada, one of the companies in my constituency has already been forced to close down part of its operations with a resulting loss of 25 to 30 jobs to the area. In view of the fact that, throughout Canada, many textile firms were enticed by the Pepin textile policy to open up plants in many small communities and are now facing such a critical situation that thousands of jobs may be lost, can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce give the House a firm date for the announcement of a new textile policy and can he indicate whether he is contemplating any short-term relief for companies that are already being forced to lay off workers while they are waiting for the government's announcement?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the few press releases that I have been publishing about that for some time, he would notice that I made drastic decisions to restrain imports in some areas where textile people asked me for some action.

I met the textile industry advisory council and we discussed an approach to settle the problem. It is an extremely difficult issue. We cannot completely close our barriers in Canada because our country is exporting a lot of commodities. But in cases where it was obvious that we were flooded by foreign commodities, I have made at least one dozen decisions in the last five weeks, and I hope that the hon. member will take time to read press releases about this.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be no shortage of press releases coming out of the minister's office, but lay-offs are continuing to take place. May I ask the minister specifically when the new policy will be announced and whether he can give us a date for that at this time? Is he contemplating taking any further action between now and that time to stop the continuing lay-offs of workers as a result of the fact that the company's profitability is being badly damaged by the continuing imports.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have read the statement I made. I imposed quotas on many products that were flooding the market. It was action rather than speeches and an attempt to develop policy that would take years. I just did what I had to do, that is all.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As the minister is probably aware most adopting agencies demand that one of the adoptive parents, usually the mother, take a period of time off work in order to give the new child the maximum possible care. While this condition is of obvious benefit to the child, it can and often does present a serious financial hardship to the parents, and indeed can be a disincentive to adopt. In order to overcome this and to help ensure care and attention to otherwise unwanted children, would the minister look into the feasibility of following the recommendation of the June policy statement of the Canadian Labour Congress and amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to have adoptive parents eligible to receive moneys similar to maternity benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her concern expressed both in the House and to me personally. I do not wish to raise any false hopes, so I think it would be more appropriate for me to say that no change is anticipated at present. I think the needs of the adoptive parents are indeed legitimate, but the unemployment insurance program is not, in my opinion, the proper vehicle to support incomes of parents who choose to adopt.
October 29, 1976

into the loss of 13 lives from the motor vessel Gabriella in light of charges made by the owners of this vessel that these lives were lost as a direct consequence of an inefficient response to the distress call, and that if helicopters had arrived on the scene sooner lives could have been saved.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I really do not want to make any Gilbert and Sullivan opera out of anything as serious as this. Such an inquiry I understand has been instituted by the Minister of Transport. I, in my present acting position as Minister of National Defence, am deeply concerned as is the government where lives are at stake, whether they be Newfoundland lives or Dutch lives or anybody's lives, and we will continue to do our best; that is what the armed forces are doing now to see how we can reduce the response time.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment if the redfish fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence was closed to everyone including boats of under 100 feet in length. He did not answer my question directly. I hope he will do so today. Second, in light of the fact that over-fishing in all ICNAF areas has reduced our ground fish resources to a point where Canada has sufficient catching capability to take care of the total allowable catch, based on 1976 figures, what steps is the minister taking to protect this resource in our 200-mile economic zone for Canadians and when can we expect an announcement of the quotas for all areas that will be made available effective January 1, 1977 for Canada's fishermen? Will he make this information available to the House.


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the quota for redfish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, so far as I know, and I have not had a chance to check this again, is taken. The second question the hon. member raises is a very important one concerning whether or not there will be access to the Canadian 200-mile fishing zone in 1977 when the extension of jurisdiction takes place. It is a very simple posture to take, that there are no fish surplus to our needs, and therefore we should refuse access to all foreign nations. First of all, there are species which we hardly fish, which are surplus to our needs and they are competing with stocks which we want to preserve for the food of the ocean in the area. Second, if we want international co-operation outside of 200 miles where certain fisheries are important for our interests, it is very important that we have a co-operative approach with those foreign nations which could damage the Canadian fishery in the zone beyond 200 miles.
Oral Questions


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and again today I put a specific question to the minister. I asked him if the redfish fishery in the gulf is closed to everyone, including boats under 100 feet in length, and he still has not answered that question. I just want a simple yes or no answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the vessels over 100 feet in length were asked to leave the gulf some time ago in order to leave some fish available for those vessels which had no alternative. In fact, because of very heavy fishing by the large vessels during the first three months of 1976 the gulf problem was acute. Second, so far as I know the gulf fishery is closed for redfish. I said to the hon. member that I would check again and this I will do.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask the minister what action if any, his department has taken in response to the countless recommendations made by the Canadian municipalities across Ontario in which they express their concern over the increase in vandalism and the punishment being handed down by the courts to offenders.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I could point to very many specific recommendations which I have noted lately from municipalities in that regard. I have received a great number of representations from municipal councils about gun control of late to which I would like to respond. With regard to sentences meted out by magistrates and judges related to vandalism, I think it would be proper to suggest that the Attorney General of Ontario instruct his Crown counsel to seek appropriate sentences and to argue for appropriate sentences in the courts.


William C. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to remind the minister that this is far removed from gun control. This protest was initiated by the town of Trenton and was mailed to all municipalities in the province of Ontario. It does not refer to gun control but rather to vandalism which is far removed from the use of guns. Has the minister taken any action in respect of vandalism and the laxity of the courts in dealing with offenders. This involves hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the Criminal Code provisions relating to vandalism are adequate. If there is a feeling that sentences being meted out are too low, the solution to that is for the Crown counsel who are Ontario Crown counsel to argue for higher sentences when someone is being prosecuted.
80001-381/2

Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


REASON MINISTER REFUSED TO PUBLISH REPORT ON UNSANITARY CONDITIONS IN MEAT PACKING PLANTS
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question, directed to the Minister of Agriculture, involves secrecy in government and the right of the consumer to be informed. The Minister of Agriculture was asked to make public certain information regarding unsanitary conditions in Canadian meat plants and he refused to do this. Why did he refuse to make public information relating to unsanitary conditions in Canadian meat plants when this information was obtained in the United States under their freedom of information act? Why did the minister take this course of action and can he assure the House that he will mend his ways in the future?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker,
I think that if the hon. member checks the information available in the United States he will find that the report of their inspection service was very limited. In conjunction with their veterinary inspection service we inspect our plants that export to the United States and we do the same thing in their plants. We have an agreement with them and we do not make anything public that they do not want made public. We are conducting negotiations with the United States at the present time.
Our own inspection service is a much more detailed service in Canadian plants. The other day I made a document public, covering the official information service in Canada, to CP and one of the other press associations, but I never saw anything reported about it in the papers. Whether they wanted to say that we were not releasing public documents or not, I do not know, but we are trying to develop a proper formula for making this information available which will not cost the public too much. If anyone wants a copy of the document they will have to pay the cost of it. As soon as it is published, we will make it public as soon as possible.
I want the hon. member to realize that we are making public some documents that can be made public at the present time. We have a long-standing arrangement with the people concerned that nothing should be done that is damaging to them. We have to make sure that the government will not be sued because some document may be released and a person's business destroyed overnight when something has already been rectified.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question which I will now direct to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The facts are that there were unsanitary conditions in Canadian meat plants

and the Minister of Agriculture refused to make this public in the interest of Canadian consumers. Will the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the interest of the Canadian public, which has a right to know, immediately contact his colleague the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that in the future the consumer will be protected and that this information, in spite of what is happening in the United States, will be made fully public?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can wait till the end of the question period to speak to the minister. I will go over and speak to him right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, now that we have had this display of cheap theatricals perhaps we can continue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask a question of the Acting Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, who has been conspicuously silent on the issue of search and rescue, made a statement in Newfoundland to the effect that the Department of National Defence will be deploying search and rescue helicopters in the province at the week end. The news media have been unable to confirm that. Is it the intention of the government to so deploy helicopters to the province of Newfoundland, and when will those helicopters be put in place?
Hon. Barney Danson (Acting Minister of National
Defence): First of all, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am delighted to reply to a professional actor. My colleagues from Newfoundland particularly have spoken to me and my colleagues on a number of occasions about search and rescue needs and have shown intense interest in the matter in the place where it counts. I must say that no such announcement has been made by the government. So far as the Department of National Defence is concerned, we are looking at feasibility studies to see how we can best reduce our response time in this situation, which came to my attention at the time of the tragedy involving the Gabriella.


REQUEST FOR INQUIRY INTO LOSS OF LIFE RESULTING FROM ABANDONMENT OF &quot;GABRIELLA&quot;
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister has confirmed that he does not even rank as an amateur. Now that he has put on his usual little display in the House, I ask him whether he is now in a position, as one who aspires to be Minister of National Defence, to order an inquiry
October 29, 1976

consultation with Quebec manpower and immigration authorities?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, at first the movement was heading towards Montreal and the province of Quebec. From our experience in settling those people, we noted that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba offer more employment and housing opportunities. As concerns our activities related to immigration and our programs for refugees, we are still consulting the immigration service of Quebec. As to the procedures concerning the settlement of Chileans in Canada, the Quebec service never expressed its disagreement on this matter.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare-he seems to be engaged right now- regarding his premature announcement dealing with amendments to the Canada Pension Plan which seems to have placed him in a little difficulty. In the light of the objection by the Province of Ontario and, later, by the Ontario Status of Women Council, regarding this proposal, one which would give pension rights to the partner in a marriage who remains at home to raise children while the other partner works outside the home, is it the intention of the minister to abandon the course he has projected on the grounds of apparent inequities involving those who cannot afford to stay home and the subsidization of others who have a choice of entering the work force? In other words, his proposal would hit the poor who are least able to take advantage of such a policy. And, if not, how can he possibly proceed bearing in mind the veto power of the province?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I regret to note how misinformed my hon. colleague seems to be on this matter and on the objective of this policy which aims at ensuring women greater economic opportunities in our society; it is endorsed by all the provinces, except Ontario which asked to study the matter further. Of course Ontario virtually has a right of veto under the Canada Pension Plan. However, I have the firm intention of bringing this proposal before the House, then it will be incumbent on the provinces to decide whether they want to endorse it or not. We committed ourselves very strongly and explicitly to the promotion of women's rights and we do not intend to backtrack in this regard.
Oral Questions
O)


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I may have been misinformed, but I want to indicate to the minister that the Ontario Status of Women Council believes that this is the wrong way to approach the matter. I wonder whether the minister has been advised of their objections and thinks that there is any merit in them inasmuch as there is a certain amount of inequity, because the poor will be hit very hard if the minister does intend to proceed. However, I do not think he can unless he has the approval of the provinces involved. Is he aware of the concern of women about this particular proposal of his?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to repeat in English what I just said. I cannot understand how badly informed my colleague is as to the purpose and objective of this particular proposal. It is aimed at ensuring greater economic opportunities for women and the government is not going to backtrack on its commitment in this respect.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: This particular proposition has the endorsa-tion of all the provinces except Ontario, which wants to review the matter further. As far as the views of the Ontario council referred to are concerned, I hope that once it has discussed this matter with other advisory Councils across the country, it will also change its mind and not be purely inspired or advised on this subject by the Ontario government. I think it will realize that this amendment is really aimed at improving the lot of women in this country.



IMMIGRATION


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. My question relates to the labour dispute at the Ottawa Journal. I recognize that labour relations in a case such as this come under provincial jurisdiction, but in view of reports that certain persons have been brought in from the United States to operate some of the equipment in the plant of the Ottawa Journal would the minister in charge of immigration look into the matter and ascertain whether work permits have been given to these individuals, and if so, why?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first of all I will check it out to see if it is true, and if it is true we will check them out.
580

October 29, 1976
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to get order over there among that orchestration of howlers who make no contribution other than by interference?



PUBLIC SERVICE


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the President of the Treasury Board on a related subject. Will he inform the House as to the status of negotiations with the Public Service Alliance of Canada with respect to the negotiations-


John George Diefenbaker: Cheap contempt of this parliament!


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Erik Nielsen: Could the minister enlighten the House as to the status of the negotiations between the Government of Canada and the PSAC negotiating on behalf of the prison guards and inform the House whether a strike of prison guards is imminent, as reported in this morning's media?


Robert Knight Andras: I am in the process of getting the most recent information available and I shall try to pass it on to the hon. member on Monday.


An hon. Member:: It may be a little late by then.


Erik Nielsen: Can the minister tell us whether any provisional plans are now being made, in view of the imminence of a strike by the PSAC, to provide for the security of the penal system in Canada should the guards actually go off duty?


Robert Knight Andras: I should like to include a response to that question in my answer on Monday.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Supply and Services a question about government aircraft contracts. On March 1, 1976 the hon. gentleman wrote a letter on the subject of his knowledge and recommendations with respect to the LRPA contract to the then president of the treasury board. Would he table this letter?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will examine the document but I do not know whether or not I can do that now.



NORTHROP CONTRACT-AUTHORIZATION FOR PAYMENT OF OUT-OF-COURT SETTLEMENT

Allan Bruce McKinnon: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the same minister concerning the Northrop contract. Bearing in mind the restrictions imposed by the Financial Administration Act, will the minister tell the House by what authority various government departments and the government-owned company of Canadair were authorized to pay a figure in excess of $9 million in an out-of-court settlement to the Northrop Corporation last July?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to correct the hon. member's statements. We did not pay $9 million in damages to the Northrop Corporation. We handed over about $6 million that we were holding back. Therefore the amount of damages is not $9 million. Besides, it followed a recommendation from the Department of Justice and a decision of the Treasury Board.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Can the minister further enlighten the House as to the selection of the donors of this $6 million among the various government departments and Canadair? Was their respective liability decided on the principle of "each according to its means" or of "each according to its culpability"?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, that six million dollars, as 1 said earlier the $6 million was money which was being held back on the contract pending settlement in court or between lawyers. It was the money that was held by the Canadian Commercial Corporation.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Could the minister tell the House, first, why does his department automatically direct to western Canada the immigrants from Chile, even though they could easily learn French and, consequently, improve the linguistic balance of the country if they could settle in the province of Quebec; and, second, could he indicate whether such a policy was developed after
October 29, 1976

the Atlantic region. We hope we will be able to do it. However, we cannot at the same time do this, build up the infrastructure and help all the small industries which also expect our consideration and support.
We would very much like to be able to achieve all this simultaneously.



SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. With regard to his visit to Japan, did any discussions or negotiations result in further advancements in the area of science and technology with respect to exchanges of information, people or programs?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the economic framework which was agreed to by both countries, there is a provision for exchanges of technology, also for joint ventures, particularly where technology is important. Of course, we did discuss particular applications of technology, either by way of interesting the Japanese in the continuing development of the tar sands-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or-


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -CANDU-


Some hon. Members:: Order.



INDUSTRY


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister or his officials have talks while in Japan regarding the possible closure of the Toho Lead and Zinc Refinery as a result of a strike of miners at Cyprus-Anvil Mine in the Yukon arising from a ruling by the administrator of the Anti-Inflation Board rolling back a previous decision of the board? Since 65 per cent of the refinery's total supplies come from Cyprus-Anvil, is Canada likely to lose this export trade?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


Douglas Charles Neil: Since Toho has advised that it will either have to close its mine or get low grade ore from Australia or the United States, would the Prime Minister intervene in order that a more realistic settlement might be arrived at so that the miners may go back to work enabling the mine to resume production to the benefit of our export trade in lead and zinc?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 find it a little extraordinary that the hon. member should be suggesting to me that the ruling of the AIB and the Administrator should not be upheld.



PENITENTIARIES


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? It has to do with the recent murder, in one penitentiary, of a prisoner who had been convicted of sexual offences and also with the holding as hostage of a man from Saskatoon who was responsible for the diabolical murder of four children. There appears to be general feeling in the penal institutions that individuals who commit such sexual offences are anathema to the general run of inmates, and I am wondering whether or not the Prime Minister would give consideration to ensuring that sex offenders such as those 1 have mentioned are placed in a separate institution so as to remove them from the danger of lynch law or kangaroo courts, however understandable the revulsion other prisoners may feel with respect to their offences, thus enabling treatment to be given more easily to this group of individuals who sooner or later will be released and who, in the absence of treatment are likely to constitute a continued threat to society.


Mr. Art Lee (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General):: I should like to advise the right hon. gentleman that 1 shall be glad to bring his representation to the attention of my minister when he returns next week. With respect to the prisoner involved in the Ontario prison, Mr. Hardy, he was offered segregation but he had refused it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I directed my question to the Prime Minister, not to a parliamentary secretary-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -who, however estimable, has no responsibility and cannot speak with authority on these matters. I directed a serious question to the Prime Minister and he brushed it aside by turning it over to a parliamentary assistant.
I resent this intrusion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 29, 1976
Oral Questions
list of the gifts the Prime Minister had taken to Cuba and Venezuela and a list of the gifts he brought back. That question was not answered.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government gave two DC-8s.


John Douglas Reynolds: I also want to know the cost of the gifts he took, and the cost of the ones he received. The Prime Minister's office refused to answer the question. Now that the Prime Minister has returned to the country, I wonder if he can assure me that if 1 put my question back on the order paper, his office will answer as to the cost of the gifts he took on his South American tour and the cost of the gifts he received.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the answer; I probably saw the question if it was placed on the order paper. 1 would imagine that it is a question of common civility and courtesy. You do not reveal the price of gifts that you receive from another.


Steve Eugene Paproski: There were two DC-8s, for some Cuban cigars.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That was a cheap shot.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is futile to talk of common courtesy to hon. members opposite.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the answer the Prime Minister just gave me, I wonder if he can explain what he meant in the throne speech debate when he talked about the freedom of information act.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It has to do with the meetings this week in Halifax of the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, meetings which the minister attended. I am sure he heard there, and saw reported in the press, numerous comments with respect to the situation concerning the capability of DREE to increase the productive capability of the Atlantic provinces. I am thinking particularly in terms of the increasing decline in expenditures made under the Regional Development Incentives Act. Since suggestions were made about the way in which the Act is being administered and about the amount of money being expended under the Act, can the minister say if he held conversations, there, with APEC officials, or reached conclusions either in terms of amendments to the Act or in terms of the decreasing amounts of money spent since 1970?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I had an excellent meeting during my visit to Halifax early this week and I would like to advise the hon. member that he should not rely entirely on press reports to judge the department's efficiency. Of course, critics were made concerning the Department of Regional Economic Expansion's programs, particularly the business assistance program. But, on the whole, the conference yielded positive results and some excellent suggestions were made. I shall consider them and act on them.
But I must insist that, when the hon. member suggests an increased decline in expenditures in the Atlantic provinces, he is wrong. As a matter of fact, we are receiving less money directly under the industry incentive program. This is due to the state of the economy in Canada in general and in the Atlantic provinces in particular, in connection with the manufacturing industry.
On the other hand, I can say that our activities within the general development agreements, whereby investments are made in the future of these provinces and the development of their resources, have resulted in expenses which have considerably increased over the past few years, and hopefully we shall be able to keep on increasing our expenses and investments in these areas. This is the result of long term planning which, 1 feel, is in direct response to the ideas and opinions put forward by APEC, many other organizations, hon. members of the opposition in the House and hon. members of the government's side. We are involved in long term planning. We shall certainly witness the results in a couple of years.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, since, as the minister well knows, four-fifths of the expenditures under his department in the Atlantic region are directed toward infrastructure and not toward regional development incentives programs and since it has recently been suggested by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Commission that they should relate any infrastructure expenditures under their domain within a two-year time frame to some productive side in terms of industrial expansion, can the minister indicate whether any serious consideration is being given to re-ordering the priorities in view of the very serious and increasing problem of unemployment throughout the whole of the Atlantic region.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, we are very concerned with this situation and with the need to create long lasting jobs to industrialize the Atlantic provinces.
It is clear that our efforts in relation with the infrastructure are precisely aimed at creating conditions in the Atlantic provinces which will make it easier to attract more investments in the manufacturing and industrial areas.
We now have projects under study. Some are already known to the public, others are not but will probably get known. But as I said earlier we can face up to large industrial projects in
October 29, 1976


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that as an elected member of parliament he perceives himself as representative of the people in his constituency and that includes organized workers. We perceive ourselves in the same role. We want very much the co-operation of the labour movement and the business community. Many of the proposals have such intrinsic merit on their own, however, that it would be our job, I hope with the co-operation of the opposition, to see many of those initiatives undertaken as soon as possible.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the minister is that he does not represent the constituency that his portfolio indicates he represents. That is one of the difficulties with the minister. The minister expressed confidence that labour will return to that council which they left recently. I wonder if he would outline his reasons for that confidence, especially in view of the fact that the Canadian Labour Congress has not even answered his invitation. How can he be confident of that?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, to be Minister of Labour one has to be an optimist and I am an optimist.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to address a question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs who was the former secretary of state for external affairs so I welcome him even temporarily, back to his former position. In view of the fact-which I am very pleased to note-that Canada joined all nations of the United Nations except the United States in repudiating the so-called independence of the Transkei-


Donald W. Munro: Oh, come on! Oh, what nonsense!


Francis Andrew Brewin: What nonsense? It is certainly a fact whether you like it or not. I should like to ask whether Canada presented some reservation of that vote and what was the nature of the reservation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, Canada has opposed this particular form of political cosmetic as a way of dealing with the problems in South Africa. On the question of the reservation made at the United Nations, however, I have not been able to get the necessary information since I received notice of the hon. member's intention to ask this question. I shall get the full information for him, however, and either transmit it to him personally or in the House at the first opportunity.
Oral Questions



REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADA WILL NOT DEAL WITH TRANSKEI

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs assure the House, since the so-called independence has been described by the World Council of Churches as a patent fraud and it has now been repudiated almost unanimously by the United Nations, that Canada will not officially deal with the organization which has been so repudiated?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that follows conclusively from thee position Canada has taken on this matter. We will avoid any possible activity which would confer any validity upon this so-called political development, or this so-called political improvement.



OIL-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DEAL WITH POSSIBLE INCREASE IN WORLD PRICE

James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources may I direct my question to the Prime Minister? It has to do with reports in the press that the world price of oil as posted by OPEC countries will probably rise between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. I hope the Prime Minister will not reply that the question is hypothetical, because I am talking about the prospect of this happening. My question is this. Given the fact that the government sets the domestic price of oil in this country, what plans has the government in mind to accommodate an increase of this dimension in the world price of oil in the domestic price level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that there is an agreement between the provinces of Canada and the federal government on a two-phase increase in price. The second phase is beginning on January 1. If we have to accommodate to higher world prices, we will reiterate our policy of tending toward the world price in Canada, and we shall have to have another meeting between the provinces and the federal government to arrive at another agreement.



PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It concerns the answer I got this week to a question I had put on the order paper on October 14. In my order paper question I asked for a

October 29, 1976
Oral Questions
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House unanimously agree to proceed with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-83 as soon as possible.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



AGRICULTURE


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the policy pronouncements of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) respecting import quotas were both too liberal and too short term, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That the Minister of Agriculture arrange before November 10, 1976 for a full day of debate on new policy directions respecting the importing and exporting of beef and veal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In the throne speech the government conceded that successful economic measures demand co-operation between governments, workers and so forth, and to that end the government will launch a major series of consultations. When the minister made a speech yesterday in Montreal to the International Federation of Chemical and General Workers' Union, he delivered a stern warning. Was he indicating in that speech an apparent readiness to proceed without the support of organized labour, contrary to the loftier rhetoric of the throne speech?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, what I was indicating was that there are many initiatives in the fourteen point program we have which have such outstanding merit in terms of being for the benefit of organized and unorganized workers in this country that if we do not achieve co-operation from those who represent labour and from spokesmen for the unorganized, then we would have to proceed anyhow because I believe the program to be to the benefit of all the workers of this country. That does not mean I am not hoping to obtain the co-operation of labour. I-and indeed, the government-do hope to obtain it.


Robert Muir: The throne speech talks about co-operation with workers, so are we going to carry on this policy of confrontation with workers, whether organized or unorganized? Since the people, who now represent by votes 2.2 million workers, do not apparently get along with the government, is the minister looking for others who are more likeable, and if so, is the government going to decide who should represent whom?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. I can allay the hon. member's fears. I am still endeavouring to obtain the co-operation of the labour movement. I have been talking at least unofficially with various leaders in order to obtain that co-operation. There is no doubt that it would be far more effective and speedier if we could open up as quickly as possible, now that the protest is over, some useful consultation and we are endeavouring to do that.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's strong words in Montreal and since the minister has said he will not be deterred by business or labour opposition, may I ask if the government is going to set up a tripartite effort by unionizing their hacks in Ottawa and then sitting down with their bagmen from Toronto to solve the problem?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not know to whose bagmen the hon. member refers.


METHOD OF ESTABLISHING TRIPARTITE COMMITTEES TO DEAL WITH PROGRAM FOR LABOUR
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe that of the hon. Minister and I should like to put a further question to him. Following the questions asked of the first minister, concerning the speech, the minister indicated that the details of the 14 point program he referred to-for which he has almost broken his arm patting himself on the back-he said that the elaboration of the program would be left to tripartite committees. This is what he said. I wonder how the minister intends to come to this elaboration and fleshing out by tripartite committees if labour does not join to make up the parties. What does he intend to do? Is he going to make an end run around the leadership of organized labour in Canada? Is he going to deal with someone else or how is he going to do it?

Friday, October 29, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, further to oral and written questions I have asked on attempted censorship or influencing by external affairs and CBC hierarchy of news broadcasts by CBC's international service to eastern Europe, as well as my requests for copies of internal documents criticizing this signed by CBC senior international personnel which were made public. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the government make an immediate explanation why three senior CBC persons signing these internal documents registering constructive criticism, namely M. Mogilyansky, head, Russian section, L. C. Chipman, East European program supervisor and Axel Thogerson, assistant director Radio Canada international, have been demoted by the CBC, reprimanded in writing, instructed to state they have been laterally transferred and finally, that the government explain why it permits such a vendetta or persecution to occur against such high quality personnel.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD SUGGESTED INVESTIGATION OF DECISION TO CHANGE AGREEMENT WITH MANITOBA FRONTIER SCHOOL TEACHERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 move under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) investigate the decision of the Anti-Inflation Board to cut back the salary and isolation benefits agreement arrived at between the Frontier school division teachers in Manitoba and thei. employers so that the salary increase of 14 per cent was reduced to 11 per cent and the isolation allowance provisions agreed to after three years of negotiations, under which these teachers would have received an increase of 27 per cent, which would have brought these allowances to the level paid to other provincial employees working in the same area, were cut to 8 per cent; and that after the
investigation the minister take whatever steps necessary to make effective the original agreement in order to prevent mass resignation of the teachers and the resultant deterioration of the schools in that area.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43.
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the 30th Parliament is at the beginning of its second session and that members of parliament have often expressed the wish to have a calendar with fixed periods to determine the sittings of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House strongly urge the leader of the government in the House to submit as soon as possible a parliamentary calendar taking into consideration the school calendar so as to enable all hon. members to have a normal family life too.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. 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.


POST OFFICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that in Ottawa, for example, striking post office employees lost $50 each as a result of what is described by this government as the one-day illegal strike on October 5, 1976, and secondly, as a
80001-30'/2
October 25, 1976

presidential election, and has to feed people at $85 a plate, in order to make its political money. At this time the leader of this party can go into any city in western Canada, or into any city in Canada for that matter, and do very well. He went into the province of Quebec and had 1,200 people out for lunch.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Douglas Reynolds: I ask hon. members to look at the polls at the moment in the province of Quebec. Look at what happened in Hochelaga, a seat which the Liberals had held for years. Let hon. members opposite sit there and laugh. Next time it will be this party that will form the government opposite. 1 am glad to see them so touchy about importing a United States senator, who had been thoroughly defeated in the presidential race, to speak for their party. I think it is a sad commentary on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has lost so much support in most parts of the country that he cannot send one of his own party members to speak at this dinner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (5) of Standing Order 38, and also pursuant to the agreement reached earlier, to interrupt the proceedings at this time to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion (Mr. Harquail) agreed to.


Robert Knight Andras: Business of the House
That the Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), in accordance with Standing Order 58:
That this House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can the government whip convey to us what will be the government's business tomorrow and the next day? Perhaps he can say what the business will be as far ahead as he can contemplate.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we should begin with the customs tariff, Bill C-15, if time permits we would carry on with advance payments for crops, Bill C-2.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What about Bill C-83?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.04 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
30

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
people that it is a truly independent inquiry and would not break down into a partisan debate.
I think we have to give the new Solicitor General the chance to get into his new job. I watched him all during the debate on capital punishment when he did not have too much concern for the minority on that committee. As recorded at page 25 of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee proceedings on June 22 last, the Solicitor General said this:
. .. professors such as Mr. Ehrlich and those who are opposed to Mr. Ehrlich's views, have had the opportunity to have their works published, read, debated, refuted and commented on ad nauseam; and now it is proposed that this nauseating debate continue here in committee.
The part that scares us as an opposition party, Mr. Speaker, is that the Solicitor General felt this way just a few months ago about closing off the debate on capital punishment. Because of the shortness of time that he has allowed for this committee, we are hoping that the members on his side will not sit on that committee with the attitude that they have the majority and they will do what they want. The government has not solved the penitentiaries problem. 1 have only been in this House four years, Mr. Speaker, but the problems have been getting worse. None of the programs the government has set up have helped at all.
The British Columbia Penitentiary is in total chaos right now. The Solicitor General says that it is going to close down in 1979, yet he is willing to approve $1.5 million to repair the damage the inmates have done. I have not heard the Solicitor General say that perhaps the inmates who did that damage inside the institution should form the labour force that puts it back together, or that they can stay in the gymnasium until the government is ready to replace that penitentiary. I do not know why we have to feel sorry for people who bust their penal institution down to the ground and then complain that the living conditions in the gymnasium are not so good.
1 think it is time that the government took a tough line with inmates inside our maximum security institutions. We do take a fairly tough line inside our medium and minimum security institutions. We have very tough rules there and, if they are broken, prisoners are sent back to a maximum security institution. In most of the medium and minimum institutions I have visited in this country everything runs fairly smoothly because there is some sense of law and order inside the institutions. It is in our maximum security institutions that the administration and the classification sections have taken a very soft attitude toward the very vicious people who are inside them. In the B.C. penitentiary the authorities went out of their way to make the institution a better place to live. Then, after a couple of million dollars worth of improvements, the inmates tear the place down. This is the sort of problem that this committee will have to face, Mr. Speaker, and hopefully come up with some recommendations that will be acceptable to the government.
I want to stress that the Conservative party did have its committee set up ready to investigate penitentiaries. If we are not satisfied at the end of this committee hearing, or if the government tries to close off the hearing before the reports are

ready to be made, or if we feel we are not getting to see the people we went to see, or that we are not able to spend the amount of time with them that we want to spend, we will continue our own task force. It is our right as members of parliament to visit penitentiaries in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Douglas Reynolds: I have before me a copy of a report that was sent to the former Solicitor General by the late hon. member for Louis-Hebert, Mrs. Morin, who served on the last committee, and I must say that her presence in this House is sorely missed. She was very concerned about this problem and I have the reports which she completed after the last investigation.
Most of the reports of the hon. lady are very condemnatory of the government, and sometimes I wonder whether that is not one of the reasons why the reports were never made public. There was a list of proposed recommendations contained in the report of the penitentiaries sub-committee made at this time, which would have been 1974. These recommendations called for tight perimeter security coupled with optimal internal conditions, and very little has been done in this regard in the penitentiaires about which I have been talking.
Another recommendation is decentralization of the penitentiary service structure, and that has not taken place yet, Mr. Speaker. Another is an eight hour day and salaries for inmates, something which perhaps we will have to examine in our maximum security institutions to keep the inmates busy for some time of the day, instead of locking them up in their cells for 24 hours a day. The recommendations also called for the upgrading in quality of prison staff, and obviously called as well for an urgrading of their salaries. I know this is one of the problems in British Columbia where the sheriffs department working at Oakalla are making more money than federal penitentiary guards. That has to change.
I see I have a couple of minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I have completed my remarks about penitentiaries and will continue my comments in the committee hearings that start tomorrow. I saw an ad in the Vancouver Sun as I was coming to Ottawa yesterday and I thought it was quite appropriate to the Liberal party whose fortunes are so low in western Canada, at this time. I guess in British Columbia and Alberta they probably rank as the third party, not as the second party any more. This ad states:
The International Speakers Forum cordially invites you to attend a dinner and speech at the Hotel Vancouver.
The guest speaker will be United States Senator George McGovern of South Dakota. He will take as his subject. "The new administration".
The International Speakers Forum, is an arm of the Liberal party. At the bottom of the ad it says in very fine print, after telling you that it costs $85 per person to attend the dinner:
$50.00 of the $85.00 ticket price will be treated as a political contribution and receipts for income tax purposes will be sent to each individual purchaser by mail following the dinner.
I think it- is a pretty sad day in western Canada, Mr. Speaker, when the Liberal party has to go searching in the United States for a Senator who was thoroughly defeated in a
October 25, 1976

ly, but they certainly used their money in order to help defeat their government. That is a positive way of doing things. It is better than a negative way which the union leaders of our country are advising right now. They are leading their members down a false path which is getting them nowhere at all, and if they want to change a government they had better use other tactics in the future.
I want for a little while to talk about the inquiry which is being set up into the maximum security institutions of this country by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). I want to thank him for following the example set by the leader of my party in setting up a task force in my party to investigate penitentiaries very shortly after the disturbances in the B.C. Penitentiary and the Laval Penitentiary. Our leader showed an example by setting up a committee to try to find solutions to the problem, and we give the Solicitor General credit for following this example. He is new at his job and maybe it took him a few days to get through the bureaucracy before taking the action necessary to set up the committee.
Members who were here in 1972-73 may recall that I proposed a motion in the House that a committee be set up to investigate the question of the security of our penitentiaries. I brought the subject up under Standing Order 26, and a motion was put forward by agreement later that day which resulted in a committee being established to investigate penitentiaries. Members from all parties were represented on that committee. They investigated penitentiaries for more than a year-I do not know with what result, because it does not appear we are getting anywhere with the operation of the penitentiary system right now. But they spent a year going back and forth across the country visiting penitentiaries, coming up with ideas and making recommendations. Unfortunately I do not have the time tonight to discuss the reports in detail, those I managed to get my hands on. I might add that those reports were never formally presented in the House of Commons; the results of their findings were never published.
Anyway, they took a year to do this work, yet the Solicitor General is now asking us to come up with a report by February 28. I really think he must be looking for some kind of report which will cover up what is really going on if he expects us to produce a report so quickly. Nevertheless, I hope we shall receive co-operation from members on the government side of the House and an understanding that if we do not finish our investigation by the date which has been proposed we shall be allowed to continue until the work has been done. It is time we looked closely into the situation and produced positive solutions on a non-partisan basis. I say this because there are problems in the system which we simply must solve and we cannot do so if we sit on a committee on a partisan basis, trying maybe to cover up mistakes in the ministry or in the bureaucracy.
It is our duty to get the facts and come up with solutions, and we in the opposition parties must make sure that those solutions are presented before the government loses power in the next election, and make it known that we support the action which has to be taken and that we approve the expendi-
The Address-Mr. Reynolds
ture of funds which will be necessary to clear up the mess in our penitentiary system.
I want to show that things really have not changed since that committee was set up in 1973. The members of that committee said the entire system was in disarray. I quote:
Guards did not seem to understand Ottawa's aims where detention and possible rehabilitation of inmates were concerned.
A recommendation was made along this line at the time to initiate regular meetings between administration and guards to increase their awareness of the objectives of the system. Has this been done? Are guards and administration communicating, and is the administration more aware of the action of the guards than it was in 1973? One member of the committee noted that within our women's prisons there was no program of work or rehabilitation. A further observation urged the Department of the Solicitor General to implement a training program which would encourage inmates to rehabilitate themselves. Has this recommendation been carried out?
It is unfortunate that the recommendations of the committee back in 1973 were not listened to by the government. This makes one wonder whether the committee now proposed will really work. Despite the many committees and commissions which have been set up to investigate in this field,-I have in mind the B.C. Penitentiary riots and the Steinhauser affair- nothing seems to have been done. I myself, as a member of the House, have spent a lot of time visiting penitentiaries, talking to all sides. One of the frustrations which visitors to these institutions encounter is this; the people who work there say they have read all these reports and are aware that nothing has been done about them.
Further in the report by the committee which investigated the situation in 1973, we read that it was no secret then, as it is no secret now, that access to drugs in prison is too easy. One observation was: "In prison there seems to be no problem about obtaining drugs." Apparently the administration accepted this situation because of the pacifying effect on inmates. Well, if that is not encouraging a problem it is certainly condoning one. If you encourage drugs in institutions you are encouraging people who are lowly paid on the scale to smuggle drugs into the institutions. You are encouraging friends of the underworld who are visiting inmates to bring them into the institution.
The pressures that exist in our federal institutions are numerous and well known. The problems brought to light by numerous commissions and sub-committees seem to repeat themselves in most of these studies. But we have yet to rectify the problem. I sincerely hope that we will have the total co-operation of the government, which has insisted on having a majority on this committee. We as an opposition party hope to talk to the Solicitor General about setting up the committee on the basis that the opposition parties may outnumber the government. We would put on the committee members who were sincere in their objectives so that it would show the

October 25, 1976
The Address-Mrs. Holt
English, or to learn English if they are French, or that they must be bilingual.
The current emotional holocaust is so unnecessary. The young people today may survive it because so many of them want to travel, want to learn, want to expand their professional opportunity by learning both languages and more.
I wish all hon. members could have seen the show from an Edmonton classroom where the French language is being studied. One little fellow stood up and said that the fight over bilingualism is a pile of garbage. Another youngster said that he would have a better job opportunity because he has two languages.
Not everyone in English Canada has to learn French, nor does everyone in French Canada have to learn English. I am sure that a small group of public servants, comparatively speaking, are already bilingual, and more are trying. Certainly the children who move through the educational process now will add to this group.
To the western separatists, and this is becoming a powerful movement with some very impressive names, I say that if we balkanize, if we break up into three states or four, or more, we will have to learn French and use French if business and industry want to deal with Quebec. And the Quebec people who talk of separation and think they can be unilingual are also not thinking; they will have to learn English to communicate with the unilingual English nations that were once provinces of Canada, and with the English if they decide to move north and south in their dealings instead of east and west.
And in the west, we 2.2 million people will not be able to afford the expensive road network of a huge, mountainous land mass, nor the education system we now have, nor medicare, welfare, police, courts and all the rest which the tax base from a huge central population now helps us support. In order to exist we may have to unite with Washington and, in turn adopt their more difficult racial problems.
The anger that is now dividing Canada will not have a solution in separation. We will never be as strong divided as we are even now, with all our anguish, anger, and frustration.
Communication as we all know is a binding force-whether it is in the home between members of a family; whether it is in trade unions at the bargaining table; whether it is in a nation of two or more cultures, actually a source of our intellectual and sociological richness.
But conversely, lack of communication can be suicide; destructive of family, of unions and their health, and of Canada. I pray and hope for your prayers with me that we will communicate, that we will stop hating, stop committing national suicide.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am told there seems to be a disposition not to see the clock in order to allow the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) to speak. The Chair will put the question at ten o'clock instead of 9:45, by unanimous consent.
[Mrs. Holt.)


Walter David Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is unanimous consent and I should like to thank the government whip for his consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the fact that no one intends to insist on a recorded vote at this time we think it a matter of courtesy that the hon. member should be allowed to speak and that the question be put at ten o'clock.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for allowing me the courtesy of speaking for the next 15 minutes and winding up this debate. I should also like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) for cutting her speech short so that I might have this opportunity to take part, and, I guess,
I should thank my whip for getting me into the debate at all.
I had intended to deliver a speech on the penitentiary system, but the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway touched on a few subjects which I should like to mention before I proceed further. One was the Anti-Inflation Board. She had a lot of ideas, and she knocked the NDP, but what I was wondering, when I was thinking of that protest day coming up, was whether we would not have done better as an opposition- and this applies too to members on the government side-if we had advised the workers that they might have been better off staying on the job that day and protesting by donating a day's salary to the opposition parties in the federal parliament to help defeat the Liberal government which is causing the whole problem.


Mrs. Holt:: They would donate it to the NDP.


John Douglas Reynolds: I hear someone say they might donate it to the NDP.


Simma Holt: They already donate to the NDP.


John Douglas Reynolds: Well, I get elected by a big majority in my riding where a lot of the electors are working people who did not want to take a day off on that day. I know they liked the idea of donating a day's pay to the political system, and the irony of this situation is that if they did devote a day's pay toward defeating the government which is causing the problems in this country, the government would have been obliged to return 75 per cent of their donations in tax credit.


An hon. Member:: The members of the opposition ought to give one day's pay and show an example.


John Douglas Reynolds: I believe a number of people did donate a day's pay. The Premier of British Columbia made it very plain he had donated a day's salary, and I think it was a very good example to the working people of our province. I remember when the teachers of British Columbia wanted to replace a provincial government which they did not like. They donated a day's pay to help defeat the government, and they certainly did defeat it. I do not know what the end result was; I think most of them were back voting for the former government eventual-
October 25, 1976

for an ouster of the executive but could not get a seconder for the motion because of fear or threats.
The night of October 13 a call came to my Ottawa office from a busdriver who told me that the British Columbia Federation of Labour intended to mount pickets to stop the drivers, and if the drivers tried to move the buses there would be bloodshed. The caller said, "I intended to go to work Thursday, it is my right to work. We voted and I will be there." There was a pause, and then he said, "Mrs. Holt, who will look after my family after this is all over?"


An hon. Member:: The Liberal government.


Simma Holt: If you people did something positive once instead of tearing the whole of our society apart, we could all live in peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I lived in your kind of society-an NDP society-for three years. It was bankrupt, it was sick, and it was evil.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simma Holt: I will put that aside for a moment to discuss what might be done to correct the incessant industrial paralysis. I would like a little more time to tell hon. members about a process called "Med-Ar" and a man named Sam Kagel, a leading western American lawyer who specializes in labour relations. Sam Kagel is a legend in the west. I called him the other day to ask him to share his wisdom in dealing with labor strife in Canada. I would like to say what he told me, but I will have to save it for another time since there is another subject that is very important that I think should be discussed. I refer to my concern for Canadian unity.
I feel compelled tonight to deal with the unity of Canada and the suicide course we are on as a nation because we will not understand. Perhaps we are not listening and will not communicate. Many Canadians are uneasy. They are angry because we are making judgments about fellow Canadians without knowing them, and without full knowledge of what it is all about.
Racism is rampant in Canada and it is alive and thriving in this very House of Commons. I hate to say that. This place where we know each other, were we want to understand the great differences that we share in our representation of 264 constituencies, where we are the microcosm of the disparities and the richness of cultural and regional variations, we should be engaged in mending and melding this country.
And I plead with the Fourth Estate up there to use their important communications service to play a positive role-not the game of provocation a few are engaged in-to save the unity of Canada.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I heard with very considerable distress the remark of the
The Address-Mrs. Holt
hon. member, and it is so recent in my memory that I can quote it, that racism is rampant in this very House of Commons. I hope the hon. member will see fit to withdraw that remark because it seems to be a very general application.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking the Chair to pass judgment on the hon. member's speech or the validity of her remarks. That is not the responsibility of the Chair. The hon. member is making a point of debate which he can resume at another time in making his own speech. Unless the hon. member has a point relating to the rules, the use of parliamentary language, or reflecting on members of the House or the House itself, this point of order is not valid.


Simma Holt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to offend the House or its members. However, I have heard many remarks here. I, personally, have felt a great deal of it. It is not just on the Anglophone or the Francophone side. It is in other respects as well. It is unfortunate because we reflect the nation.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just withdraw it.


Simma Holt: I will withdraw it and go on and discuss it another day. It is a matter of great seriousness and concern to me that we stand here and do these things to each other.
Even we do not understand it all fully, and many of us who never knew the people of the founding culture until we came here, want to understand. Canadians want their children to live in a single Canada, not Canada dismembered for superficial reasons or because of misunderstanding of what the bilingual program means.
In my constituency office, hundreds of people come in or phone. So often the phrase comes up "jamming French down our throats", a phrase that should be dropped forever from both the English and French language. In fact the other day I heard it from a sports commentator in the United States. It is a terrible phrase, an excessive phrase.
Quebec members keep hearing about English being "jammed" down their throats. No one is jamming anything down anyone's throat. If that were true, we would be a nation with perpetual sore throats and headaches.
Perhaps something is happening to our minds, to our psyches, perhaps even to our souls in all this resentment. It is because we are not communicating. We who are here to represent all Canadians are not saying it clearly and simply: not everyone is expected to speak French. Not everyone must speak English. Not everyone must be bilingual. If we choose we can learn two languages and of course have a bonus in our cultural and communication depth. Perhaps some of those with other cultures in Canada, besides having both of the founding languages, might also have their own and be richer than any of us.
But what a disaster if Canada is torn apart because people really believe that they are forced to learn French if they are

The Address-Mrs. Holt
sanctions, pickets, accusations of scab for all who worked that day, and all the devices of the most heinous strike were used, it is strike. It was a deliberate attempt to debilitate, if not tear down the economy of Canada.
The claim was that it was to fight inflation, but the leader of the Canadian Labour Congress, in an address to the trade union congress in Britain told them that really was not the reason; that he wanted the power of the tripartite, that new huge bureaucracy in which he would play a major role in running the economy and the social structures of Canada. It was a great lie, and the workers of Canada were forced to lose a day's pay by intimidation, threat and fear, for this man's power trip.
It was a mischievous and immature act. Perhaps the NDP might know the real reasons since they shared in the conspiracy. Many could perceive it as a conspiracy of subversion to manipulate and force 2.5 million good and responsible citizens, who belong to the Canadian trade union movement, to participate in a project with one goal-a despicable goal-to damage Canada's delicate economy.
October 14 may have had a positive backlash that the CLC, the NDP, and those other few in the plan did not anticipate. The rank and file trade unionists are angry-angry at their loss of freedom-angry at their lost wages, without having a right to vote on the matter. It was a strike with all the goon and bully-boy techniques.
It was rather interesting that the vice president of the CLC called October 14 "Labour's finest hour". God help the mass of people in the trade union movement if things ever get bad and this is the best their leaders can do. I would have thought a more accurate description would be "the nation's greatest industrial abortion".
To enlarge this point: thousands of trade unionists, well aware of the threat to their job opportunities in the future and threats to their very lives and the lives of their families, treated it as an enforced holiday; tens of thousands were deprived of their salaries; not only was there no secret ballot for many but in some cases-and, Mr. Speaker, I can prove this and I am ready to go to court if I am required to-they actually had their ballots torn up by International Woodworkers of America leaders. Is this what they call their finest hour?
There are about 30,000 International Woodworkers of America in British Columbia. They did not get a vote. They were told they must stay off work because their leaders had made the decision. Even with that and with British Columbia being the most militant trade union province in Canada, and Vancouver its front line of militancy, the turnout for this demonstration was 7,000, by a generous estimate.
This might interest those who participated so excitedly in this demonstration: that 7,000 represented half the numbers of buttons I gave out to trade unionists who wanted to go to work. The button said: "I'm going to work for Canada today".
Even more interesting is the composition of the demonstrators-the CLC in the lead, then the communists, Trotskyites, the Maoists, and then the Gay Liberation Alliance! The first

groups were together with one cause-disruption of the economy-on the pretext of fighting anti-inflation controls. Hon. members who served on the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and heard witnesses for the Gay Liberation Alliance, learned then what controls they wanted removed- controls over their sexual freedom, and the age limit for their sexual partners lowered to 16, as I recall. Thus, to build statistics the CLC and the NDP who were part of it-certainly in the west and here-embraced the Gay Liberation pickets, backed by the NDP-allegedly to fight controls. What controls were they fighting, Mr. Speaker?
In that "finest hour" the CLC had to rent pickets on the prairies. When asked if he would have done it without pay, one of these hired mercenaries in the CLC war on Canada, smiled wryly and said, "I don't think so".
On Parliament Hill newspaper reporters could have counted the demonstrators as easily as we and the police did. The count was 700. The Globe and Mail, that great newspaper of record, reported 1,800 on Parliament Hill, and headlined that 1,035,445 participated in the protest. If they were 200 per cent wrong on the Parliament Hill statistics, then we can gauge their accuracy on the other figures, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: I want to tell one story as an example of the determination of the CLC to stop the workers in Vancouver and possibly throughout Canada. It was an attempt to disrupt transportation in order to keep people from their jobs. The details of the story poured out in my constituency office. It began with one bus driver who came in to get some of the buttons I was giving out, for a group of drivers who were revolting against the executive decision to stop the buses. The stoppage was based on a vote of 69 out of 3,000 members; the membership had not been advised in advance of this June vote.
The drivers posted a petition on the bulletin board near the end of September demanding a full membership right to vote to reverse the decision of the executive. A union official ripped it off the bulletin board. The drivers then circulated it by hand and called a meeting for October 4 because of the massive response. At that meeting all attempts to persuade them to support the executive strike plan failed. Those opposed to the executive were ordered to stand on one side of the room and those who supported the strike on the other. It was deliberate intimidation. But, Mr. Speaker, those wearing my buttons stood together. Suddenly others donned their buttons in protest against this technique, and joined them.
The executive then demanded a referendum for 4 days later-Friday, October 8, because they were not satisfied. Even though they got their troops out, there again an overwhelming majority opposed the executive strike order. The executive would not tell the public or the press the result but I will tell the public and the press, Mr. Speaker. It was a vote of 1,485 to 460 in favour of working that day. The executive is refusing to reveal the results because it was a vote of non-confidence in the leadership. The members tried to get a seconder
October 25, 1976

part of the government in directly or indirectly supporting research with the provinces into providing adequate and better ventilation in the mines or into providing a mask which miners can wear to protect their lungs. The federal government has also failed to provide compensation to injured uranium miners who come under its jurisdiction. Again, that is a shortfall and a lack of policy on the part of the government.
I could go into all kinds of problems which arise from lack of policy in energy terms. I have spoken about that on many previous occasions. Time does not permit me now to go into the way the Canadian people have been duped by multinational oil companies operating in Canada, how they have deceived this government in terms of the supply of oil we have on hand, or how they have been able to manipulate prices and cause them to rise, to the detriment of Canadian consumers. That is another story for another time. However, in the couple of minutes remaining I would like to make some comments on the issue of bilingualism.
Although the government is a strong supporter of bilingualism, it can be faulted on the way its program has been implemented. I am a personal supporter of the concept that Canadians of either of the official language groups have the right to deal with their federal government in either of those languages, and that support remains unaltered. I support that concept entirely.
However, what I object to is the way the Liberal government has been implementing bilingualism, specifically in connection with language training for civil servants. 1 have only to quote from the findings of Professor Gilles Bibeau of the University of Montreal who made a study of the bilingualism policy. His report is a damning condemnation of the insensitivity of the government and the inadequacy of the way it goes about implementing bilingual training. The report shows that there was no reason to designate as bilingual most of the positions-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate our newest member, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail), for moving the motion of acceptance of the Speech from the Throne. I would also like to congratulate the seconder, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), our youngest member, who gives all of us who are older such pride and joy in his intellectual insight and diplomatic skills, a promise of great service to Canada, beyond measure at this time.
I would also like to refer just briefly-because my time is limited-to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and to his attack on the anti-inflation program. The
The Address-Mrs. Holt
government succeeded in doing what the NDP failed to do. Even with labour's excessive demands, and the NDP support of these demands, they failed. The controls increased the actual purchasing power of the dollar 3 per cent, and thus increased the real worth of salaries. So perhaps it is time members of the NDP started worrying about the real truth and about the rank and file of the trade union movement, about whom they seem not to care one whit.
Hon. members of the NDP talk and hide behind the skirts of the old, the poor and the worker, but they would not go and pick one of them-a hungry person fallen on the street or save the threatened worker from the Joe Morrises and his ilk.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: However, to come to the essence of my response to the throne speech, the mood and forces within our huge and disparate land are such that they could even now solidify confederation or tear it apart. Two major factors which affect Canada's future, whether we commit national suicide or whether we pull together, are the essence of what I want to speak about tonight.
We have only one choice, and that is to use our differences as a blend for the greatness, beauty, enrichment, and to continue the building of a strong and unified Canada-this wonderful, wonderful land that so many of us have shared in building, as did our parents and forefathers of many cultures, including the two founding cultures.
One of the two forces that could disrupt confederation is the unreasoning anger and intransigence, born of misunderstanding on both sides of the official languages debate; the other is the senseless strikes in which a few leaders have recklessly, and perhaps deliberately, deprived tens of thousands of workers of their democratic right, the choice to work. You people over there can answer for that. The other day I tried to bring in a motion in this House to protect the rank and file from the threats, intimidation, to give them a free vote in making decisions governing their economic well-being-to give them the same freedom we expect for all our citizens in our democratic society. The only voice opposed was the so-called "people's friend" over there, the NDP. Everyone else in this House agreed that protection of the freedom and the very safety of the rank and file trade unionists was vital.
Today the strike is a needless tool. When the founders of the great institution of collective bargaining risked their jobs and careers, it was important; but today, if both sides negotiate in good faith, they know they can get a contract. They know they do not have to go out on strike and that even if they do strike they must eventually return to the bargaining table. That is where it is settled.
1 think the most shocking example of the abuse of the strike tool and also the exploitation of rank and file trade unionists, was the October 14 attempt by the Canadian Labour Congress to mount a national general strike. The leadership would like to dignify it by calling it a protest, but when threats, job
80001-29/4
October 29, 1976

Another study conducted in California involved placing nineteen hyperactive children on the special diet for a period of two to three months. This particular study revealed a significant difference between pre-test and post-test population means. No significant changes were noted by teachers' evaluation.
The validity of these findings is questionable, and has been criticized for the lack of adequate control for dietary intervention and the introduction of numerous biases. These biases occurred by exposing the parents and children to the anticipated outcome of the study at the beginning, by rewarding children for staying on the diet, and by sending an informative letter to teachers reflecting what beneficial effects may be expected.
Perhaps the most significant of all studies is that conducted by a team at the University of Wisconsin. This research, funded by the Food Research Institute of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, represents the first systematic investigation of the hyperactivity-food additive hypothesis. It includes objective psychologic, psychophysiologic and classroom observational data in addition to parent and teacher ratings of behavioural change associated with dietary manipulations. The study was designed in such a way that teachers, parents, clinical investigators and classroom and laboratory observers of the children's activity level were unaware throughout the course of the investigation whether the child was on the special diet or on a diet containing artificial colours and flavours. Both the experimental and control menus were prepared from commercially available food stocks.
Available results indicate that of the 36 mothers with boys in the 6-12 year group, 13 rated their son's behaviour as improved on the special diet, while six rated their child's behaviour as worsened. Of the 30 fathers rating the behaviour of this same age group, 14 rated their son as improved, three as worsened and 13 essentially unchanged. In comparison to the parent ratings, classroom teacher ratings showed a marked decline in the frequency of judgement of behavioural improvement during the experimental diet period. Only six of the teachers rated the child as less hyperactive, 10 rated the child as showing more active behaviour while on the experimental diet, which is supposed to improve the child, and 30 of the teacher ratings showed little change between the two diet conditions. Agreement between parent and teacher ratings of improved behaviour while on the experimental diet occurred in only four of the 36 children.
The observational data collected on a number of behaviours in the classroom and in a standardized laboratory task yielded very few ratings of improvement in association with the experimental diet. Preliminary statistical analysis of these data has been completed and no-I repeat, Mr. Speaker, no-statistically significant diet effect was apparent.
The younger children aged 3 to 6, however, showed a greater positive response on the experimental diet as indicated by parent rating. All 10 mothers in this group rated their child's behaviour as improved, as did four of the seven fathers in this sample.
Artificial Food Additives
Thus with the possible exception of the youngest age sample, the preliminary analysis completed to date in the Wisconsin study does not appear to offer strong support for the efficacy of the experimental diet, at least with respect to group effects. The University of Wisconsin research team, however, has repeatedly emphasized the still incomplete status of their project, saying that a number of the objective measures obtained on the subject have not yet been tabulated.
A research proposal was submitted to the food and drug administration of the U.S.A. by Dr. Leon S. Otis, of Stanford University, requesting funds to study development of behavioural aspects of food additives on mice and rats. This proposal has not been funded to date. Members of the National Institute of Mental Health in the U.S.A. and Dr. Frank Cordle of the U.S.A. food and drug administration are not aware of any related studies being conducted at Stanford University. Dr. Cordle is familiar with all interagency funding in the U.S.A.
A study was recently conducted in Canada at the University of Western Ontario to determine the relative effectiveness of dietary and drug management of hyperkinesis. Preliminary findings suggest that the effect of diet was ambiguous. Parents and teachers were of the opinion that dietary infractions involving artificial food colours and flavourings had minimal and insignificant effects.
The aforementioned studies conducted to date clearly indicate the potential difficulties in any attempt to test the food additive-hyperactivity hypothesis. The small sample size used reduces the significance of all findings and makes the use of statistical analysis extremely difficult. Furthermore, the use of outpatients in all these projects makes difficult the control of compliance. Also, specificity of responsiveness must be studied by challenging subjects with individual groups of substances such as artificial colour or flavours or salicylates. Finally, results are meaningless if strict adherence to guidelines is not preserved throughout the entire duration of an experiment.
Several other studies currently under way have been funded by the U.S. food and drug administration. These include a study on the hyperkinetic syndrome in children, being conducted at the Kaiser Permanent Foundation Research Institute in California. The study should be complete in about one year. A second study at the University of Wisconsin is designed to identify children who respond to the K-P diet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, now that I have had my cup of tea and a couple of
614

October 29, 1976
Artificial Food Additives
Arrowroot biscuits, perhaps 1 might say a word, One thing which is quite clear is that there are not any additives in Arrowroot biscuits which produce hyperactivity or anti-social behaviour. Certainly there cannot be any red dye in Arrowroot biscuits.
This debate this afternoon has been typical of many debates. My friend, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk), feels the government is doing far too little, almost nothing, in the field of studying the relationship between food additives and hyperactivity. On the other hand my friend from Halton speaking from the government side assures us that the Department of National Elealth Welfare is doing everything that needs to be done in this field. 1 suspect the truth is somewhere in between, and even though the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) seened to be making a case that a good deal of research has been done in this field in the United States, which seems to carry with it the suggestion that we do not need to respond to the plea of the hon. member for Athabasca, it strikes me that the wide disparity between the number of additives banned in the United States and the number banned in this country is something that should be considered.
Despite the efficacy of the experiments and research projects conducted in the United States 1 think we should have our own as well. Perhaps a good place to begin studying diets would be among the now 259 members of the House of Commons. It would be a very interesting study, especially on a Friday, to assess the behavioural patterns of the various members and then to check their diets. So, Mr. Speaker, if we can cut through all the usual confrontation we have had, I believe that the suggestion made in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Athabasca is a good one and 1 would like to see the House endorse it this afternoon.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take only a moment or two to congratulate the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for introducing this motion.
I would point out that in the city of Vernon, B.C., in my constituency, on October 1 an international conference on hyperactivity was held. The conference started off in a small way. A maximum of 500 people were expected. Before the
opening evening it was found that the demand was much greater and space had to be added for an extra 100 people. The accommodation provided proved to be inadequate for the number of persons applying to be present and eventually the venue for the meeting had to be changed to a larger auditorium in order to accommodate something approaching 1,000 people. This, I believe, is an indication of the great need that underlies the motion presented by the hon. member for Athabasca.
Although I do not have the time to expand any further on the activities of that conference-and 1 do not wish to cut off the vote-may I say 1 know a wide range of speakers was heard from several areas on the very important subject of additives and their relation to hyperactivity. 1 wish to congratulate the hon. member, and urge that we pass this motion.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I must also compliment the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for raising this question and bringing it to the floor of the House. I think this is an extremely important area. It is important to look at the question of food additives and their effects, particularly as the number of additives in relation to food is growing at such a great rate.
I am sorry the hon. member was not able to develop his thesis on the relationship between food additives and hyperactivity to the extent I would have liked him to do. I particularly would have liked to have heard him develop the thesis of Dr. Feingold, although the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook) dealt with that. I think it is a great mistake to assume or to claim, as the opposition tends to do, that we are not interested in this. This is not true. I think the hon. member for Halton outlined in some detail the kind of safety standards we have, the need for nutritive value, the use of additives as preservatives and so on, and the acceptable levels beyond which there is some danger, and indeed the work of the Health Protection Branch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being five o'clock the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.
At five p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 1, 1976