1976-10-13

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I do so in view of the statement by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on April 7, 1976 in which he admitted that "the marine search and rescue organization is no longer entirely adequate". In view of the fact that a departmental task force set up by the minister last spring has already submitted its report with specific recommendations, and further in view of the failure of the government to announce a new air/sea search and rescue policy for Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That in the opinion of this House the government should give immediate consideration to referring the question of air/sea search and rescue in Canada to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communication.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the financial position of cow-calf operators. The inaction of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has forced the western provinces to act unilaterally to provide emergency relief to the producers. Because the onus remains on the federal government to save the beef industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House request the Minister of Agriculture to institute immediately a national cow-calf stabilization program based on the full cost of production.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter not only of urgent and pressing necessity but also humanitarian. I hope my colleagues will think twice before saying "No".
Considering that Mr. Valdes left the country last Sunday and that judicial proceedings have been taken to recognize the representations of Mrs. Valdes and her four children, who have been harassed for a year and a half by the Department of Manpower and Immigration following their voluntary request to become Canadian citizens, and considering that Mrs. Valdes is now exhausted and that it is inhuman to leave this lady and her children in such a depressive state which has lasted too long, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Joyal):
That the Cabinet consider immediately the critical and inhuman position of Mrs. Valdes and her four children and that the minister take all the necessary measures to regularize the status of this family as landed immigrants.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

October 13, 1976
Social Security AGRICULTURE


DAIRYING-REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF DISTRIBUTION OF QUOTAS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since about 12,000 milk producers of the south shore area will incur a loss of more than $5,350,000 for the year 1976-77, which represents 23 per cent of their income since this loss accounts for an average of $4,458 per dairy farm which will force some of them to go bankrupt, and since this unfortunate situation is also common to all parts of the province of Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House recommend the formation of a special committee which would undertake a sound review of distribution of production quotas for each province and actual needs for domestic consumption and would consider the economic and social consequences of losses incurred by milk producers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this motion, which 1 move under Standing Order 43, is of extreme urgency to a great many Canadians. Therefore, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House urge the government to include in its legislative proposals for this session of parliament a measure to increase substantially the amount of the basic pension provide under the Old Age Security Act and to make the pension available at age 60 to all persons not in the labour market.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
(Mr. Speaker ]


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is also urgent and pressing. It is in regard to a decision rendered by Judge O'Driscoll of the Supreme Court of Ontario on July 23, 1976 ruling against the government in the case of the wrongful dismissal of a senior civil servant, namely Mr. Walter Rud-nicki. In light of the fact that the judge's reasons for his decision raise a number of serious questions about the improprieties and misconduct of at least one minister of the Crown, as well as the chairman of the board of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the deputy minister of urban affairs and other officials, and since the matter of government secrecy is also illuminated in the judge's decision and statement, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington):
That this House urge the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to make a statement in the House which would outline the course of action that he proposes to take to respond to this most serious matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, and I hope 1 will get support from both sides of the House for my motion. Literally hundreds of union members, even their spouses and children, have come to my constituency office or telephoned or written to me to tell me of threats against their livehoods and even their families if they work on October 14. They tell of losing their democratic freedoms within our free democracy.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the relevant departments and agencies of government undertake an immediate investigation to determine the extent and degree of intimidation used to prevent rank and file trade unionists from working on October 14, 1976, and to identify any individuals who should be prosecuted for the use of threats of violence or other reprisals to prevent any person from working, and to prepare legislation to assure every trade unionist of the right to determine their own economic destinies through supervised free and secret ballot at all times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 13, 1976


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent beef embargo imposed by President Ford of the United States, and in view of the fact that the Canadian beef industry has been in a serious depression for a considerable period of time, more particularly in the last few months, and in view of Canada's sellout in respect of the Canada-Australia-New Zealand meat agreement, and, further, that because of the United States embargo the Canadian beef industry faces the very real possibility of even heavier volumes of beef from Australia and New Zealand, no doubt already in transit to the United States market, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the Minister of Agriculture take immediate action to ensure that this product will not be dumped on our Canadian market and to place immediately, if necessary, a temporary embargo on beef from Australia and New Zealand and, secondly, that the minister implement a long overdue Canadian meat import law, and, finally, that he negotiate with his United States counterparts a longer term agreement having regard for historical trade patterns.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that for a year we have had 7 per cent or greater unemployment, I rise on this matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls on the government to work out a detailed plan to provide for full employment, and that to accomplish this objective, plans be made to reduce the present high rate of unemployment by a specific reducing percentage
Oral Questions
for each of the next three years in the same way as the government set its goals for reducing inflation in announcing its anti-inflation goals.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in view of the fact that the wide and increasing protests over the transfer of veterans' hospitals to other levels of jurisdiction indicate that the policy is not working to the benefit of all veterans of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the whole matter of the transfer of veterans' hospitals be referred immediately to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and that the committee be authorized to travel to those hospitals already transferred, as well as those under negotiation, to determine the inequities of existing transfer agreements.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by welcoming the Prime Minister back to the House and his demonstration that he is as usual in command of events. I wish to direct to the Prime Minister a question arising from the fact that the first reaction to the Throne Speech from that side of the House has been the resignation of the Minister of National Defence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In view of the fact that this resignation leaves the provinces of Manitoba. Saskatchewan and Alberta with only one representative in cabinet, a rather dubious one at

October 13, 1976
Oral Questions
that, I wonder whether the Prime Minister will assure the House that he will move immediately to appoint at least one more minister from those three provinces.


An hon. Member:: Joe Guay?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the good wishes of the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming me back in the House. I was puzzled to see him grasp so tightly on the arm of his chair before he rose to ask the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Fraser:: He has a tighter grasp on the chair than you have on the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: This is being recorded, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It looked, Mr. Speaker, as if he were afraid the caucus would take away the only seat he has left.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the constructive suggestions he has made in respect of my cabinet and I will take them seriously into consideration. If he wants any advice on his own shadow cabinet I would be happy to give it to him privately, Mr. Speaker. It would be more valuable.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 think two things are evident. The first is that the Prime Minister's practice of refusing to answer questions has survived the summer; the second is I have a considerably better grasp on my chair and my caucus than he has on his caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON FORMULA FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION AS STATED BY FORMER MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime M inister declines to advise us whether he has been able to find anyone else from western Canada to join his cabinet, I wonder if I might ask him whether, in light of the fact that there was apparently some extensive discussion between the former minister and the Prime Minister of the reasons cited for the former minister's resignation, the statements that were contained in the letter of resignation by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, particularly those statements which claim to set forth the government's firm position on an amending formula for the constitution, can be interpreted to represent in fact a final decision by the government on this question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out to the former minister of national defence, and I remind the Leader of the Opposition of this, that last March I wrote to the premiers and gave them three options whereby we thought we could patriate the constitution. Only

one of them referred to language rights and an entrenched amending formula; at least one of the other two, as I recall, contained nothing on language rights. So, clearly if the Leader of the Opposition and the former minister of national defence recall the events, it would seem that both the action and the question are a little premature.


REQUEST FOR TABLING REPLY TO LETTER OF RESIGNATION OF MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: The clear implication in the letter from the most recent former minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -was that there has been a narrowing of the options, and my question was precisely whether that in fact has been the case or whether the former minister of national defence in his letter misinterprets the position of the cabinet of which he was so recently a member. Perhaps in answering that question the Prime Minister might also indicate whether he would be prepared to table his reply to the letter of resignation of his former colleague and whether that reply would contain a detailed response to the positions set forth in a rather lengthy letter of resignation by the former minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is quite simple. There has been no change of position in cabinet on those three options. As 1 recollect, the matter was not even discussed substantially for the simple reason that twice since that letter was sent the premiers met amongst themselves, first in Alberta and then in Ontario, following two previous meetings, I believe, of the attorneys general in spring. I believe these were meetings during which the premiers and their attorneys general were attempting to define the position among themselves. I have not received the report of the chairman of that premiers' conference as yet, therefore I do not know what their position is. I do not know what their response to my three options will be, and I do not know that they have reached any firm agreement among themselves. There has been no change in the cabinet's views. We are awaiting the report of the chairman of the conference to discuss the matter and decide upon it. For that reason, I felt that the minister's resignation was premature. He was acting on the assumption that the premiers might agree, which is perhaps an unwise assumption.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister agree to table in the House of Commons his reply to the letter of resignation of his minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When that reply has been received by the former minister of national defence, and if he agrees that his letter to me be tabled, I will certainly table the correspondence between him and me.
October 13, 1976


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: My question is for the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg South, the former minister of national defence, was able, aided by the Chancellor of Germany, to wrest from a reluctant cabinet a promise to increase the capital budget of the Department of National Defence by an inflation factor plus 12 per cent each year for the next five years. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that this commitment will stand?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can assure the hon. member that this commitment was made by the cabinet and not by the minister alone. It was the subject of a very firm decision by all ministers in the cabinet, and the former minister does not take that decision away with him.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO CHANGE IN RE-EQUIPMENT PROGRAM-REPLACEMENT FOR MINISTER
Allan Bruce McKinnon: I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. Could the right hon. gentleman assure the House that there will be no changes in the defence re-equipment programs announced by the former minister, and could he at the same time assure the House that he will name somebody-or perhaps some nobody-as Minister of National Defence before he leaves the country again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, if I were to find some nobody, I would have to look on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, as testimony to all the hard work I put in on my French this past summer I will say touche to the Prime Minister for that one.
On a more serious note I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since Canada has been experiencing unemployment in excess of seven per cent for a total of some 17 months now, and since Canadians obviously want to work and not receive handouts, does the government intend in the present session of parliament to bring forth legislation which will set specific targets on the rates of reduction in the levels of unemployment that it is planning for, and if not, why not?


Simma Holt: You don't care about the rank and File.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne indicated the direction the government intends to take on this matter and the House will hear
Oral Questions
further from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration during the debate.


POSSIBILITY OF BUDGETARY MEASURES TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. Since on a seasonal basis there are over 750,000 Canadians unemployed, and since only 63,000 new jobs have been established this year compared with the 250,000 jobs forecast by the minister in his May budget address, will the minister bring forward this fall a supplementary budget to correct some of this erroneous forecasting made by his own department and also simultaneously announce some major programs to deal with unemployment?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No, sir.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is a brief answer if a stupid one. The Prime Minister's new modesty obviously has not spread throughout the cabinet.
My final supplementary is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the stated intention of the government in the Throne Speech to provide more information to the people of Canada, will the minister table the 85 page employment strategy paper which the cabinet has approved, and can the minister at the same time indicate whether his employment program will simply involve an expansion of such cosmetic programs as making LIP a year round project and introducing such delightful new schemes as JEEP, whatever that may stand for?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Cullen for leader.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Not yet, Walter. Cool it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Maybe next month.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The leader of the New Democratic Party refers to cosmetics, but it has been known in the past that cosmetics made a very ordinary girl look quite beautiful. I think we will do that with our program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 13, 1976
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can he inform the House whether he has ordered or is about to order an investigation relating to statements made on the French television network about two weeks ago by five masked people that his department allegedly gave instructions aimed at excluding some categories of beneficiaries who theoretically would be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have already responded to that criticism in a press release issued, I believe, within two days of the media report.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Agriculture but in his absence I should like to address it to the Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Agriculture. The question relates to the October 9 action of President Ford in imposing a total United States quota of 1.233 million pounds of beef under the terms of the United States meat import law. In view of the immediate and very real possibility that Australian and New Zealand shipments may now be diverted to Canada, in addition to our current excessive imports, and in view of Canada's very vulnerable position which permits unlimited access of imported meats at discounted prices well in excess of the "six cents under" agreement, will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Agriculture act immediately to prevent a further depression of all levels of our Canadian cattle markets with appropriate action on Australian-New Zealand beef imports?


Mr. Ir6nle Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has acted today. The Minister of Agriculture has announced that the federal government is moving to place imports of beef and veal into Canada under individual permit control effective midnight on Sunday.


SUGGESTED DEMAND FOR RETRACTION OF AUSTRALIAN
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the announcement just made by the parliamentary secretary but I wish to address a supple-

mentary question to him. In view of the very serious charge made by the deputy prime minister of Australia that Canada was totally to blame for this predictable action by President Ford, especially during their election campaign, and since Australia has enjoyed unlimited access to Canadian meat markets with volumes much higher proportionately than their United States shipments, will the Prime Minister or indeed the government of Canada take immediate steps to set the record straight and demand a retraction from the government of Australia?


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has already answered the allegation by the Australian and New Zealand governments. I must add that this afternoon Canadian officials in Washington are having discussions with the United States officials to find out exactly how this new quota will be applied. That government has announced a global quota and the 21 nations which will be affected by it do not yet know what it will mean to them individually. Our officials are having discussions with United States officials this afternoon to find out exactly what it will mean to Canada.


NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the glaring inconsistencies in the National Energy Board Act that came to light this summer in defining the quasi-judicial and advisory functions and the fact that there was nothing in the Speech from the Throne about this, does the minister intend to introduce any measures during this session of parliament to separate these responsibilities?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementay question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the minister that there is no problem associated with having semi-judicial and advisory positions held by one particular person? Does the minister not feel that is an impossible situation in which to place a regulator?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member makes a good point. I do recognize there could be situations in which there could be incompatibility between the advisory function and the judicial function. This is a matter which I have had under personal consideration for some time. Undoubtedly there will be an opportunity for me to discuss this with my colleagues in the weeks to come. Going back to the first question, it is not my intention in this session to introduce amendments to the National Energy Board Act for that purpose.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister issued any instructions to the chairman of the National Energy Board to ensure that such apparent conflict will not happen again?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure that upon reflection the hon. member would realize that a minister of energy, mines and resources would be in a very delicate position in advising the National Energy Board, which was set up by Parliament as an independent body. If the minister were to start issuing instructions to the head of the National Energy Board it would seem to me he would be open, and the government would be open, to the criticism of interfering with the very independence which parliament set up in the Act for the National Energy Board.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REQUEST FOR TABLING OF BACKGROUND PAPERS ON WHICH DECISION TO CONTINUE PROGRAM MAY BE BASED
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (Yrok-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As the Speech from the Throne contemplates that the provinces will be asked to enter into consultations on renewal of agreements under the government's present wages and prices control program, would the minister, within the commitment to be open as promised in the Speech from the Throne, lay before the House and the provinces all background papers that argue for continuation of the program beyond March 31, 1977, as termination of present agreements with most provinces is to occur on that date?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the date we look forward to is, of course, April 1, 1977. I will be glad to make available to both the provinces and the House the analysis which would lead to a continuation of the program.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister could indicate when he will lay this documentation before the House and the provinces? Could he also indicate the term of the extension to which he is asking the provinces to agree? Is it a further 18 months or even longer?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we would anticipate this discussion would commence in the new year when we would obviously have more specific details. As the hon. member knows, the Act provides a continuation for two years more.


SUGGESTED DELETION OF PROVISION ALLOWING EXTENSION OF PROGRAM BEYOND 1978
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister at least hinted last Thursday that under no circumstances would the control program go beyond the end of 1978, could he
Oral Questions
indicate if he is willing to cause Bill C-73 to be amended to ensure that under no circumstances may the controls program be extended beyond the end of 1978 by, in particular, deleting the provision that allows the program to be extended simply by order in council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration. Certainly, it is our intention not to by go beyond the end of December, 1978. If that would reassure the House and get the opposition parties to co-operate with us in the implementation of the program while it exists, I would certainly be prepared to give that undertaking.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are we to understand from the reference to the Canada Pension Plan in yesterday's Speech from the Throne that the contribution of housewives to the social and economic well-being of our country is finally going to be recognized in real and concrete terms?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this provision is certainly going to mark significant progress in recognizing the contribution of housewives to our economy. I hope, as time goes by, the government will be able to introduce more measures of this nature to recognize that contribution.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The Supreme Court of Ontario now having concluded that Mr. Walter Rudnicki was wrongfully dismissed from his position as senior policy adviser at Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, can the minister indicate whether Mr. Rudnicki will be rehired and, if he will not be rehired, why he will not be taken back into the federal civil service?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Rudnicki has been compensated. He has other employment, I believe, with the government of Manitoba and 1 do not think he has indicated any desire to return to the federal public service. I wish him well in his new career.

October 13, 1976
Oral Questions


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the minister will want to canvass his answer with Mr. Rudnicki who is seeking employment with the federal public service. In view of the very serious charge Mr. Rudnicki makes, that there is a blacklist of public servants which has been circulated among Liberal ministers and which is officially called the extra parliamentary opposition, will the minister advise if in the area of his responsibilities he is aware of such list. If he is not will he give to this House an undertaking that he will investigate these most serious charges which Mr. Rudnicki has been making?


An hon. Member:: And let's have no blarney.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, this certainly is a very serious charge which the hon. member makes. Fortunately, it is without any foundation.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? In view of the question just asked by my colleague from New Westminster, will the Prime Minister tell the House if he will take the first opportunity available to make a statement in the House answering some of the serious charges made both by Mr. Rudnicki and a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario, in order to relieve the anxieties created across this country, anxieties developing from some of the improprieties implied in the judgment and involving some ministers and senior civil servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter. I am not aware of those charges. I just heard them alluded to by way of rumour just now by hon. members opposite.


Walter David Baker: There is a supreme court judgment.


Mr. Fairweather:: It's a supreme court rumour.


An hon. Member:: You missed that judge.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, I don't speak to judges. They may have opinions on the conduct of governments which, if they are not on the matter of legality or illegality, I might consider irrelevant.


HOUSING
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. My question is prompted by a statement released by the Canadian Council on Social Development identifying six Canadian cities in which the percentage of people able to buy affordable housing has declined, notwithstanding the success of the minister's AHOP program; it is also prompted by the government's failure to identify new programs in the Speech from the Throne. Does the minister intend to introduce new legislation this session and does he intend to press for the implementation of legislation to set up the Canadian mortgage corporation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, our present programs are working effectively, although in some areas we want to see them working even more effectively. Housing starts, as hon. members know, are close to record highs for this year, but that does not relieve our concern for the future and for people in low income groups still experiencing difficulty. We are tailoring our programs, not through new legislation but through the application of existing programs, in such a way as to make certain to the best of our ability that housing is available to them.
The Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation is in the province of my colleague, the Minister of Finance. From my viewpoint the activation of that organization, in so far as my portfolio is concerned, is not necessary. We are getting all the mortgage funding required at present. We are getting more than we asked for, more than some sceptical people thought we would get. It looks as if the amount of $1 billion we hoped to get from the private sector will exceed $1.5 billion this year, for our programs.


URBAN AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the government's failure to obtain the agreement of the provinces for a tri-level conference to discuss the serious questions of fiscal and tax-sharing arrangements with the municipalities, I ask the minister, in view of his failure to bring about this conference, what course he intends to pursue since the problems of our cities are continuing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, that does not mean we are not concerned about the problems of our cities. It means that provinces did not see fit to sit down with the municipalities and the federal government to discuss the report of the task force on public finance. Much information has been gained by that task force and
October 13, 1976

much has been researched. I am now studying it, to see how we, at the federal level, can work, in view of the vacuum left as a result of the lack of initiative of some provincial governments which see no value in consultation, and would sooner engage in confrontation and abandon their responsibilities.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whom I congratulate on his recent appointment. In view of the statement made by the minister following his speech at the United Nations, that Canada could possibly be asked to contribute to a so-called Rhodesian transition fund, is the minister in the position to inform the House whether the government has considered this matter and taken a decision in this regard. If so, what amount is Canada prepared to contribute?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his good wishes. No decision has been made, for the obvious reason, as I said at the time, that no hard proposal had been put to Canada or to the best of my knowledge to any country, other than perhaps the United Kingdom, by the United States. When I met with Secretary of State Kissinger in New York he indicated that part of the settlement proposal was to establish a fund and that he, personally, was then working on a possible assignment of percentages as well as on the total amount which might be in that fund. But there was no direct request that Canada should participate. The implication of a number of comments made publicly is that we may well be asked to do so, but the situation is as I have described it. No request has been made to date.
I should also advise the hon. member that I shall be going to Washington on Friday again to meet with Mr. Kissinger, and this may well be one of the matters on which there will be further clarification at that time.


ADMISSION OF RHODESIAN REFUGEES TO CANADA
Claude Wagner: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister conducted, or does he intend to conduct, talks with American and British authorities on the admission to Canada of some 20,000 white Rhodesians and refugees? If so, on what assumption?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have held talks on this matter with United States authorities and advice 1 obtained from that source, which I regard as probably the best informed at the moment, is that the refugee question is not the major one involved at this stage of the negotiations and, indeed, that it
Oral Questions
probably is not wise to escalate that aspect of the matter at this time.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On April 14 he advised the House that the government was to bring in amendments to the Old Age Security legislation affecting, among other things, residency and reciprocal agreements affecting persons who have earned pensions overseas and are now living in this country. That measure involved some 500,000 people, yet in the Speech from the Throne there is no indication that this is a matter of urgency or priority. Can the minister say why this important matter was not included in the Speech from the Throne?
[ Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there certainly are several important matters to be discussed during this session when bills will be introduced in the House that are not necessarily mentioned in the Speech from the Throne.
Amendments to the Old Age Security Act are one such a project. The bill is being drafted and I hope I will be able to table it in the House for first reading in the months to come.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister advised the House about the amendment, he indicated that it did not require provincial approval but that it required provincial consultation. Can the minister advise whether he has consulted, and will the provinces and territories now agree to the type of amendment he envisages as being included in the bill to which he just referred?


Marc Lalonde: I do not think I have ever said, Mr. Speaker, that such amendments required provincial approval or even provincial consultation. I have indicated, however, that I would readily undertake consultations with the provinces so as to maintain the spirit of co-operation developed in the field of social security over the past three years.
This project was discussed with my colleagues, if I remember well, at the last federal-provincial conference held in June, and no objection was made to the project either at the June conference or afterwards. Consequently, I think that we can proceed to consideration of a study of this project with confidence.

October 13, 1976
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


DAIRYING-FEDERAL ROLE IN GRANTS PAID BY QUEBEC
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that Quebec and Ontario producers of industrial milk are experiencing the worst year of their lives, causing the Quebec government to grant $21 million to those producers; and since the Speech from the Throne does not mention any agreement or change in policy in this connection, can the Prime Minister inform the House whether this $21 million grant paid by the province of Quebec to its industrial milk producers was made unilaterally, without consulting the federal government, or whether this is merely a provincial matter from which the government intends to hold aloof?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member seems to care little for the taxpayers' money when he suggests that the government is holding aloof from this matter, when it is in fact paying milk producers close to half a billion dollars in loans and grants. I think they get something like $150 million in grants alone. The hon. member may well be impressed by the millions of dollars given by the Quebec government, but he ought to consider also what the federal government is giving.
As a matter of fact, we are aware of the difficult situation of milk producers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, and the cabinet is looking into this matter in order to find some other remedial action.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
First of all, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for making clear the point concerning long and short term loans to farmers, even though we were already aware of it. In view of the fact that the federal government granted the loans and that farmers must now meet their obligations, except for those concerning farm credit which may be reimbursed within a year or so but which nevertheless must be paid back some day, will the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House, considering the consultations he held with Quebec about this most important issue, as our milk producers are unable to meet their obligations, if the government holds a positive view of the action taken by that province, namely helping with an area of production which is none of its business and falls under federal jurisdiction, I am referring to industrial milk? Will the Prime Minister tell the House if the government holds a positive or a negative view of the whole matter?
way, he again proves his ignorance of the situation: surely he must be aware of the fact that quotas are set jointly by the provincial and federal governments and that an important part of the administration is left to the provinces. So, to my mind, in this specific regard, one is ill-advised to claim that the Quebec government, or any other provincial government, is the only one to do something for milk producers, because that is simply not true.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and at the same time congratulate him upon his new appointment. At the present time a large proportion of Canada's groundfish stocks and almost all of our $30 million scallop industry is caught in an area known as Georges Bank, whose ownership is now claimed by the government of the United States. In light of the economic importance to Canada of the ownership of this bank, will the minister advise whether he, any of his officials, the Minister of Fisheries or any of his officials have held recent discussions with the United States over the ownership of this bank? If so, can he give a report to the House on the outcome of those talks?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member who I believe comes from the largest fishing constituency in Canada. Without looking at the record, I will not accept whether the value figures he made reference to are correct. On the second point, in recent weeks there have been two separate sets of discussions between Canada and the United States on this question of the extension of what I suppose we can call the marine boundaries. This is one of the most important matters that will come up during my meetings in Washington on Friday. Some progress is being made, but as the hon. member knows, it is a quite complex question. It may take several other sets of meetings to resolve it satisfactorily.


AGRICULTURE
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says again, in his question, that loans alone are involved here. Obviously he is not familiar with the matter because about a quarter of a million dollars were paid to milk producers in grants. I say again that this is a considerable amount for the farmers.
When the hon. member says that the Quebec government pays out money to a sector which does not concern it in any


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. If possible, I would prefer if he answered it. In view of the economic condition of cow-calf operators across this country, which is so severe it almost borders on creating an emergency for the whole country in the future, will the Prime Minister assure those producers that his

government will come forward with a stabilization program in the very near future for cow-calf operators?


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, the government of Saskatchewan announced today that it is instituting a cow-calf producer program. Aside from the maritime provinces, the rest of Canada now has a cow-calf program. The federal government has stated on a few occasions that it intended to have a cow-calf program. We have had discussions with the provinces, but we have not yet arrived at a national program. The fact that some provinces do not agree on the level of payments that should be made nationally has prevented us from reaching an agreement with them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I will again try the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there are now several provincial programs, can the Prime Minister give a commitment that the federal government will match dollar for dollar the money that the provinces are paying into a stabilization fund for cow-calf producers?
[ Translation]


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada cannot make such a commitment at this time and in any case, talks with the provinces are proceeding. We will be in a position to announce it only when the provinces, the federal government and the departments of agriculture have come to an agreement on the establishment of a program or of a similar price throughout Canada.


REASON FOR WITHHOLDING INFORMATION ON DEFECTIVE MOTOR VEHICLES
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, before directing my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I take the opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment as minister.

It has been brought to my attention that the Motor Vehicle Safety Branch of the Department of Transport has a great deal of information concerning investigations of public complaints relating to defective motor vehicles. My question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is, why is this information kept secret and not released to the public?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend of long standing for his kind best wishes. It seems only yesterday that we laboured long and hard together for the great common cause of liberalism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: While our paths have now diverged somewhat, it is heartening that we can work together for the benefit of the consumer. I must confess that I can only respond to the hon. member's question by advising that I am unaware of the possession of facts which he described being in the hands of
Oral Questions
the Department of Transport. However, I will make inquiries and reply.


William Heward Grafftey: In view of the government's new policy to supply more information to the Canadian people, in this particular instance does the minister not feel that the public has a right to know? Why is this particular information not made public in the form of a consumer bulletin as is done in the United States of America?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the usual good sense of the hon. member's points of view, I will take that into account in my inquiries.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the disappointing and surprising absence from the Speech from the Throne of any amendment to the Regional Development Incentives Act, in spite of recommendations from the minister's own Atlantic Advisory Council and constant reminders by provincial governments calling attention to major changes essential for the effective functioning of this Act, would the minister tell us whether the absence of any indication of change with respect to the RDIA is the result of lack of recommendations to his cabinet colleagues or, alternatively, of some objection on their part?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, no recommendations have actually been made to Cabinet at this point by myself or my department because we are now considering as we have done in recent weeks several representations made by various Canadian organizations on the ways to amend the act. I do hope that in the months to come we will be able to reach a consensus in that respect. I would then be in a position to submit to my colleagues in Cabinet the amendments that will prove appropriate to meet the needs.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It arises from the minister's statement on September 26 that he hopes the national strike is successful. He then went on to add he hopes it is legal. Can the minister tell us whether he and the government now take the position that the strike is legal?

October 13, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Obviously we shall have to look at events as they transpire tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: As far as the government is concerned the advice of the independent law officers of the Crown may be that in certain circumstances there is illegality, although I am encouraged to hear that the head of the Public Service Alliance has indicated that he cannot in all morality recommend any breaches of the collective agreement as far as that significant element of the trade union movement is concerned. In the private sector, I think it is up to individual employers to decide what action they might take. As to my remarks, 1 was hoping, and I think there is some indication of this, that a very significant element of the trade union movement will protest, possibly, but protest legally and not break their collective agreements. It is to our interest to have a responsible trade union movement of that nature.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that a poll just conducted in my own constituency shows that the ordinary citizens there overwhelmingly sympathize with the protest-


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


John Allen Fraser: -but that those same citizens do not agree with the method being used to protest, can the minister explain how his comments will help those who believe that breaking the law is not the proper way to protest?


John Carr Munro: The obvious answer is to recommend, as I have, that if the rank and file organized worker feels under some compulsion to protest he should do so legally and not break collective agreements; he has lots of latitude to do that-lunch hours, split shifts and so on-when he is not working.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of vital importance to the country. It is a matter upon which there has already been a motion expressing concern in the House today. Yet we still find the Minister of Labour, speaking on behalf of the government, unprepared to say what the government's position is on this question of whether the national day of protest, or strike, is legal or illegal. It is clear the minister is trying to avoid this issue, especially since he made a foolish statement on the subject some time ago.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a notice of ways and means motion with regard to the Customs Tariff in relation to the budget of May 25, 1976.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders I would like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the contract with Lockheed Aircraft Corporation for the purchase of CP 140 aircraft.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, October 12, 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. Speaker:: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my appreciation of that warm welcome which I think came from all corners of the House.
I also wish to begin my contribution to this debate by expressing, both personally and on behalf of my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party, our deep admiration of the example which has been set to all Canadians by the Governor General, not simply in his recent activities but throughout his tenure of office. We all knew him as a distinguished Canadian public figure before he came to his present office, and his courage and determination in carrying on that position in the face of affliction have been an inspiration to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In my name and on behalf of my Progressive Conservative colleagues I would like to take a few moments to pay particular tribute to the wife of our Governor General, Mrs. Leger. I would like to tell her how impressed we are by

the dignity and courage with which she is assisting her husband and serving all Canada.

I should like also, naturally, to express tny congratulations to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) and to the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) for their contributions in opening this debate. I cannot in all conscience wish them well in future parliamentary careers but I do wish them success in what remains of their present parliamentary careers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Progressive Conservative colleagues, I would like to point out that we will miss in this debate the active presence of the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). We deplore the illness afflicting our colleague, but we are sure that he will face that inconvenience with the same pugnacious spirit which he has always shown in the House. The same spirit which has enabled him to uphold untiringly federalism at a time when his position was not always overly popular.
I should at the outset take note of the changes that have occurred in the ministry since parliament rose for the summer.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Like an elastic band.


Charles Joseph Clark: As my collegue from Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) points out, like an elastic band. 1 was going to speak of the changes in the past tense but we, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), look forward to tomorrow.
If one measures progress by sheer velocity of change, I guess we would have to call this most recent cabinet change a change for the better. For myself, I find more truth in the assessment of my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who remarked that he knew of no instance where the mere act of changing the pallbearers served to revive the corpse!

The opposition sincerely regrets that the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) has left the Cabinet. We did not always approve his ideas, but we knew where his heart was. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this characteristic is not applicable to all members of the Cabinet.

I should as well pay my respects to two other former ministers, the hon. members for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) and Westmount (Mr. Drury). Both have laboured long and, to be fair and to give them their due, have laboured with considerable distinction in the public service of their country.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: I should say to the hon. member for Westmount that, while we may have questioned his frankness earlier this year in regard to his dealings with members of the bench, I find it refreshing that he is now at least prepared to admit that he cannot resign his seat for fear of his party losing a by-election.
Naturally I want to congratulate the new ministers on their appointments, both those who took over full portfolios and those whose status is more tenuous or uncertain. I am particularly pleased that the government followed our lead in recognizing the importance of small business and the importance of fitness and amateur sport in Canada.
1 do not think that it is unfair to the new ministers to suggest to them or to the House that the Prime Minister appears to have made their appointments with his eye as much to the electoral map as to other considerations, including considerations such as proven talent and experience. Even before this morning the Prime Minister and his advisers had clearly written off western Canada, so the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) is passed over despite his experience. The Prime Minister appears to be a little less clear as to whether or not British Columbia is fighting ground, so he has allotted B.C. one minister and three "half ministers". In regard to one of those, Mr. Speaker, I was somewhat surprised last night, when speaking to the new Minister of State responsible for small business affairs, to learn that his first visit outside of Canada in the interests of developing small business policy was going to be to the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: He now assures me that this is in relation to other responsibilities that he has, but I think that it will awaken some concern among Canadians who have been watching the record of the government as to what precisely is the source of its policy regarding small entrepreneurs and small businesses.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Now tell us about your trip to Rome.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), who hopes by raising his voice to raise his hopes, asks about my trip to Rome. I must disappoint him by telling him that at no time during my trip to Rome did his name come up.
This is a government whose period in office is measured not by elections or by parliaments but by advertising slogans. From the "Just Society" to "The Land is Strong", we now have entered into the area of "Operation Justification". If the goal is to make the people of Canada believe in this government, then we, Sir, are not talking about an operation; we are talking about wholesale surgery.
I was interested to read reports of the Prime Minister's speech in Toronto the other day. That was his speech to the faithful; at least, there were some faithful reported to be there when it began. In that speech the Prime Minister lamented the state of the nation. He even lamented the state of the Liberal

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. J. Clark
party. Well, Mr. Speaker, my lament is not for Canada; I have sufficient confidence in the strength of the people of this country to believe that they can survive even this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I must say that, difficult though it is, I am able to restrain my sorrow for the state of the Liberal party. My lament instead, Sir, is for a Prime Minister and for a government that have become so isolated, so divorced from reality, that they cannot even hear let alone respond to the message of Canadians. My lament is that we have to suffer through this total lack of leadership for another two years until the Prime Minister gives the people of Canada a chance to make a fresh start.
I found, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure many other Canadians did, a particular significance in the words "operation justification". Because that indicates that this government does not believe that there is anything wrong with the substance of its policies. Its members are prepared to go out and not question those policies to justify them. They believe the only problem is with the perception of those policies. In other words, it is not the government that is at fault, it is the people of Canada who are at fault.
There is no intention evidenced, either in the outpourings in Toronto or in the carefully empty speech of yesterday, of any change in the substance of the policies; the government is merely trying to cajole Canadians to change the nature of their response to policies that are clearly inadequate to the requirements of modern Canada. There is no program. There are simply to be public relations on the part of the government in the remaining months of its mandate, and unfortunately that emphasis on public relations began in the throne speech that we received yesterday.


An hon. Member:: You are sterile.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear that word from an expert.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think that no one reading the Speech from the Throne of yesterday could fail to be overcome by the boldness, initiative, and imagination that were evident in that speech! The government, among other bright initiatives, is prepared to give "very high priority to the promotion of better understanding among Canadians". There is a government with courage, boldness and foresight.
Then carrying on in that same tradition the government is prepared, and prepared absolutely and fearlessly, to review what federal programs might be transferred to the private sector. It is going to be a fearless and courageous review.
Then the government is sneaking up finally on the question of freedom of information, that question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), in a way that does singular credit to him and to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is a question which I had concluded had now become safe to discuss in Canada because it is a cause even being promoted by the former minister of finance.


An hon. Member:: A former minister of finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, a former minister of finance. I assumed that the former minister, the former hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner), was simply repeating before a public forum a recommendation in the direction of greater freedom of information that he made so vigorously to his colleagues in Cabinet during the long time when he had some influence over the affairs of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We had thought that at least this was a safe question on which initiative might be taken, but we found that, instead of bringing forward legislation, what the government is going to do is once again have another green paper, another study as to whether or not it is safe to trust the people of Canada with information about Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there was nowhere where the government was more forthcoming or more courageous than when it faced up to the thorny problem of its proper role in the Canadian economy. The choices before the government were very difficult. On the one hand, and I apologize for paraphrasing it, there were strong forces demanding more intervention, as in the assertion which I want to quote:
The end is a free society of men and women and children . . . and free collective bargaining and the free enterprise system are some tools we have devised to reach that goal. But they're just tools and if they don't provide the right results, we'll curtail a little bit of collective bargaining or the market place free market system-
Against that position were raised equally strong voices supporting the private sector, as in this statement:
Our strongest and most promising asset is the spirit of the people of Canada, our willingness to tackle difficult challenges head-on, our tradition of self-reliance, responsibility and individual intiative.
What a choice for the government to have to make. Imagine the agony of having to choose between Pierre Elliott Trudeau of April and Pierre Elliott Trudeau of October.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Imagine the dilemma of a government having to choose between its Prime Minister and its Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It did so with the ingenuity that has become the hallmark of modern Liberalism. The government made its choice and came down four square with Keith Davey.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 13, 1976


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 should say that there is no question in the mind of any of us here that the government could sustain any number of resignations or defections from its parliamentary ranks so long as Keith Davey stays in place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: But, if this throne speech was to have any relevance in current Canadian reality, it had to include above all some sense of direction for Canada, some idea of what the government really intends to do with the current controls program and, equally important, what goals it has for the country as we emerge from that program. Canadians do not know where the government is leading them. The Prime Minister and his colleagues have piled conflicting statement on conflicting statement to the point where the overwhelming characteristic of the Canadian mood is sheer uncertainty.
The government had the opportunity, and I believe the obligation in this throne speech, at least to begin the process of easing that uncertainty; of at least beginning to come clean with Canadians. Instead of that we are given some vague talk about the "middle road", and even more vague promises to begin-note, "to begin"-a process of consultation.
What a confession that is for a government to make; that after a full 12 months of controls it is now thinking seriously of beginning a consultative process. It was clear when this program was first proposed here that the purpose of bringing in controls was to buy some time, to get some breathing space that would allow that kind of consultation, and that would allow the bringing together of the economic partners of Canada in order that we might get some agreement as to what we were going to do once the controls' period was ended.
Having it clearly understood that that was the purpose of the program the government stole, why did it take the government 12 months and even more to begin the simple process of consultation? This was the government that boasted it had its full contingency plans ready some three years ago. Instead of contingency plans and instead of consultation we have wasted a full year, a year in which we have not only begun to suffer the inevitable distortions of a controls regime, but during which the climate for securing some kind of consensus of agreement among the partners in the economy has been seriously eroded, thanks to the Prime Minister's propensity for loose talk and confrontation politics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: The government admits through the throne speech that inflation is still a serious problem. However it forgets to put the problem within its economic context which is considerably greater and more disturbing for Canadians than for this government. There is no indication in this speech that the government admits the slowness of the recovery and the evidence that we are far from achieving our economic potential. In reading it, no one can detect the fact that Canada is facing a serious problem of balance of payments and that its
The Address-Mr. J. Clark
competitive position on international markets is continually eroding.

The government asserts its concern about inflation, yet nowhere does it acknowledge that it controls the most basic price of all, the price of money, and that interest rates in this country remain at extremely high inflationary levels. Indeed, we are treated in the name of a housing policy to a rerun of that old cliche about one million starts every four years, when anyone who has cared enough to talk to young Canadian families knows that the main problem today is not finding a house, but is finding the money to finance a mortgage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I presume the Prime Minister is out talking to Canadians again, and if there is one thing I wish to congratulate him on it is on getting out and rediscovering the country. He usually does it once every four years, but the polls changed rather quickly this time. I understand that in doing that he concedes he is following my lead, and I trust that he will get accustomed to doing that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I note, Sir, that in a flush of uncharacteristic frankness he announced in New Brunswick the other day that the only way the Liberals can win the next election is by a miracle. I have been out campaigning in Ottawa-Carleton and in St. John's West, as the Prime Minister conspicuously has not been, and I can assure him that he will need more than a miracle there. 1 should say we at least do not really believe he is in that league anyway.
But, Sir, if we can take the Prime Minister's suggested itinerary as being the gospel, to continue the analogy, he is planning a miracle for next week. Just as soon as the results from the two by-elections become known he will disappear. I understand there is unanimity in his cabinet that he should go to Japan. The only argument was about whether or not he should return.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is not unusual for a throne speech to be obscure or imprecise, but this speech is much more than that. This speech is misleading. It uses soothing words to try to deny the direction in which the government has been carrying the country. It praises consultation when the government's consistent position has been to act unilaterally. It talks about "a reliance on the market to stimulate growth" when this government, through delays and threats and constant changes, has done more than any other agency to inhibit that kind of growth.
It talks about reducing the number of public servants and is silent about the increasing number of consultants the govern-

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. J. Clark
ment has acquired, often without the protection and the standards guaranteed by the Public Service Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is bad enough that a government in mid-mandate, elected with a solid majority, should use a throne speech to mislead instead of lead. But that is particularly damaging for this government because Canadians have come to expect that this is a government which cannot be believed. Its history has been marked not simply by changes but by absolute reversals.
In 1974 the Prime Minister campaigned against the very idea of controls. We can remember him pointing his finger on the television screen saying, "zap, you are frozen", and then a year later he imposed what he had opposed. On May 10 he told the trilateral commission that, "to me that is the end of separatism"; and ten days ago in Toronto he said, "But now, perhaps, an increasing number of French Canadians think they do have somewhere to go. And there is a legal political party which for a variety of reasons is getting a large percentage of the vote in Quebec."
This throne speech tip-toes toward greater freedom of information; yet the government still hides the secret reports on post controls prepared by the ten deputy ministers, the group known as the DM ten. The speech again says controls will come off, but then it goes on to propose to negotiate their extension with the provinces. In all of this there is one clear message, which is that no amount of flim-flam can obscure the fact that this is a government that Canadians cannot trust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: And without trust it is a government that cannot govern, because a basis of trust in a federal and diverse country like Canada is elemental to national unity.
I want to speak for a moment about national unity because I think there has been a mistake in assuming that bilingualism, important as that is, is the only implement or the only issue of national unity in Canada.

Due to the agreement given by all parties in this House, bilingualism has become law and it will remain a basic principle of any Progressive Conservative government which is assured of receiving then as it does now the support of the minority parties in this House. However, the manner in which bilingualism has been implemented has caused some concern among many Canadians, French-speaking as well as Englishspeaking, but there is no reason to call them bigots or racists. On the contrary, what they need is to consider calmly various injustices now existing in the public service or elsewhere so that the program will be efficient in terms of the law and will be accepted in practice. This is our party's commitment. [English]
Constitutions are important; laws are important. But this country is more than laws, more than constitutions; it is above all a partnership, and the essence of partnership in this country

is to establish a basis of mutual respect and trust. That has broken down in Canada. It is not an accident that it has broken down. It is not due to impersonal forces from abroad. It has broken down because of now nearly a decade of the practice by this government of taking unpredicted unilateral actions and unilateral decisions to withdraw from shared costs programs which previously were forced upon the provinces, of unilateral changes in the anti-inflation board controls after many of the people affected by those controls had just gone through the costly process of adjusting to the rules that had been there, and of unilateral imposition of the program of controls without any consultation with the Canadian Labour Congress or any of the other partners who were directly to be affected.
You cannot run a country unilaterally. You cannot run it on your own. The mistake the government has made, and which it seems intent on continuing to make, is that it alone is the government which can call all the shots in Canada. Of course we need in this nation a strong national government, but we also need in this nation strong provincial governments, a strong private sector, a strong labour movement, a strong agriculture, and a number of other partners who can work together to achieve the promise and the potential of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we have instead is an administration that is governed by surprise-changing the AIB regulations without warning, bringing in controls without warning, and depriving Canadians of the climate of certainty which they need to plan their own lives and to pursue their own goals free of the fear that the rules will change in the middle of the night. [Translation]
The Speech from the Throne briefly referred to the formal constitutional independence of our country. I am sure all hon. members would agree to the patriation of the constitution. However, we must not forget that we are now dealing with two issues. One is purely symbolic: It is bringing back home the document; the other is essential: It implies an agreement on the amendment formula which would make the constitution workable. At a time when the provinces do not trust the federal government disagreement over the amendment formula is to be expected. We should all be aware of the danger that the relentless pursuit of the symbol may jeopardize the chances of an agreement about the amendment formula.
There appears to be some question about the accuracy or the nature of the interpretation of the stance of the Government of Canada on the constitutional questions by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), the former minister of national defence. I presume that there were also other reasons for his resignation. I want to put that question aside, however, regarding the apparent reason for his resignation because one of the things that is most significant about the resignation which occurred this morning is that the hon. member for

Winnipeg South, who did not have to come to parliament for a career, was one of many Canadians in 1968 who thought the present Prime Minister would bring a fresh and hopeful spirit to national affairs. 1 do not know if the former minister of national defence feels deceived; I do know he feels disappointed, and for the country the tragedy is not that one more minister has gone; it is that the Prime Minister who was the repository of so much hope was prepared to trade it all away to take the advice of his flim-flam friends who contrive different incarnations whenever public opinion polls change.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This was once a government of some purpose. No fair man can deny the sincerity of the Prime Minister's personal commitment to bilingualism, and perhaps to other goals. But that sense of purpose is gone. There is on the government benches an unmistakable and desperate will to stay in office, but there is no will to govern-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is no will to face the real problems of Canada, problems of regional disparity such as those raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) today, problems of falling productivity, and the fact that too many Canadians cannot afford to buy a home. That commitment went out when the ad men came in.
There is plenty of rhetoric in this speech about the potential greatness of Canada. We all know about that potential and we all accept it, but the job of government, the challenge of the real leadership, is not simply to tell us about our potential; it is to help guide the country toward responding to that potential.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This government is in an unique position to do that. It has a solid majority in parliament although it is beginning to show strains and, until tomorrow's news at least, it has a full two years remaining in its present mandate. It has the support and assistance of a public service that is large and, in the great majority of cases, very capable, and it has a country and a people who are ready and eager to respond to some sign of genuine national leadership.
The real tragedy of the throne speech is that it fails completely to match either the mandate of the government or the legitimate expectations of the people of the country. In a country that needs above all to renew its trust in government and its confidence in itself, this speech offers more reasons for distrust and new causes of uncertainty.
It is not the job of the opposition to write throne speeches- we will come to that-and it is not our task two years before an election to present a legislative program-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I appreciate the interest of my colleagues opposite in our proposing a legislative program, because unless we did that they would have nothing to guide them.
The Address-Mr. J. Clark


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Our responsibility instead is to put forth our sense of national priorities, and I have no hesitation at all in saying that our priorities are quite different from those offered by this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What are they?


Charles Joseph Clark: I thank you for asking. The overriding concern at this point in time-I hope you are taking notes-must be to achieve the realistic growth potential of the Canadian economy. As I have stated on many previous occasions, sound economic growth is not an alternative to fighting inflation; it is an essential precondition to any successful long-term policy to contain inflation. If the former solicitor general, at present the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand)-


Mr. Allmand:: Not motherhood anyway.


Charles Joseph Clark: I say this with a certain chagrin because he now has some responsibility for parts of my constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Which one?


Charles Joseph Clark: I know that that matter raises some interest on the other side because the Liberal party has no reason at all to know anything about electoral boundaries in Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course there is some competition for nominations in the Conservative party in Alberta. The only thing the Liberals run for in the province of Alberta is the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I might come back to the question. The elementary lesson which the government seems unable to grasp is that it has a responsibility not simply to help redistribute national income but also to help generate national wealth and income. In my judgment a serious commitment to economic growth, not mindless growth but the realistic potential of our economy, is fundamental to achieving the broader aspirations of our society. Indeed, as I look at the problems of national unity in more than the momentary context I see them not so much now and in the decade ahead of us as a matter of language policy, as important as that is, but rather national unity in the next decade will depend on the capacity of all regions and all the people of this country to participate in the benefits of economic growth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I see that the newly appointed Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) is smiling at that matter and I cannot help but note that when he was home recently

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
defending his program he was doing something other than smiling when he met his constituents.
The other priority which is absolutely essential for the Government of Canada to follow as a basic principle is to begin to rebuild the concept of genuine partnership among the major elements of Canadian federalism.
My concept of federalism, and it is the concept of this party, accepts that there can be and there should be strong provinces along with a strong central government. Unlike the Prime Minister, I do not see them as alternatives to each other. I am not afraid of Maurice Duplessis, or Peter Lougheed, or Gerry Reagan, or Robert Bourrassa-


An hon. Member:: What about Claude Wagner?


Charles Joseph Clark: The fear and concern of the hon. member for Ste. Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) is reserved to members on the opposite side of the House and not those on this side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As I indicated earlier, a partnership depends on trust, and if the government has done anything during the past few years, it has been to shatter any feeling of trust among its partners in Canadian society. Who can trust a prime minister who governs by surprise, who changes the rules in the middle of the night, who piles unilateral decision on unilateral decision, and whose only consistent rule of operation seems to be to do today what he said he would not do yesterday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: At the bottom line that is what is wrong with this country and with this government. We have national leaders in this government whom the people of Canada, the provinces of Canada, business, labour, and the other partners simply cannot trust and the tragedy is that unless the defections continue and unless the cabinet continues to trickle away, we are stuck with this government for another two years. I hope for Canada's sake that this government will mend its ways and change its direction.
I wish for Canada's sake that I could look at the throne speech and say that the government is changing, but in all conscience, and particularly on the record of the document read yesterday, I cannot, and I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ste. Hyacinthe, that the following be added to the Address:
We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that the Speech from the Throne is a further example of the opportunism which has cost the present administration its credibility among the people of Canada and that your ministers no longer enjoy the confidence of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the applause which greeted the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) from his side of the House and the applause which then succeeded it, I think, indicates that all in this House are happy for the tone which has been set for the oncoming session by the Leader of the Opposition. Certainly hon. members on this side and you, Mr. Speaker, I am sure, will welcome the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has chosen to open the session in such a constructive way, following the tradition, naturally, of disagreeing with the content of the Speech from the Throne, but doing so with very compelling rhetoric, and I must say, devastating wit which leaves us on this side so much crushed! I do not think I will be able to emulate him. My speech will not be as funny and perhaps will be a little shorter, but on at least one point I want to agree with him, and that is on the statement he made at the outset about the mover and seconder, from whom we heard contributions yesterday.

I would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Restigou-che, one of the two newest members of the House, and the hon. member for Lafontaine, the youngest member, for the eloquence with which they moved and seconded the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. The presence of such outstanding young men among us demonstrates the ever-renewed vitality of the House of Commons, as well as its ability to reflect the varied regional and cultural concerns of Canadians.
It was a year ago today, Mr. Speaker, that I spoke to the people of Canada, announcing the government's decision to apply price and income controls.
It has been a year of difficulty and achievement for Canada. The greatest of those achievements is the way most Canadians have responded to the challenge to share the burden of restraint. It is because of that response that I am able to report today, twelve months later, that inflation has become a less disruptive, less threatening force in our lives.
That it remains the single most dangerous obstacle to economic stability cannot be denied. That is why the controls program must continue. That is why it is so important for the people of this country to keep on sharing the restraint which is our best hope for renewed strength and growth.
Of the key groups of Canadians whose support has been vitally necessary to the success of the anti-inflation program, only two groups have been total disappointments to the people of this country. I am referring of course to the members of the two major opposition parties in this House.
While some businessmen were opposed to the program from the beginning, the great majority of those who own and manage the many thousands of large and small business enterprises in Canada have done what was expected of them in helping to make the program work. While the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress adopted the position that everyone except organized workers should restrain their demands upon the economy, most of those workers themselves, in their hundreds of thousands, support the program and have agreed to settlements within the guidelines.
October 13, 1976

Of nearly 18,600 settlements submitted to the Anti-Inflation Board up to September 10, some 11,000-or 60 per cent- covering more than 1,200,000 workers, were within the guidelines.
While some provincial governments expressed reservations, all entered into anti-inflation agreements with us and all are making every effort to deal successfully with the job.
The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld the validity of the act passed by this Parliament and the majority of Canadians continue to give the program their support.
An important part of the success we have achieved is the result of the extraordinary dedication of the members and staff of the Anti-Inflation Board. To the chairman, Jean-Luc Pepin, the administrator, Donald Tansley, and to the men and women who work with them I offer my congratulations and my gratitude.
Elere in parliament it has been a rather less inspiring story. The Leader of the Opposition, for example, has continued to project the confusion of the position he adopted when the controls were being debated in this House. Along with his party he voted for the program on second reading, and against it on third reading.
In his speech a moment ago, in the same breath he referred to the anti-inflation program as the program that we stole from them and then went on to talk about a contingency plan that we had for bringing in inflation-controls-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if inflation were caused by certain domestic events. I can only suppose, Mr. Speaker, that between the second and the third reading they suddenly discovered we had not stolen their program but it was a program all our own, and that is why they changed their minds.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition keeps talking about a freeze and does not seem to realize that the program that was brought in by this parliament a year ago did not in any way entail a freeze. It may be something with which the Leader of the Opposition disagrees, but I think it would be important that he understand the reality before disagreeing with it.
Up to and including today, neither he nor his party have contributed anything to public understanding of the crippling and pervasive impact of inflation upon the lives of Canadians, nor any suggestion of appropriate economic tools for the future, nor any support of the vital national effort to control inflation.
The Tory policy on fighting inflation is to have no policy, to avoid stating a policy, while trying to stand firmly on every side of the issue.
Just recently, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked for his position on the general strike planned by the Canadian Labour Congress for tomorrow, or the general protest, to use
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
the more accurate word, he, I think, dodged the question. If he is accurately quoted he said that while he could not support illegal action he could understand the reasons for it. Conversely, on bilingualism, we have just heard him express his point of view. He does support the policy but he cannot understand its applications. So the closest we can come to defining the Tory approach to policy issues is that they cannot support what they can understand, but they cannot understand what they support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I suppose we should not be too hard on the Tory leader's non-policy on the controls' program, Mr. Speaker. He cannot be expected to solve inflation-and Bow River-at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then there are the efforts of the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) to match the "welfare bum" campaign of his predecessor. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is in the embarrassing position of having declared a war on profits which nobody seems to want to fight. Not even his encouragement to law-abiding Canadians to break their contracts and defy the law of the land tomorrow-


John Edward Broadbent: I thought it was a day of protest and not a strike.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is our hope, that it will be a day of protest without breaking any contracts or any laws. This is the hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) expressed before, and again today. I have not seen the Leader of the New Democratic Party express that hope but I will be glad to listen to him if he is going to say that-that the protest tomorrow should in no way infringe any law or break any contract; then I would stand corrected. But if, on the contrary, he is encouraging a protest which does entail the breaking of contracts and of the law, I suggest that he is trying to buy support at a very high price-the price of dereliction of responsible leadership.
I hold him even more responsible than the CLC executive for advising workers to engage in an illegal strike, because unlike the CLC leaders he was not pushed into an irresponsible position by militant factions within his own membership. If he wonders why it is difficult to win the same degree of public respect as was accorded to Mr. David Lewis, the answer may lie in the fact that Mr. Lewis was not in the habit of seeking public advantage by counselling disrespect for the law or for legal obligations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What a phony!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What are we to think of the present N.D.P. leader's attempts to undermine the anti-inflation program with his indiscriminate attack on profits? Does he really expect people to believe that the only good business is a bankrupt
30

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
business? If his intention is to criticize only excess profits, why does he not give any standards by which excess can be judged? If his intention is something more than simply playing upon some people's negative reaction to the word "profit", why does he not distinguish among various corporate performances? Does he admit that increased profit resulting from a higher volume of sales or higher productivity can mean more investment, more growth, and more jobs for Canadians? Does he believe that a company which had a bad year in 1975 should aim for another bad year in 1976, so as to maintain the purity of its dismal profit picture? What is he trying to say to Canada, Mr. Speaker? What is he trying to say to the people? Is he trying to say that income controls are working but price controls are not?


John Edward Broadbent: That's right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or that both are working, but to the comparative disadvantage of workers? Well, let us look at the facts.
The most visible fact is that the cost of living, as measured by the consumer price index, has risen at a significantly slower rate during the past 12 months than during the year before. When the controls were introduced last October, the CPI was rising at a rate of 10.6 per cent. Last month the rate had dropped to 6.5 per cent. Everyone in Canada has benefited. That decline has been to the advantage of everyone in Canada, and most particularly of advantage to those Canadians with middle or low incomes.


John Edward Broadbent: And it has nothing to do with the controls program.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Read the Financial Times, one of your bibles, and see.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says it has nothing to do with the controls program.


John Edward Broadbent: It has nothing to do with it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I imagine he is thinking of the role food prices have played in the decline of the CPI.


John Edward Broadbent: Meat prices, perhaps.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It just happens that my speech writer anticipated that argument. It is so banal and such a cliche that even my speech writers knew what the hon. gentleman would say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me continue reading. There are some who claim that the more favourable CPI figures this fall are attributable to lower food prices and, because farm-gate prices are outside the scope of controls, the guidelines have played no

part in the improved price picture. I will read the next part slowly, because I want the leader of the NDP to understand it.


John Edward Broadbent: I will struggle.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has repeated his paralogism too often. I point out that while farm-gate prices have decelerated by about the same amount in both Canada and the United States, our retail food prices are decelerating more quickly than those of the Americans.
The food component of the CPI rose by a rate of 9.1 per cent in Canada during the ten months prior to controls-I repeat, the food component rose by 9.1 per cent-and by only three tenths of one per cent during the ten months after the controls were imposed. In the United States those same prices were rising at a lower rate of 5.5 per cent during the equivalent period last year-the figures are 5.5 per cent in the United States and 9.1 per cent in Canada-but have been rising at six times our rate-1.9 per cent-this year.


Walter David Baker: Those statistics are dry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was reading slowly. I am prepared to read those words again, in case the hon. member did not understand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps the leader of the NDP is wondering what is the reason for this? How can this be? It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. The largest element in the retail price of food is not the cost of buying it from the farmer, but the costs of processing and distribution, and those latter costs are subject to controls. Some have calculated that 60 per cent of the retail price, more or less, is not made up of the price at the farm-gate but of the price of those after-operations, processing, distributing, and so on. That is why our prices are rising so much more slowly than in the United States, at a time when both countries are experiencing a similar deceleration in farm-gate prices because of excess supply.
Because the increase in the cost of living is declining, and because Canadian workers are permitted under the guidelines income increases greater than the increase in the cost of living, those workers are staying ahead of inflation and experiencing real gains in income, a real increase in their purchasing power. Consequently when the CLC claims workers are suffering the most under controls while companies are only loosely controlled, the CLC is totally in error.
The fact is that by any measure-whether total wage and salary incomes, wage settlements, or average income per employed worker-the working men and women of Canada have experienced a real increase in income of some 3 per cent to 4 per cent over last year.


John Edward Broadbent: Nobody believes it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All of these income measures-


John Edward Broadbent: And you don't believe it.
October 13, 1976


An hon. Member:: You do not understand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that remark was typical of the negative approach to society for which the NDP always stood. That may be an occupational malady for any person sitting on that side of the House, Mr. Speaker. When the CPI figures are bad for the country, they choose to believe those figures; but when they are good for the country, nobody on that side believes them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us more bad jokes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that all of these income measures have increased by about 10 per cent- whether it be wage settlements, average income per employed worker, or total wage and salary incomes-all these measures have increased by about 10 per cent over last year, while the CPI in September had increased only 6.5 per cent over last year.
Year over year real increases in average weekly earnings for workers in all industries were higher in the second quarter of this year than any time since the first quarter of 1972.
The total share of wages in national income has regained the high point reached in 1971, while the share of corporate profits has correspondingly declined. This is yet another indication that the control of corporate profit margins is working successfully.
Of course it is true that wage settlements are showing a slower rate of increase this year than last. But what is important to the worker's wife when she goes shopping is that, because of price controls, she has more purchasing power this year than she had in 1975 before controls. Apparently it does not suit the CLC or the NDP, or for that matter the Tories, to tell that to the Canadian worker and to his wife. I wonder why. Perhaps the opposition will tell us why during the course of this debate; or will they stand mute in the face of the accusation of misleading the public for partisan purposes?
The figures are there, Mr. Speaker. They can be interpreted various ways. We only ask that they be interpreted the same way before controls and after controls.
I can understand the arguments of those who say that we need controls but they should end fairly soon, or that we needed controls and they should be modified; but I cannot understand the arguments of those who say we are worse off now with controls than we would have been if we had not had controls. I certainly cannot understand the arguments of the CLC, of many businessmen and of some hon. members on the other side of this House who are suggesting that we should take off controls now. I have said this before, Mr. Speaker: if it could be guaranteed that we would not return to the high rate of demand for various forms of income that were present with us one year ago, the government might be tempted to do that. But no person, certainly not the leader of the NDP, nor the leader of the CLC, has pledged his seat or office for the
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
guarantee of that reality, that if controls come off, suddenly there will be no increase in the inflation rate.
From the very beginning of the controls program the government told the people of Canada that they would not be expected to endure a real loss of income, but simply to accept a rate of increase in real income consistent with the growth rate of the economy. They are experiencing that real increase. The figures 1 just cited show that, Mr. Speaker. Canadian workers are improving their purchasing power, and labour's share of net national income is rising.
No reasonable person can deny that controls have served the best interests of the Canadian worker, of the average Canadian. And when workers realize that fact fully, realize its implications for themselves and their families, they will have a right to feel badly served-not only by the CLC leaders, but also by those whose interest lies in undermining public confidence in the controls program.
It is evident that Canadians know they have benefitted under controls, and will benefit still further as the program continues to restrain prices and protect real income gains next year and into 1978. The fact that they know this is reflected in the 60 per cent of wage agreements which have been voluntarily settled at or below the guidelines since last October.
At the outset of the program, we said the immediate target was an inflation rate of 8 per cent by the end of the first year of the program. We are meeting this target. Our success so far gives us confidence that we will also meet next year's more difficult target of 6 per cent.
As we enter the second year of the program, Canadians can expect a further reduction in the rate of wage increases, a further reduction in the rate of price increases, a further reduction in the rate of increase of government spending and the growth of the public service.
And as those reductions take effect, we will approach closer to one of the major longer-term objectives of the anti-inflation program-a more realistic level of expectations among Canadians in relation to future income and price increases.
To accelerate the movement toward more realistic expectations, and to lay the groundwork for the removal of controls without a renewal of inflation, the government will be asking Canadians to take part in the consideration of economic and social policies appropriate to balanced growth without controls, and without inflation.
Within the next few weeks, the government will be placing before the people of Canada our analysis of the major problems Canada faces, the principles, and the strategic directions the government has chosen to pursue. In some strategic areas, policies are already clear, and were announced yesterday in the Speech from the Throne. Other important policy decisions, however, cannot be legislated or implemented with any hope of success unless they reflect the will, the understanding and the choice of those who would be most affected by such decisions.
80001 -3(4

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
That is why the government over the coming months will seek the close co-operation of Parliament, the provincial governments, business, labour and the general public in focussing on the priority problems the government has identified, on the strategies we will propose, and on choosing from among the options which we will define.
Those choices, and their co-operative adoption by Canadians, are the second crucial element in the anti-inflation program. Controls buy us the time to make the changes necessary for future stability and growth. The government has been using the time provided by the first year of controls to analyze the major economic problems which lie in the path of our future stability, and to define the options available to us. Now it is time for the second phase of that process, the involvement of Canadians generally in making the important choices presented to us by the difficult and promising times in which we live. As those choices are made, they will be translated into new laws and new working mechanisms for achieving growth without inflation.
In the consultation process which will be an integral part of both the further refinement of price and income controls, and the development of new strategies, the government will be very responsive to the concerns and ideas of the people it serves, but will not swerve from its determination to remove inflation as the major threat to our economic health. The strategic areas upon which we hope to focus the attention and action of Canadians are employment policies, social policies, labour-management relations, the sharing of social responsibility, decentralization, growth and investment.
It will quickly become apparent, to all who choose to join with us in tackling the present impediments to stable growth, that inflation is a pervasive disease that is as serious a social and cultural problem as it is an economic one. It is because of the government's commitment to Liberal social goals that we place a particularly high priority upon dampening those inflationary forces which impede full employment, greater mutual respect, safety and health in the working place, and the decentralization of economic opportunities.
We invite the working men and women of Canada to be full partners in the pursuit of social justice and equality of opportunity, to join us under the umbrella of the law of the land in choosing better ways toward a better future for all Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I was asked for a quick response to the throne speech I said that it had obviously been ghost-written by Dr. Gallup and that political expediency virtually oozed from each of its paragraphs. After an evening of reflection and spending some several hours in preparation for today's debate, and after listening to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this afternoon, I feel my comments of last night were indeed a model of restraint.
The throne speech is a political document. It is punctuated throughout with the cynicism that underlines the government's contempt for the people of our country. I say contempt most

seriously, because in more than two years since the last election the Liberal party has done nothing to deal with the problems it said were pressing in 1974. Now, having reached an all-time low in popularity, it thinks Canadians can be bought off with glib phrases.
Nowhere in the throne speech does the government indicate that it is planning a massive response to the worst level of unemployment in modern times. Instead the government responds with rhetoric which might improve its standing in the popularity polls.
Nowhere in the speech does the government indicate it has a policy to deal with the crisis of rising oil and gas prices. Instead it only talks of an awareness of the need for conservation of energy resources.
Nowhere in the Speech from the Throne does the government indicate it is prepared to come to grips with the serious housing needs of the people of Canada. Instead it complacently admits that its currently inadequate housing policies will have to do in the future.
The outline of the government's proposals reads like a litany of past and future evasions. In almost every case the government touches on some important element of Canadian life only to avoid coming to grips with the issues. And, as I have already said, the Speech makes no more than a passing reference to three of our most serious problems-jobs, energy, and housing. When the federal government, the senior level of government, can produce a document as cynical as that which was read from the Throne yesterday, is it any wonder so many people today are turned off by politics and politicians?
Why should Canadians take their government or politicians seriously when the governing politicians ignore the real problems facing the vast majority of the people? Why should they trust the government, particularly the government of the present Prime Minister, a politician who in 1974 campaigned for office pledging action in specific areas and totally rejecting wage and price controls? What we got were controls and no action on the specific problems which were the subject of his undertakings. Mr. Speaker, no politician in this country has done more than the present Prime Minister to foster the skepticism with which Canadians increasingly view political activities.
Canadians are fed up with political promises of a "just society", or more recently a "new society", when those promises come from a party which vacillates instead of leading. Now, according to the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister has embarked upon a program to build a "middle society", a society in which "individual initiative" and "reliance on the market" become the touchstones of government policy, a so-called "middle society" where social goals are pursued by improving the market because that is what the business community wants.
Does the Prime Minister think Canadians cannot see through this middle-of-the-road nonsense? Does the government think Canadians will not recognize this cynicism?
October 13, 1976

Achieving social justice and equality of opportunity in our society demands a commitment to change existing structures which have remained unjust and unequal for too long. Yet here we find the government stating categorically that it has no intention of attempting any change which might offend the established order. The message from Bay Street during the summer of '76 has gotten through to the Prime Minister's office.
The real significance of the Speech from the Throne is that it stands as a Liberal party policy paper revealing the disorganized and impoverished state of its authors. It shows clearly that this besieged gaggle has consciously returned to Mackenzie King cynicism. The Liberal message from now on will be, "We are finished with openly trying to build a better society." Liberals will stand instead for the "middle way", the way that carries no commitment. Well, the middle way is really the muddled way, and Canadians know it. It is a way which enables cynical politicians to try to have it both ways. However, the people know better now than to fall for that kind of game.
The Speech from the Throne may or may not have been the swan song of the Prime Minister-we shall have to wait a few more months to see whether his party can survive with him- but it unquestionably laid to rest his political credibility. This latest flip-flop, this calculated muddling, won't wash with Canadians. It comes too close on the heels of the broken promise concerning wage and price controls. It comes at a time when Canadians want leadership and commitment in coming to grips with their problems, not glib responses to popularity polls. It comes also at a time when Canadians can see the Official Opposition party busy providing no alternative. Canadians witness not only Liberal cynicism but also Tory opportunism.
If the audience is the Chamber of Commerce, the Tory position is that profits must be uncontrolled. If the audience contains a sprinkling of trade unionists the Tories claim to understand why workers wish to protest against controls. One day the Conservatives take credit for wage controls, and the next they condemn those controls. The ghost of Mackenzie King is schizophrenic; not content with the Prime Minister's residence, it has also taken up residence in Stornoway.
The Canadian public looks to the official opposition for an alternative. Instead they find the same calculated vacillations as those of which the government is guilty. The voter looks to the Tories for unity of purpose, and finds instead a continuation of disunity. Canadians fed up with Liberal flip-flops will soon see that Conservative indecision is not one whit better. The Tories say they are keeping their programs secret until the election; no doubt they are, because were they to be revealed now they would be seen to be as vacuous as yesterday's throne speech.
This second session of the thirtieth parliament could, if the Prime Minister and the government chose, go a long way toward reducing the skepticism felt by the average person toward government and politics. What is required is a readiness to come to grips with the real issues. The official opposi-
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
tion, too, could help overcome this skepticism if Conservatives were prepared to question intelligently and offer honest, identifiable alternative approaches to issues which concern the average Canadian.
In short, Canadians want an end to cynicism. They don't expect magic but they do w.ant action. They are tired of phony debate on constitutional crises created whenever the Liberals find themselves in political difficulty. They want our constitution brought home to Canada where it can quickly be brought up to date so that the whole country can deal with more pressing issues.
Canadians are tired-and I say this with emphasis-of the bungling on bilingualism. They are prepared to build a bilingual Canada, but both French and English speaking Canadians want fair programs that are explained to them. They are tired of being lectured at and resent being told that every criticism of the present program is a challenge to the very principle of bilingualism. They are tired, in short, of that phony argument.
Working Canadians are tired of government inaction on industrial and environmental health and safety problems. They know what and where the hazards to health and safety are. They know precisely the corporations that are causing these problems and what immediate, straightforward, practical steps would have to be taken to clear them up.
The miners whom I talked to not long ago at Elliot Lake know just what dangers they face from lung cancer, from white-hand or silicosis. They know that unless ventilation is improved when production is expanded conditions will be as hazardous as before. They know it is critically dangerous not to wear uncomfortable and inefficient masks-something as mundane but as serious as that. What they want to know is why the federal government, which has responsibility for uranium development, does not share the responsibility of paying for the research needed to eliminate the long-term effects of mine-related diseases. Why, they ask, has the federal government failed even to help develop a safe mask which the private sector refuses to produce for its workers in the mines?
Canadians also want to know why regulations governing leeching from radioactive tailings threaten their drinking water at home and have made unsafe the water that the local Indian band in the neighbourhood has to drink. The Cree of Cross Lake, whom I visited this fall in Manitoba, want to know why it took six years to get federal action in obtaining safe drinking water.
I was shocked and moved, Mr. Speaker, when I discovered in September that in August of 1976-I repeat, August of 1976-92 Indian kids had been seriously affected with diarrhoea and gastroenteritis and nothing had been done. I am pleased to report that at least the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) promptly initiated corrective action when I drew his attention to the problem, but surely, Mr. Speaker, his department and his predecessors stand condemned for decades of past inaction toward our native people.

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. Broadbent


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The question remains, Mr. Speaker, on how many other reserves in Canada has this deplorable circumstance existed? How many of the deaths of young Indians, to put it as bluntly as that, whose life expectancy is the lowest in the country and whose infant mortality is the highest in the country, have been due to the indifference of government officials, and more important, to the indifference of the government in dealing with something as mundane but as serious as pure water for people on the reserves? Throughout Canada, but particularly in the north, the federal government must have priorities which ensure that every Canadian is guaranteed straightforward, practical necessities-safe drinking water and good sanitary conditions. These are still being neglected.
Canadians are tired of the old cartel dictating exploration and pricing policies for oil and gas. They are tired of a federal government that is incapable of preparing a competent energy policy for the whole country. In addition to rigorous and vigorously pursued conservation policies, Canadians, as every public opinion survey indicates, want oil and gas production that is owned, controlled, and operated as a public utility by Canadians. They want neutral, unbiased agencies reviewing and regulating energy producers so that future employment and industrial development are adequately maintained at a price that Canada can afford. Our people want an end to policies that allow the price of a barrel of oil to be tripled in three years, only to find the oil cartel pleading poverty still for future exploration and the energy minister agreeing that the price might have to go even higher to provide even more incentive for even more exploration.
Atlantic Canadians, and I think particularly of Canadians in the provinces of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island who for years have been ignored by the absence of an effective regional development program, want to know why they must suffer again disproportionately in this energy crisis.
When one talks of mining and exploration for petroleum, one is immediately reminded of Canada's grossly inequitable taxation system. Here more than anywhere else in federal policy do we find our people calling for serious reform. The average working Canadian family is overtaxed or taxed unfairly, and wants relief. They do not want to avoid their burden but they do want a fair burden. They know that corporations do not pay their fair share of the tax bill. They know, for example, that in 1970 corporations paid a higher proportion of federal taxes than they do today in 1976, after so many years of so-called progressive government.
Most taxpayers recall with dismay the fact that our former leader, David Lewis, revealed in the 1972 election campaign that corporations had amassed tax deferrals of some $4.8 billion that they would never have to repay. They would be shocked to learn that the amount that these same corporations have deferred today has climbed to nearly $10 billion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John Edward Broadbent: The important thing to remember here is that these are interest free loans to corporations that no Canadian, if he wants to buy a house, can get from his government. But a corporation with its connections with the Liberal party can get billions of dollars in deferred taxes. My party described that situation in 1972 as a corporate rip-off. It remains unchanged. In 1976 it remains a corporate rip-off.
However, Mr. Speaker, the government, with the active encouragement of the Conservatives, has solved the problem for at least one group of taxpayers. It has created a whole new batch of personal tax gimmicks so that the wealthy at least can enjoy their own private rip-off. The Government calls the corporate tax dodges investment incentives. The personal tax dodges are called, both by the government and by the official opposition, saving incentives. Technically every Canadian is eligible for these new tax dodges. In reality only the well-off can afford to take advantage of registered retirement savings plans, registered home ownership plans, dividend tax credits, $1,000 interest income deductions, or half tax rates on capital gains.
The unfair distortion created by these so-called incentives comes very clearly into focus when Revenue Canada can report in 1974 that 252 people who made more than $50,000 paid no income taxes at all. Under this government's tax proposals, many of which were first suggested by the official opposition, there were 252 people earning more than $50,000 a year who paid not one cent in income tax. In 1973 the number was 156, and in 1972 the number was 92. The point I am making is that the situation has been getting regressively worse numerically.
What was the average income of this poor group that paid no taxes? The average income was $92,000 a year. That was the average of those who paid no taxes. Had they paid taxes at the rate of 40 per cent the federal treasury would have been richer by $10 million, and something useful might have been done with that money. The precise point is that this money could have been used in the way of equity to reduce the burden on the other people. Instead, because we have this kind of loophole for the rich, every other Canadian has had to subsidize these 252.
Let me stress that the money involved would not amount to very much of a savings for the other taxpayers. 1 think it works out to about $1 each, but that is not the point. The issue is one of fairness in the tax system. We do not have a fair tax system when Canadians earning $92,000 a year pay no taxes at all while other men and women whose family incomes are at the poverty level have to pay taxes. That is the situation we have under this Liberal government. Taxes were not even mentioned in yesterday's throne speech.
Let me now return to the redistribution of income, and I was astounded to read one argument. It was absurdly stated that the redistribution of income has been "obstructed by inflation". I was further astounded by the statement that "to support private industry in meeting greater international com-

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
the wage settlements for unorganized workers are substantially below those of the wage settlements for the organized workers and that the vast majority of the unorganized are doing very badly indeed.
In fact according to the calculations-and 1 would invite the government to provide other data if it has it-it appears that the unorganized working force in Canada has increased its wages and salaries for this year by only 7 per cent. The Prime Minister has not told the unorganized workers that. 1 would like him to go around the country and speak to the employees of Eaton's and Simpsons, and talk to the cab drivers and unorganized workers in the Ottawa-Carleton area and tell them that their increases are progressing only in the range of 7 per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What was the figure for last year?


John Edward Broadbent: I do not have the figure, but 1 would be happy to discuss the point if we had last year's figure. The point, in response to the Prime Miister's interjection, is that the 7 per cent increase does not enable the unorganized majority to cope with the current level of inflation and it is deceptive to imply to the people of Canada that this program is working for the unorganized people when it is precisely that group for whom it is not working. Price increases remain uncontrolled-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question on the subject?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the statistic mentioned is a relevant figure. I simply ask the hon. member if he would get the figure for last year. I think the question is relevant, because of course if their increase has been 7 per cent, I believe in money terms and not real terms, then 1 would point out to him that during the last year the cost of living has gone up by only 6.5 per cent and therefore they are better off than they were when the cost of living was going up by 10 per cent or 12 per cent, assuming the 7 per cent figure is the same this year as last year.


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister is right. Of course they are better off. They are better off by .5 per cent. All I can say is that that is slim pickings for Canada's poor. The point obviously is that if the government had been concerned about that precise group, the unorganized workers, it could have done what the labour party did in Great Britain when it brought in a very different kind of controls program and made certain levels of increases mandatory for the poor people. That was precisely what the Liberals left out in this country.
I do not care what the Prime Minister or other officials say, price increases in this country remain essentially and virtually uncontrolled. Despite spending $1 million in taxes on a misleading advertising campaign, the controls program has not been the cause of the reduction in the rate of increase in the consumer price index. The government claims credit for the weather which has resulted in better crops and lower interna-

tional food prices. At home meat prices in particular have fallen at the farm gate. Yes, indeed, some of those declines in food prices at the farm gate have been passed on, but I repeat that food prices are virtually uncontrolled, and the main reason we are receiving benefits now as consumers of food is the work done by the Canadian farmers at home and by other farmers abroad, and not the controls program. When you subtract the food component from the consumer price index, what do we find? We find that we have an actual rate of inflation of about 9.3 per cent and that we have a rate of inflation still in housing in the neighbourhood of 13.5 per cent.
Earlier today the Prime Minister had questions concerning where we stood in respect of profits. I reply to the Prime Minister that of course we support the notion that if we have a private sector there will be profits. That was not the argument. The argument I made outside the Elouse in speeches to which he was alluding is that if you are to control profits at all then you set the same kind of restrictions and limitations on them that you set on the ordinary wage and salary earnings, and if you have a $2,400 ceiling, or a 2 per cent maximum on productivity gains for workers, why in heavens name do we not have the same kind of ceiling on profits for the corporate sector? That is the argument.
In the list of speeches 1 made prior to the opening of the House I provided the names of all kinds of corporations, somewhere between 55 and 60, whose profits are up 25 per cent over last year, 50 per cent, 75 per cent, and indeed over 100 per cent. I referred to these cases, and not one fact has been challenged. I wish publicly to give credit to the research group of the New Democratic Party which did the work on that project. I want to say to the Prime Minister that it is a very unfair program when Simpsons-Sears can increase its profits in that kind of range, or when Canadian Tire can go up 25 per cent or 30 per cent, whatever the figure is.
The argument has been made that their sales have been increasing. I think the Prime Minister asked this afternoon whether that does not entail their right to have more profits. I say that our version of a just controls program is that it does not entail that right; that if their sales are increasing in such a way that their profits are going up 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 80 per cent, then instead of having a system which permits them to go up we should have a system which compels them to reduce their prices and pass on the benefits to the consumers. That is what the program should be all about.
I want to conclude my remarks by saying that the controls program that has been brought in-and we said this all along, not in some empty-handed kind of way which made no distinction at all about the right of corporations to have profits, which of course they must have-is unfair to working Canadians. The evidence supports this because their wages and salaries have been held down while at the same time profits have not been held in check in the private sector.
To speak of a third element in the population, we have the executive salaries which have been permitted to go up because of stock options and because of income received from dividends in an unchecked way. Also there is the situation in
October 13, 1976

petition, the government will modify substantial industrial assistance programs". This boggles the mind. Here we have a government controlling wages of workers; a government which has failed even to begin the redistribution of income in this country; a government which says it will practise restraint, yet a government that is going to increase substantially once again give-away programs to private industry.
What Canadians want to know is how much we have to pay in taxes to keep enterprise free and initiative stimulated. They are sick of paying unfair taxes. A few years ago we were told we needed all these tax write-offs, tax deferrals, and industrial assistance programs to create jobs. Today we have more unemployed Canadians than at any other time in modern history. Even a finance department study, and 1 emphasize that, which was agreed to under conditions of a minority government, and which reported back a couple of years ago, concluded that these give-aways amounting to billions of dollars each year to the corporations were simply not working and not achieving the numbers of jobs they were designed to create. Yet we still have the same programs on the books, and in the throne speech we were informed that they are to be made even more bountiful for the corporations, and this is at a time, as I say, when those at the poverty level continue to pay taxes, and at a time when individuals earning $92,000 a year pay no taxes. This boggles the mind, particularly when we have this new kind of commitment to corporate give-aways.
At the same time the government is callously cutting off the unemployed from the benefits they need because the jobs we paid for in our tax system last year have not been created. The more than 700,000 Canadians listed as unemployed want work, not handouts. There is a phrase almost like that in the throne speech, but the phrase is not followed up by any commitment to action.
This government simply tinkers with unemployment programs that do little more than extend inefficient and inadequate existing programs. The money the government will spend is the money it will have saved by cutting off the benefits of those already without jobs. That is remarkable logic. You take away from the poor and unemployed and use that same money to provide them with benefits. Instead of going to those who are more adequately situated financially, and instead of doing some serious economic planning involving the private sector, the government takes the money from the poor to provide for the poor. This is the worst kind of political cynicism.
The people of Canada want a government commitment to full employment policies, and policies that will result in at least $7 billion in additional national production, which is currently being lost as a result of current levels of unemployment.
The people want a commitment to housing policies which hold out hope for reasonable rental accommodation and reasonable home ownership costs. We want an end to mortgage rates of 11.75 per cent. A direct solution simply involves direct and tough action with our financial institutions. We want people in Toronto and other cities to be able to look at
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
houses which cost less than $68,776. We want them to be able to look at row condominiums which cost less than $50,204, which is the typical price, and at a cost less than $41,175, the current price of an apartment condominium in Toronto.
A person of no less significance in government bureaucracy than the director of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation said not long ago that the major cause of high housing prices is unconscionable land profits. Canadians want an end to unconscionable land profits. They want an end to speculation in land. Not only do they want an end to speculation in land for housing purposes, they want an end to speculation in arable land suitable for agricultural purposes, particularly because of what has resulted in virtually every province, namely, the loss of arable land.
The people of Canada want a national land policy, the purpose of which is to provide land in appropriate areas for housing, and to preserve the land that is rich for agricultural purposes. We are getting neither of these results from the government's policies. Our people want federal policies which will protect land from all kinds of speculation, both for housing and agricultural purposes.
I have listed this afternoon some real problems for which there are immediately available honest and direct courses of action. The solutions 1 have suggested in respect of those problems are ones that do not require magic. Nor do they require a commitment from politicians that once these solutions are brought forward all the problems will disappear. In terms of the solutions I have proposed, these are things that will work and will bring a degree of decency to the lives of ordinary people. These are precisely the kinds of detailed proposals that have been absent from the government's policies, absent from the throne speech, and totally absent in the opportunism of the Official Opposition.
Before I conclude my remarks I want to say that many of the positive proposals I have made today would, I believe, make our country a more just and equitable place in which to live. Coincidentally, my party also believes that many of these policies would do more to fight inflation than that unfair, unworkable controls program the Prime Minister inflicted upon us last Thanksgiving day.
The government's controls program has been effective only in restricting the wages of working Canadians. Once again the government has not stressed the situation in respect of the unorganized working Canadians.
I was amused to note that the Prime Minister when he was in New Brunswick, when he undid his shirt, loosened his tie and once again spoke directly to the working people-and we will all recall the statement if we were watching television or were there in person, as I remember it vividly-saying that the big unions have not liked the controls program and the corporations have not liked the program but that the government brought it in for ordinary Canadians. What the Prime Minister did not include in his remarks-at least they were not recorded, and perhaps he will correct me if he did-was that

October 13, 1976
The Address-Mr. C.-A. Gauthier
I say that the government is guilty of legalized frauds against thousands of unemployed who did indeed pay their unemployment insurance premiums because the government even ordered them taken off their gross salaries.
After that monumental blow the minister will tell the papers that unemployment is declining when it is the payroll that was cut by the subterfuges that we all know, either the recipient losing his right to benefits for all sorts of equally insignificant reasons or still because he did not answer at the set time and date a questionnaire he often received too late because of the bad postal service or because that form did not get to the office in time at the date and time set by the civil servant, and 1 am talking here about that famous rule of four consecutive weeks without pay.
Mr. Speaker, if under that rule a recipient does not receive any payments during four weeks he automatically loses his right to all those benefits and he must again work eight weeks to regain that right. That is the most nonsensical rule that has been found to date.
There was not much willingness in the Speech from the Throne to talk about the famous Anti-Inflation Act whose sole purpose has been to freeze workers' salaries since it was never used indeed to control prices and incomes of multinationals or Crown corporations no matter what one might say. Those big companies were allowed fantastic revenues of 30, 40 and even 50 per cent without a word being said. Increases exceeding the limits set in the Anti-Inflation Act were tolerated and even authorized, even for government corporations. Take postage stamps that were just increased to 10 cents and I could name thousands of multinational companies, private companies, or Crown corporations.
The government says that inflation lost ground under its Anti-Inflation Act and people know from experience that it is because the worker is losing an increasing part of his purchasing power because of the low basic exemption. It is as a result of the low basic exemption in Canada that 75 per cent of wage increases automatically return to treasury coffers. For years the government has been urged to double at least the basic exemption which would give those who earn salaries just above the average a chance to make it uphill. But no, that famous basic exemption is still maintained. Indeed, the right hon. Prime Minister is beginning to realize it because he is considering reexamining that act. I wish it will serve for once to really freeze prices and incomes, not only salaries, and especially reduce the interests of banks which are 90 per cent responsible for inflation and financial monopolies.
We dare not mention control over bank interests and monopolies, as it has been completely removed. Yet it is a major cause of inflation but we keep our hands off this dangerous topic. Nevertheless I am convinced this government will not do anything about it in spite of the review which is about to be undertaken on the Bank Act as this government is the mere lackey of those agencies which affect the daily lives of the Canadian people.
(Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).]
The government intends to amend the National Transportation Act. Let us hope it will deal with passenger service so that the taxpayers who make up for the deficit of the Canadian National will be able to enjoy improved services. But I would like primarily to draw the attention of the House to an issue which is not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, namely a better farm policy. In spite of all the hardships milk producers have suffered, the government has no suggestion to present to dairy farmers who are all, without exception, on the verge of bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, this is the worst blow in the speech. While all milk producers were expecting the announcement of a milk policy which would correct the errors of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), the subject is not even mentioned. In order to remedy the lack of commercial directions from the Minister of Agriculture, all producer quotas have been reduced, and this exactly one year after dairy farmers had been asked to make an effort to produce more.
Today the same producers are penalized because they simply listened to the department one year ago. More than this, Mr. Speaker, this government, in connivance with the provinces, paid and gave grants to have our cheese processing plants closed and to favour the production of milk powder. Today we face a surplus of milk powder whereas the few remaining private cheese processing plants do not have enough milk. Our cheese processing plants do not have enough milk. Do you see the ridicule in this situation, Mr. Speaker?
While producers who have exceeded their quota reduced by the department are being penalized, while the surplus production is being seized at the rate of $10,000, $15,000 and $20,000, our cheese makers do not have enough milk to meet the market demand! Someone might say it is not true. I would forgive him, because it is unbelievable!
During the summer holiday, 1 went to see two owners of independent cheese factories in my riding and they have assured me that while they had orders to impose a fine on surplus production and send this money to the Federation of Industrial Milk Producers, they had not enough milk to meet their sales contracts. It is unbelievable!
Indeed, it is unbelievable, but these are facts I have been able to ascertain from two independent producers, while the only cheese co-operative that has survived the powdered milk storm cannot produce more for want of foresight on the part of the responsible people in the department.
Millions of dollars have been expended for building up stocks of powdered milk while cheese production has been abandoned.
So much so that during these years a cheese factory counting three generations of owners was denied grants which had indeed been accepted in principle in Ottawa, and 1 pleaded the case myself. But after the departure of the only civil servant qualified to plead for the independent cheese producers, that producer could never get a single penny from the federal government.
October 13, 1976

respect of doctors and lawyers. We have produced figures to show that their average income will be more than double the $2,400 ceiling placed on the organized workers. Because of these kinds of injustices the New Democratic Party, from day one last year when we saw the implications of the program up to today in the House of Commons, remains 100 per cent opposed to this kind of program. Before we can go on as a government-and I have made some suggestions to the government-and before we give some attention in a serious way to the implementation of some of the positive programs, we must get this abomination known as a controls program out of the way.
Therefore I want to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the words "the people of Canada", the following words:
We also affirm that the failure of the government to end the wage and price control program immediately, in light of the obvious inequities of the program, including the practice of limiting the wages of ordinary workers while leaving profits and prices virtually unchecked, is contrary to the expressed wishes of most Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: An amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) has been moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). Now an amendment is moved to that amendment in the motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, first let me pay tribute to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada and to his charming wife. I also want to congratulate them for the dignity with which they perform their duties as first couple of Canada.
1 also wish to thank the Leader of the Official Opposition for the nice words he had for our leader now in hospital. After seeing him yesterday, I can tell you that he is well for the moment. He asked me to be his spokesman in the analysis of the Speech from the Throne, and I am very proud of it.
Mr. Speaker, again and again I read the Speech from the Throne after it was delivered by the Governor General of Canada in order to detect some indications of the present government's policy. The result is a most complete obscurity. But I realized that the public servants who drafted this literary work are specialized in camouflage.
In summary, they suceeded in dealing with everything and nothing. Nevertheless, parliamentarians and the public are still expecting more precise data on the government's intentions at the beginning of this new session but every time 1 hear such a speech, I am always disappointed. I finally wonder whether it would not be more serious to simply eliminate the Speech from the Throne.
The Address-Mr. C.-A. Gauthier
I wish to congratulate the movers for their speeches and for their endeavour to give an appearance of seriousness to such a lot of hot air.
1 know that theirs was a difficult task, but someone had to make a sacrifice and therefore, scapegoats were used. I must admit that there certainly are some serious and positive aspects in this speech, even though they are greatly overshadowed by the negative aspects. The only positive points are those where the government offers to help provinces in areas within their own jurisdiction.
Mr. Speaker, 1 am always surprised to hear of federal-provincial agreements in areas which concern only provinces. Would it not be more logical, to preserve the autonomy of the said provinces, if they were given fiscal rights tailored to their responsibilities. I find it simply ridiculous to always tell the provinces what they must do, what they need, as if provincial administrators were not just as able as those of the federal government to see to their own business. The federal government interferes in all provincial areas by pretending to help the provinces, which results in this eternal federal-provincial disagreement which will stop only when the central government no longer plays at being the great protector and minds its own business, and to do this, of course, the federal government will have to give to the provinces the fiscal powers required for their own administration. But the government would not miss such a great opportunity for maintaining the status quo and these mixed responsibilites, which aim only at confusing even more the population, at mixing everything up, so that the people and even the members of parliament can no longer distinguish what is federal and what is provincial, and I believe that this is the aim of the present government.
In the Speech from the Throne, the government talks about the independence of the country. This is great, but it is forgetting that the country is made up of provinces and that each one must feel free and independent within its own provincial jurisdiction for the country to be one day truly independent. A society will never be independent and free if its citizens are shackled. The same is true of the provinces which are the economic prisoners of the central government. That is why, whenever the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talks about Canada's independence, the words do not sound right anywhere in Canada.
The Speech from the Throne states again that Parliament will be called upon to amend the Unemployment Isurance Act. If the government wants to increase the premiums Canadian workers have to pay, while resorting to all manners of subterfuge to give claimants as little money as possible, I state right away that I am against it. If the purpose of this new legislation is to allow the minister to establish regulations to counteract the effects of the act, I am also against it. As a matter of fact, the book which contains the regulations established since the Unemployment Insurance Act came into force is three times as big as the act itself, and the sale purpose of these regulations is to exclude as many unemployed people as possible from the list of beneficiaries.
October 13, 1976

Today they would like the cheese production to double; unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are sorry but it is too late. We have destroyed everything and we will have to start from scratch. All cheese factories were closed, and those responsible for that state of affairs are the ones who were wishing for a monopoly. 1 heard them: they were hoping for a monopoly in the region with no competition, and that is why we now have to import from 5 to 10 million pounds of cheese every year.
I heard those so-called co-operators cry out before their members: "Cheese factories have to disappear, we have to break down competition to achieve absolute control".
To that I replied that if competition is done away with, 50 per cent of our producing province is killed. I have always maintained that even cooperatives must learn to live with competition. It is even good for them! The Speech from the Throne confirms what I advocated some ten years ago. I quote:
Significant revisions to laws promoting competition in the marketplace will be placed before you. The Government is determined to preserve and enhance Canada's traditional policy of reliance on individual enterprise as the mainspring of economic activity.
And further on:
The more effectively competition governs the marketplace, the less necessity there will be for control of the economy by governments.
And we have proof that the contrary also is true: the less competition there is, the more governments have to intervene, to bring monopolies to heel, to control multinationals.
The logical solution? The government must encourage and support private enterprise, if it wants an active economy. I ask the government to quit talking and act. To my mind, Mr. Speaker, more than ever the time has come for action, and I trust this session will be that of private enterprise.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A few minutes ago before the speech of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) I put in general terms the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and that is the amendment which continues to
The Address-Mr. C.-A. Gauthier be under consideration by the House. 1 did not put it in specific language at that moment because I wanted to absorb the effect of the text on the amendment and to read it as one paragraph with the amendment.
The motion that is before the House at the present time is that moved by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein, immediately after the words "the people of Canada", the following words:
"We also affirm that the failure of the government to end the wage and price control program immediately, in light of the obvious inequities of the program including the practice of limiting the wages of ordinary workers while leaving profits and prices virtually unchecked, is contrary to the expressed wishes of most Canadians".
So the text which it would be proposed be added to the address by the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) would be a composite text as follows:
We respectfully affirm to Your Excellency that the Speech from the Throne is a further example of the opportunism which has cost the present administration its credibility among the people of Canada; we also affirm that the failure of the government to end the wage and price control program immediately, in light of the obvious inequities of the program, including the practice of limiting the wages of ordinary workers while leaving profits and prices virtually unchecked, is contrary to the expressed wishes of most Canadians and that your ministers no longer enjoy the confidence of this House.
Order, please. I take it there has been some discussion and agreement in keeping with the ordinary practice that this day be kept for the leaders of each party. The leaders or their nominees having spoken, at this point it is in order that I see the clock at six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 5.36 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
80001 -4V4

Thursday, October 14, 1976