1977-04-21

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Paproski:: Poor old Jack; watch out, Jack.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am obliged to note, Mr. Speaker, that a thorn by any other name-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Now who's sick?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister relates to proposals contained in the government's October throne speech concerning the government's language policies, and to recent reports also published this morning to the effect that the government is presently drafting a major policy statement on bilingualism. May I ask the Prime Minister if such a statement is now being prepared in fact, whether it will be a white paper which will encourage discussion on this important subject by parliament and the community at large, and what timetable the Prime Minister has in mind for its introduction?


An hon. Member:: Ask Jack.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is quite correct. We did indicate in the Speech from the Throne that we were going to bring in a further policy and improvements to our language policy. 1 hope the House will be seized with that problem before the end of this session.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister, unless I failed to hear him, neglected to tell us of the form that will take. Will it be in the form of a white paper, a statement by the government or whatever form?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not determined that yet. I just undertake to do it in the House, whether it be in the form of a motion or by tabling some documents.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the reports concerning the bilingual statement suggest it will have at least two major proposals; first, a reduction in the number of designated bilingual positions in the public service and, second, an increased emphasis on the French language education for young Canadians. Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether in fact that is the substance and the direction of the recommendations now being prepared?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to comment to the House on that. I do not know to what reports the Leader of the Opposition is referring. It may be rumour. It may be some leak of a draft document. I am completely unaware of the document to which he is referring. In due course we will apprise the House of the government's stand.


Charles Joseph Clark: In light of the report of the Official Languages Commissioner suggesting that funds be transferred from teaching public servants a second language to school education programs, is the federal government now today in consultation with provincial administrations regarding this matter or does it intend to be in such consultation in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the Speech from the Throne we did indicate, and I had occasion to repeat it on Monday night-


An hon. Member:: Where?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did indicate on those occasions we would be shifting the emphasis toward the youth group.


CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON POLICY CHANGES
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, as one who represents the only officially bilingual province now, I wonder if the Prime Minister could help us by telling us what consultations have been held on the new policy with the various provinces, in particular with the province of New Brunswick?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there have not as yet been any formal consultations. As I indicated, we hope that the House of Commons will have an occasion to discuss this.

April 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Mr. Fairweather:: Because we like to have things in order, are we to assume that the new Minister without Portfolio will be responsible for elucidating a new bilingual policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his discovery made during his first visit to the prairies in 18 months that westerners have more than carried their weight as Canadians and they ought to get a better deal, will he assure the House that the government rejects categorically the principle of "user-pay" as it applies to railway transportation? In particular, will he assure the House that the government does not intend to change the Crowsnest Pass freight rates which are so beneficial to farmers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to discuss these matters when I was in the west. Perhaps the simplest way to answer would be to send a copy of the transcript to the hon. member.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we are not going to get anything other than his platitudes in terms of commitment to the west. Considering the pledge to improve the lot of Westerners, will he inform the House when he intends to remove the single most unfair irritant which currently exists between Ottawa and the western provinces-


Some hon. Members:: Otto Lang!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I refer, as well as to the present Minister of Transport, to the non-deductibility of provincial royalties in connection with the calculation of federal corporate taxes which has meant the unjustified transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from the western provinces to the federal treasury.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is an interesting suggestion by the leader of the New Democratic Party. It surprises me somewhat that his party should now switch to that side of the argument.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: What do you care about switches?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am greatly surprised to see the opposition so distressed at the loss of one member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If you had been here 19 years you would be distressed, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have lost members before but we have never made such a fuss. Of course, they were not as valuable.


An hon. Member:: Our loss is your loss!


John Edward Broadbent: I can assure the Prime Minister that the people who are distressed are Western Canadians who got nothing from him but banal platitudes. This Liberal cat-calling reveals what happens when they swallow Ghengis Khan.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRANSPORT
John Edward Broadbent: Just two days ago, the Economic Council of Canada produced a report which stated that the freight rate structure discriminates against the west because of rates which double the cost of moving manufactured goods east as opposed to the cost of moving raw materials. Would the Prime Minister take steps to change this situation so that the manufacturing industries which the west ought to have will finally be established in that region?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the leader of the New Democratic Party would take the trouble to look at the legislation before the House and support the government, he would find the government has this very much in mind.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL ANNOUNCE NEW POLICY
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the mini-cabinet shuffle announced today by the Prime Minister through the appointment of a former Progressive Conservative member, and as the Liberals and Conservatives maintain that their parties differ and have different solutions to our economic problems, does it mean that discussions were held between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Crowfoot with regard to changes in the economic policy relating to the Anti-Inflation Act and the eventual
April 21, 1977

announcement that this government has changed its economic approach?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Andr6 Fortin (Lotbiniere):: I should like to put a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In view of past attitudes of the hon. member for Crowfoot towards Canadian unity and bilingualism, can the Prime Minister tell us when we can expect to have the privilege of hearing the first statement of the new minister on his new position with regard to Canadian unity and bilingualism or the protection of Francophones' rights in Canada and in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The next time the hon. member asks him to do so, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, at the invitation of the Prime Minister, I should like to put a question to the new Minister without Portfolio for Alberta, and ask him when he intends to make his first statement to the House and explain clearly his stand with regard to his faith in Canada and his respect for the Francophones of this country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure the House is looking forward to the first question to, and answer by, any minister or new minister, as the case may be. However, such questions will have to be concerned with his particular administrative responsibilities.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister taken note of the comments and observations by Roger Demers yesterday to the effect that French-speaking pilots and employees at federal airports in Quebec may very well begin to use French at work before the government makes a decision on the studies which are undergoing, and indeed the veiled threat, if 1 may quote Mr. Demers, that "there won't be anything the government can do about it"? If the minister has taken note of his comments and observations, can he advise the House whether he intends to take any action respecting this
Oral Questions
type of comment? By way of supplementary, would he also tell the House what the status of the studies is?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this first opportunity to congratulate the hon. member on the assumption pf his new role and wish him the success of his predecessor as transport critic. I had indeed noted the statements. There are, of course, clear rules and regulations in relation to air traffic and air travel, and we have in existence a variety of procedures for assuring standards of safety. It is very important that they be adhered to. It is also true that a variety of steps are being taken in terms of establishing procedures governing the use of language in the province of Quebec and those are going forward. In the meantime, I can only urge those who are involved in air travel to adhere to the regulations.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the urgency of the matter, and in view of the seriousness of the threat that is implicit in the comments of Mr. Demers, I wonder whether the minister would take this opportunity to assure the people that confusion will not arise, since there will indeed be confusion and uncertainty as well as some degree of fear if in fact airline pilots in Quebec and employees at federal airports in the province of Quebec start using the second language before such time as the federally undertaken studies are completed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member in general terms that we will take every precaution we can and we will take every step necessary and within our control to ensure that safe procedures are followed in air travel.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is directed to the parliamentary secretary. Has the minister and his department studied the paper tabled in the Ontario legislature which indicated that Quebec has gained by Confederation, particularly in view of the $6.2 billion equalization payments, and that the province benefits in both tariffs and fiscal redistribution while the west benefits neither in tariffs nor in fiscal redistribution? Has the government studied the table to see if it is accurate?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we received copies of that paper after it was delivered in the Ontario legislature, and it is being studied.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, has the government any plans under way or any study under way of itself to decide in this war of statistics who benefits and who does not?

April 21, 1977
Oral Questions


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There are a number of departments and a division of the Privy Council Office that are looking into those issues.


TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the principle of cabinet solidarity, would the minister advise the House whether he is going to make changes in Bill C-33, which has been described by his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, as taking the government from one mess and putting it into another mess or making for votes or a bill that will not accomplish and will fall short of solving the problems of the transportation industry? In view of these opinions of his colleague, is he going to revise Bill C-33?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the main revision to Bill C-33, which I have in mind at the moment, is one that meets the request of the Atlantic premiers with whom I met some months ago in connection with recognition of regional economic development. I will, at the earliest opportunity, give the House the content of that proposed amendment.


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the Minister of Transport pay more attention to the opinions of his colleague now than when he was in opposition?


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down!


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for small business. In view of the grave concern that still exists amongst people in western Canada regarding the changes from acres to hectares and bushels to tonnes, as evidenced by the many letters that are being received by the western members, and I assume by the minister himself, and in view of the importance of Cabinet solidarity, I am wondering if the hon. Minister has any intention of withdrawing the metric bill?


An hon. Member:: Do you understand the question?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage we have no intention of withdrawing the bill. I know that the Minister without Portfolio has some concerns. I will be listening to them because he knows very well what the farmers want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: They want Conservatives.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO FORT McMURRAY
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's new-found interests in western Canada, I wonder whether he could inform the House about what action his government is taking to assist the new town of Fort McMurray which has just suffered severe damage from a flood in the area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if I may cut through the aroma of heifer dust. Has the minister or his officials in the IJC reached a determination, relating to questions previously asked by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, on the export of water from British Columbia to California, as proposed by Mr. Bonner, the president of B.C. Hydro? Can the minister give the House an indication as to whether he opposes or endorses the proposal of Mr. Bonner?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it has been some time since the question was initially asked. I said at that time that I would look into it. My recollection is that there was no substantive proposal. It was merely a suggestion which had been made, and there was nothing specific about it. However, I will take note of the question now, bring myself up to date and reply to the hon. member as soon as possible.


Robert Hylton Brisco: When considering the proposal of Mr. Bonner would the minister bear in mind the circumstances now faced by the community of Castlegar and communities downriver from Castlegar which are right on the banks of the Columbia River and which are in very desperate straits in so far as a water shortage is concerned?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that.
April 21, 1977


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CANADA-WIDE HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the steps the Carter administration is taking to conserve energy in the United States and in view of Canada's dwindling proven oil reserves, which for the past seven years have declined each year from the previous year's level, is the government prepared to consider a Canadawide home insulation program which, according to a government study, would reduce residential heating costs by 37 per cent, save this country $1.25 billion annually and reduce our oil import deficit by $750 million per year? Is the government giving consideration to such a program?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are giving consideration to that. That was discussed by the provincial ministers during the recent federal-provincial energy ministers' conference. The point which has to be made is that such a program would be extremely expensive. If we were to bring it to roughly 70 per cent completion, it would involve well over $1 billion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that a Canada-wide program would give to each householder a $400 grant and a $600 loan-the loan being repaid out of the $180 a year which each family would save, and at 8 per cent interest it could be paid off in four years-in view of the fact that for $300 million a year the government could provide for the insulation of every home in Canada in ten years or with $600 million a year could provide for the insulation of every home in Canada in five years, and in view of the fact that by 1985 our deficit on oil imports will amount to between $4 billion and $5 billion, does the government not think it is good business to institute the kind of program I have just outlined?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously we do think home insulation is a very good kind of program. That is the reason we introduced the first two programs in North America, in Prince Edward Island and in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia there is a grant program and a loan program, and there is a grant program in Prince Edward Island. We believe that home re-insulation makes sense for the homeowner, for the provinces and, in the broader sense, for the people of Canada. As I have said on many occasions we have endorsed home insulation programs, and we encourage other provinces to follow the lead of the province of British Columbia, which is providing loans through its public utilities commission for homeowners.


POSSIBILITY OF ENCOURAGING USE OF SMALLER CARS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the country needs some federal leadership. This
Oral Questions
matter should not be left to the provinces and to private industry.
In the absence of the Minister of Finance I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since President Carter has asked Congress for a tax on gas-guzzling cars starting at $449 for next year's models and going up to a maximum of $2,488 in 1985, with rebates for gasoline-efficient cars ranging from $400 to $500, thus helping to conserve dwindling supplies of oil in the United States, is the government giving consideration to introducing legislation to step up the provisions which were contained in the 1976 budget in order to encourage the use of smaller cars and discourage the use of larger cars? I ask this of the Prime Minister in view of the fact that sales of larger cars have accelerated very sharply in the last 12 months.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to answer that question. I think all Canadians would applaud the leadership Mr. Carter has given his nation with respect to conservation. There is no question that in the past we have borrowed some measures which were adopted in the United States, and now it is quite clear from Mr. Carter's message last night that he has borrowed very heavily from "An Energy Strategy for Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member asked about a weight tax. That is a new tax proposal in the United States, but it is not new here. We introduced that some two years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Last year we added to that with a special tax on air conditioning for automobiles as well. The point has to be made that the United States is now following our lead in that respect. It is also following our lead with respect to excise tax on gasoline, and if the hon. member would like other examples, I would be very pleased to give them to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio, the member of parliament for Crowfoot. After being a minister for approximately four hours, can the minister advise the House how he perceives his role as the government spokesman from Alberta, and does he see his role as that of promoting Canadian unity?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is no more in order than the final question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.

April 21, 1977
Oral Questions THE MINISTRY


REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF NEW MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the new Minister without Portfolio, and in asking him this first question I hope he realizes that we all wish him as much success as he deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Can the minister tell us if he has been given any special responsibilities about which the House should hear?


Hon. J. H. Horner (Minister without Portfolio):: Monsieur le President-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -knowing the interest the House has in finding me on your right, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to answer the question. I have accepted the role in the Prime Minister's cabinet as the representative from the province of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can only hope this will allow me an opportunity to help Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I want to be sure that the aspirations and concerns of all Albertans in the House and in Alberta will be expressed very forcefully in the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Grafftey:: Will you be campaigning in Quebec, Jack?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I can only hope that they will also be heard a little more clearly in the cabinet than they have been in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Watch your backs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Joe, lock the door.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Would

the minister inform the House whether there has been an examination of public service pensions by outside actuaries since the last government actuarial review was carried out in 1972?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there was a preliminary and fairly quick examination by a firm by the name of Eckler Brown-I believe that is the correct name-a few months ago. It was preliminary and not all-inclusive. Certainly it was not even requested to cover the ground which the present actuarial examination is designed to do.


Donald W. Munro: I have a supplementary question. Since the report of the recently appointed independent actuaries is still some months away, would the minister be prepared to table in the House the results of that earlier report so that the House may know just what sort of lines were taken in it.


Robert Knight Andras: I will review it and give consideration to the hon. member's suggestion.


PROVISION OF OPTION FORMS TO PERMIT EMPLOYEES TO DECIDE BASIS ON WHICH DEDUCTIONS MADE FROM SALARIES
Donald W. Munro: Speaking particularly of pensions, I was wondering whether the minister has been in conversation with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, with a view to circulating option forms to all public servants hired in one province and living in another so that they may opt where they may pay their pension contributions and income tax, because it does make a difference. This is very important in the Ottawa-Hull area where people live in one province and work in another. I should like to know whether there have been conversations between the two ministers on this matter.


Robert Knight Andras: The issue is in the main the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. She has certainly been cognizant of the problem that is developing and has been making representations to her colleagues to review this quickly.


Donald W. Munro: I will draw up the form for you, if you like.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT OF SUPERINTENDENT OF INSURANCE ON PENSION SCHEME
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board is prepared to table the report which the Superintendent of Insurance, the night before last, indicated to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs he had prepared on behalf of the government with regard to the public service pensions and with particular reference to the indexing of pensions. Is the minister now prepared to table that particular report in the House?
April 21, 1977

Hod. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):
I would give the same answer to the hon. member for Edmonton West as I did to the member who asked a similar question previously. 1 will take a look at it.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister.
When I put my first question in the House a year and a half ago the Prime Minister told me to ask questions in the interests of Canadians. Well, last Monday the government thought that it had won first prize, but all they got was a consolation prize. I merely say that because the Minister of National Health and Welfare has already discussed with his provincial counterparts the possibility of reviewing the social field to create a guaranteed annual income and considering that many poor families and senior citizens often say that they cannot make both ends meet because they do not receive minimum living means, could the Prime Minister say whether his government intends to introduce soon in the House a bill on the guaranteed income enabling those individuals to get the minimum vital income to which they are entitled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has often had the opportunity to answer that question and make comments on the matter. I will therefore be pleased to send a copy of his statements to the hon. member.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is either for the Minister of Transport or perhaps the new minister, the poor loser from Crowfoot who is familiar with the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: My question arises from the fact that despite the decision to abandon plans for Pickering airport, homes in the area are still being expropriated, causing undue hardship to numerous families in that area. I should like to ask the minister if he could advise the House why these proceedings are continuing to take place, and when does he expect expropriations at Pickering to come to an end in view of the fact that the plans for Pickering airport have been abandoned?
Oral Questions


Otto Emil Lang: There have been no new expropriations that I know of, but obviously procedures that were underway are being completed, and that is all that is happening at this stage.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Otto John Jelinek: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that these people in Pickering are facing expropriations, could the minister take immediate steps to make the necessary legislative changes in order to allow the federal courts to stay orders of the trial division in cases where there is a just basis for such a stay being made to prevent permanent harm from occurring before the appeal processes are concluded?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I would not want to undertake to introduce legislation. I would like to review the specifics of the hon. member's question to ensure that no injustice is occurring. However, we have examined all these cases carefully and they are proceeding in accordance with the law as determined by parliament and the courts.


THE MINISTRY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Normally when a new minister takes over, the appropriate advice is given to the House of Commons on the nature of the duties which he undertakes. Because of the widespread interest in western Canada in the Wheat Board I wonder whether or not the hon. member for Crowfoot will be the minister to report for the Wheat Board.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the right hon. gentleman that the nature of the minister's duties were indicated quite clearly earlier today in answer to a question from an hon. member on the opposition side.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is so diffident and self effacing that he could not answer that simple question: Is the hon. member for Crowfoot going to be given the responsibility of reporting for the Wheat Board or is he just to be the tail on the Department of Transport?


An hon. Member:: The dispenser of patronage.

April 21, 1977
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it deals with a matter that we on this side of the House have raised previously. In view of the fact that the minister had admitted he owes some 18,000 Canadians unemployment insurance benefits which were cut off in 1976 and considering that the government claims legislative approval is necessary in order to pay these persons; also in view of the fact that we on this side of the House have promised to expedite any bill or measure which the government would choose to pay these persons immediately, has the minister decided on the measure the government is going to use to pay those 18,000 Canadians?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated this was not a requirement; this was an undertaking by the government in the interests of equity to see to it that those who had not appealed were compensated as well as those who had launched an appeal. We have a measure before the committee at the present time. The bill is being studied by the committee. I think probably the most efficacious way of doing it is to have an amendment to that bill and get it through the House in that fashion.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister is using the amendment of Bill C-27 as a sword to get that bill through the House and has admitted that those 18,000 people are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, is he prepared to come forward with some bill or motion that will allow those 18,000 people to be paid rather than wait six or eight months until Bill C-27 is passed?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the premise of the hon. member's question. I indicated sometime ago that the government had undertaken to pay these 18,000 senior citizens their benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act. It could be done with an amendment to the bill. If the hon. member wants these payments made, let us get the bill through and pay them.


John R. Rodriguez: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The fact that we were being told yesterday in committee that the minister was considering a bill to be brought before this House indicates once again that he is misleading this House with the kind of information he is handing it when answering questions here-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I stand here in utter shock and amazement at the minister's reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.

Is the minister stating now that he has exhausted all avenues, in terms of bringing in a new bill, in order to give relief to those 18,000 senior citizens or is he putting the opposition up to blackmail? The minister promised us that he would use every effort to find a solution. Has that effort been exhausted?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did undertake to look. I looked at the possibility of a private member's bill or an amendment to a particular bill being brought in. In looking over all avenues this seemed to be the most efficacious and appropriate method to deal with the problem.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, never mind the Postmaster General. I am talking to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration about a very important matter. In other words, what I am hearing now is a matter of blackmail-the minister is blackmailing the opposition into early passage of Bill C-27-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: -to make up for-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister himself has been a convert to a party and in view of the conversion we have seen here today, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has some responsibility in establishing the political morality of the land, my question to him is whether it is part of his political philosophy that every man has his price?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CUSTOMS
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister aware that the United States government has now applied countervailing duties on scissors imported to the United States from Brazil because of export subsidies and
April 21, 1977

related injury to the domestic industry and will she now review the decision of this government not to protect Canada's single scissors company which is in circumstances similar to those faced by the industry in the United States by applying the countervailing duties established in our laws for the first time this month?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I recall that we had studied that matter very seriously, because that industry is unique in our province and creates jobs which have previously been protected by measures different from that mentioned by the hon. member.
If he can assure the House that the situation he refers to in the United States is a new element in that sector-and that is what I assume from the question-I shall ask for a report from my department as soon as possible.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
The Canadian Press reported yesterday that the minister allegedly stated in Rimouski that he was willing to sign agreements with the Quebec government to help the development of regions which were neglected in the past, and that he mentioned Lake St. John, northwestern Quebec and the north shore. Since as a representative of the south shore region I drew the minister's attention several times to the particular needs of that region, was it on purpose that the minister ignored the south shore area, or is it because the provincial government has not submitted any projects for that region and, if so, is the minister in a position to tell the House whether he will take into account the very specific needs of that region?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that there is at least one rather important omission in that news report. I also included the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspesia areas. You can count on that.
With regard to the last part of the hon. member's question, precisely the representations he made about the area near his constituency, it is true that I have yet to receive proposals from the provincial government about this area other than general ones related to the entire province of Quebec, by means of sectorial agreements which will benefit his area, in particular those which affect agriculture. But nothing in these proposals specifically affect his district.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question.
According to the press, last week the minister concluded an agreement with the Quebec Minister of Transport, whose
Oral Questions
name is also Lessard, whereby both governments agreed on road development on the St. Lawrence north shore.
Was it also agreed during those discussions and in this agreement that it could be applied to the south shore area which has very particular needs which I stress so that the federal government will contribute with a view to preventing the Quebec government from saying to the rest of Canada that the federal government has never been favourable to the development of this area?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct a report probably made by the press and to which the hon. member has referred. I want to say that I have not concluded any agreement with provincial Minister of Transport Lucien Lessard regarding the road system. There was an amendment to the current agreement on major highways and, indeed, among the roads now under discussion not one is located in the area mentioned by the hon. member.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The offshore scallop advisory committee last met on February 22, and since that meeting the industry has received three letters, I understand, from the minister, all of them outlining changes in policy which were not based on majority committee recommendations. Does the minister intend that this committee's function shall serve only as windowdressing? If not, will he convene an early meeting of the committee, for the purpose of discussing the arbitrary regulations; and, at the same time, would he indicate whether discussions were held with American officials concerning limited scallop fishing on Georges Bank as a conservation measure?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member indicates, there were consultations. Obviously, consultations cannot always be followed by unanimous consensus and at one point a decision must be taken. I shall look into the detailed points raised by the hon. member and inform him accordingly. Certainly, it is my intention to pursue and wherever possible proceed with the concensus of those effected. In some cases a consensus is not possible; then we have to regulate.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS

April 21, 1977


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF VICE-PRESIDENT OF REPUBLIC OF MALI
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members I am sure will want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor who is here on his first visit to Canada, His Excellency Lieutenant-Colonel Amadou Baba Diarra, Vice-President of the Republic of Mali.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will be brief.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. gentleman opposite who said "Thank God" is almost an accessory to the fact relating to my point of order, he being a member of the party which is the catalyst of the reason for raising my point of order. I asked the Prime Minister a very serious question. With respect, I suggest that one of the duties of the Prime Minister of this country is to help establish and define something called political morality. You do not have to go far outside this chamber to discover that many people think this chamber is irrelevant. Part of that irrelevancy stems from the fact, I suggest, that because of our rules, restrictions are sometimes placed on having members of the government and/or the Prime Minister from time to time answer questions which are on everybody's mind. Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, because of the unique situation in which we find ourselves today I think the Prime Minister, for whom I have respect in terms of his capabilities in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -ought to have answered my question. But I have no respect for or agreement with his ability to lead this land. He went to Winnipeg and made a Rip Van Winkle speech-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The point at issue is that the Prime Minister of this country, or of any country, has many responsibilities. According to the definition that has been placed on the ambit of the question period, questions must be addressed to ministers of the Crown in respect of their administrative responsibilities. The question to be decided by the Chair is not whether the question asked relates to any of the several responsibilities of the Prime Minister, or any other minister, but whether it relates to his administrative responsibilities.
It seems to me that the question directed to the Prime Minister relates, perhaps, to the responsibility which any political leader might have in respect to setting, as the hon. member for Annapolis Valley has just described it, a moral tone or political philosophy before the nation. That does not relate to his administrative responsibilities on which questions ought to be permitted in the question period. That is the
(Mr. LcBlanc (Westmorland-Kcnt).]
difference. The hon. member may have occasion to put his question elsewhere. The question the Chair must decide is whether it is proper to put that question in the question period. If it does not touch on administrative competence, it is not a question the Prime Minister can or should answer.
It is a question of whether the question asked was in order. I find that the question was not in order within those terms.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of order. The Prime Minister was asked a question which he should have answered, but with contemptuous disregard he refused to answer it. The normal practice is that a Prime Minister announces, when a new minister takes his place, what the new minister's duties will be, if any. The simple question I asked, which is being asked all over western Canada, is this: Who is going to have the responsibility of reporting for the Wheat Board? The press has suggested that the Minister of Transport will not be in that position. I cannot conceive that the hon. member for Crowfoot would permit himself to be placed in the position of not having anything to do. I cannot believe, paraphrasing the poet Gray, that the paths of duty lead but to the "gravy".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: For the sake of the western farmer, for whose solicitude the Prime Minister has shed synthetic tears in the last few days, I wanted to know whether the hon. member for Crowfoot would be reporting for the Wheat Board. Instead of answering, with that subtlety, that disregard for parliament he evaded the matter. I leave it there, because that is what he thinks of the western farmers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I merely point out that it had been my intention to answer the right hon. gentleman's question when I indicated that the duties, functions and occupations of the new Minister without Portfolio would be as he admirably stated in his answer to a previous question.


An hon. Member:: Joe Guay, watch out for your shoes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, that could not include being the minister to whom the Wheat Board reports. The right hon. gentleman suggests that it cannot be that the new minister has nothing to do. The fact is quite contrary. We feel in this party that we, not having had an elected member from Alberta-


Mr. Epp:: You still have not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -for the past several years, there is a great deal to do in terms of the government's understanding of that province and in terms of that province being informed-


An hon. Member:: This is the pork barrel.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -by others than those obviously prejudiced members who sit on the other side of the House.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why don't you call an election now, Pierre?
April 21, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think I can sit down without commenting on the remark about political morality. I was somewhat offended-this is perhaps a new point of order but I raise it gladly-that one hon. member opposite talked about the price and the right hon. gentleman mentioned gravy. That is not, I think, an appropriate word in these circumstances. I would want to say that when any member of the House has been sitting here for 19 years, the least he can expect of his colleagues on either side of the House is not to be insulted, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He can particularly expect not to be insulted by his very colleagues with whom he has served for many years to the best of his ability in order to help the people of his constituency.


John George Diefenbaker: Is he going to have the Wheat Board to report on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, maybe these jibes are only meant in fun and are facetious. If so, I am sure the hon. member for Crowfoot will rise above them. I would merely say there have been many well-known conversions in history. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley alluded to some previous ones. I would take him a little further back in history. Let him remember Cardinal Newman who converted and became a Cardinal. That is much better than just being a minister without portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order. When my good friend mentioned price, it did not bother me. I thought it was meant in jest. However, now that the full question has been accented I would say to the House, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I look at it as cost. It is a cost that I have paid. It is a cost I have been prepared to pay for the good of my country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In setting that kind of example for all Canadians, I hope that Canadians will make a rededication to spend a little time and energy trying to help this country. I hope I have demonstrated that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member called it a price. I call it a cost. It is a cost which I am prepared to shoulder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As far as I am aware, we are still dealing with the point raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert to which a contribution was made by the Prime
Oral Questions
Minister and the Minister without Portfolio. I now see the hon. member for Lotbiniere. I understand that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley wishes to participate as well. The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the question of privilege concerning an incident which occurred during the question period when 1 directed a question to the Prime Minister to ask him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are now dealing with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Then I will recognize the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) on a different point of order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. It will be very short and simple. When the Prime Minister replied, Mr. Speaker, it illustrated the ruling you gave, that the Prime Minister did not have a chance to reply earlier which I felt he was quite competent to do. In his most beautiful dialectical way he misinterpreted and slurred the question I put to him. It had no direct reference to the hon. member for Crowfoot. If the hon. member for Crowfoot wants to stand because the heat in his seat is a little too hot, and if he wants to talk about the cost to the country-


Some hon. Members:: Boo!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -he wants to think about the cost to his family name. I refuse to accept the misinterpretation of the Prime Minister. I was only asking that the Prime Minister give an answer in terms of his definition of political morality without reference to any member of this House. Because you, Mr. Speaker, refused to let the Prime Minister stand, he was able to use your chair and hide behind your skirt.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have dealt with the question raised under the rules we have been operating under for about a year. Questions of difference of opinion with the Chair that used to be taken during the course of the question period as to whether or not the Chair has properly adjudicated upon the propriety of a question are now taken at the end of the question period. Pursuant to that, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley indicated he would rise at three o'clock. He questioned the decision of the Chair as to whether the question he had asked was in order. I said to him then, and I say to him again, that the question he asked as to whether or not the Prime Minister indicated-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It was proper.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member disagrees. I ruled it was not proper.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Why did the Prime Minister answer?

April 21, 1977
Oral Questions
Some bon. Members: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Let him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: That question is now finalized. The question we should be dealing with has to do with the point of order raised by the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the failure of the Prime Minister to answer his supplementary question relating to any intended duties to be assigned to the new Minister without Portfolio. The House will realize, I am sure, that the question is quite separate from that of the previous case.
The questions put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert were entirely in order. The failure of the Prime Minister to give a direct answer to the supplementary question was an exercise of the privilege that always exists in the government not to answer a question any more fully than previously answered in the first question to the Prime Minister. That does not raise a new point of order and that matter is now finalized.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, during the oral question period I asked the Prime Minister if, in the course of the negotiations which the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) had with the government and the federal Liberal party leaders, reference was made to the Canadian policy on bilingualism advocated by the Prime Minister since 1968. If so, given the parliamentary concept of cabinet solidarity which has prevailed and run this country for decades, I would like to know if there were or if there will be any statement from the new Minister without Portfolio concerning his position on bilingualism. Will he or will he not make a statement in the House in the near future? Mr. Speaker, I can understand that the appointment of this minister has some significance in the west but it has an entirely different one for us in the province of Quebec.
Quebecers are struggling to have the French language respected and the right to speak French, and since 1968 they have heard the Liberal party talk about respect for language and equal opportunity. But today, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister brings within his cabinet an hon. member who, with all due respect, has always fiercely opposed the promotion of bilingualism in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, who even said that he would forever refuse to learn a single word of French.
Mr. Speaker, this is a substantial issue. One wonders whether the hon. member for Crowfoot, out of ministerial solidarity, committed himself with the government to support openly the language policy of the government, whether the government simply rejected the importance of that policy in the west, or whether it is merely vote-catching maneuvers.
That issue, for us in Quebec, is fundamental. My question of privilege bears on the following point:
In view of the premises of the Prime Minister, he told me in his reply to direct my question to the minister, which meant that the latter would be in position to reply to me today; however, you did not allow this minister to reply to me; as a

matter of fact, you intervened personally by saying, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, that I could not direct a question to the minister because he had not yet assumed his administrative responsibilities. Therefore, we shall leave the House today without the necessary information, unless Your Honour intervenes and permits us to find out if cabinet solidarity will be respected as to the rights of Canadian citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: The question put by the hon. member to the Minister without Portfolio with regard to his position on a particular government policy is no more in order than it would be if addressed to any other minister except the minister who might have specific responsibility. If the hon. member wishes to put a question in some way to the Prime Minister, that might be in order.
As I recall, the hon. member addressed his first question to the new Minister without Portfolio as to whether or not he would soon make a declaration concerning his position on a particular government policy. As I say, that question is no more in order, addressed to that minister, than it would be if addressed to any of the other ministers unless the minister has a particular responsibility for that policy. A question addressed to him is no more in order than it would be if addressed to the Solicitor General, say, or to the minister responsible for small business. Questions addressed to ministers must relate to their specific responsibilities.
The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham was permitted a question in order to define, if possible, those responsibilities. The right hon. member for Prince Albert was also permitted a question to define what those responsibilities might be. But once those responsibilities are defined, questions put to the minister must be confined to his particular administrative responsibilities, and as far as I am aware there has been no announcement of a particular responsibility having been assigned to this minister for a particular policy.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the exchange which took place between the hon. member for Lotbiniere and the Prime Minister during the question period, and your ruling. I am rising not to dispute the ruling, in the sense that it is not allowed by the rules. I understand that your rulings are final and that even though there may be some question about them, the House cannot disagree with them. However, I am rising on one matter, with respect. There is great danger in allowing to stand where you have left it the question of the responsibility of a minister to answer or, to put it in another way, the right of a member to address a question to a particular minister.
On reflection I may wish to change what I am saying, but I ask Your Honour also to reflect on what you have said. The Chair has said that it is only within a minister's administrative responsibility-Your Honour used the words "specific ministerial responsibility"-that a member can ask a minister a question and at least expect an answer, whether or not any question of morality is involved. The way you are ruling now,
April 21, 1977

and I say this with respect, means that no member of the House can question the morality of the government or any minister as to his conduct, or conduct involving his department, if it does not come within a specific ministerial responsibility.
In this case it applies to questions addressed to the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the government and who not only has over-all responsibility for the administration but who, at least in any other place than this, would be regarded as having over-all moral responsibility for the government as well. It may be that all of us should look at the remarks which have been made in the heat of debate, but the whole affair smacks of exactly the way I put it to you, and I put it to you with the greatest respect, that members of the House ought not to be limited in that way, nor ought the Chair to be bound by such a ruling.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that I bring myself into this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There may be some crows on the fence, not only in Crowfoot but elsewhere, who might have comments to make without any particular knowledge of the rules and without having accepted any responsibility with regard to the question period or the administration of the House in the past. It is very easy for some of these new boys, so-called, who sit on the back rows. 1 hear someone say "Shut up". All I will say now is that they have said a number of things which reflect their lack of responsibility.
I wish to underline the point which has been made by my House leader. Follow the sequences. I have always held that a minister was responsible for statements made, whether in the House or outside it, with regard to his administrative responsibilities. 1 do not agree with this nonsense about questions being directed to the Prime Minister about statements made by ministers outside the House. All the Prime Minister does is say, "I did not hear the statement referred to, so I cannot answer". That is a devious subterfuge used to sidetrack a perfectly legitimate question. I do not agree with it and I do not have to agree with it.
On the other hand, this afternoon an hon. member addressed a question to the Prime Minister with regard to a particular matter of policy. The Prime Minister redirected the question to the new Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member-temporarily-for Crowfoot. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley attempted to direct a question to the minister I have just mentioned, and the Chair said the matter was not within the administrative competence of the minister. Therefore, there is a beautiful shifting of responsibility. Who is responsible for answering? It is a case of "After you, Alphonse"? That is not the way this House has been conducted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not part of the Chair's duty to participate in the shifting of the burden of responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Hon. members over there may catcall all they wish. Not one of them has had the responsibility of sitting in the chair. May I say, with all deference to those who are most vocal, that some of them would not have the courage or the stomach to assume the responsibilities Your Honour has undertaken. All I say is there is no way in which we can duck responsibility by saying that a question on a statement attributable to a minister, or to a standby minister, shall be directed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister takes the ball and does a shift out to the wing to the minister, and then the Chair comes to the rescue of the minister in question.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The decision to be taken by the Chair in every case is whether a question is in order or not in order. I am prepared to listen to argument by all hon. members affected at all times. But I am not, I repeat, prepared to suffer from this member or any other member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: -who suggests that any action on the part of the Chair at any time, either on this or on any other occasion, is in the interests of one particular member as against any other. What I have attempted to do today, and what I have attempted to do on any other day, is to adjudicate in some consistent manner on whether questions are in order.
To recapitulate, I cannot see, stretching any argument under any of the precedents of which I am aware, that a question by any hon. member on any day to the Prime Minister or to any other minister as to whether or not any man has his price is, by any definition of this question period, in order.
Furthermore, I am prepared to reflect on the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton West, and those of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and the hon. member for Lot-biniere, all serious and experienced members who are wishing to put forward a strenuous point having to do with whether or not questions that are addressed to a minister are confined to his ministerial responsibility. I do not envisage, for example, that a question period can take place, within our rules, whereby a questioner can put questions to each minister asking whether or not the minister agrees with a particular government policy unless that policy affects his administrative responsibility.
That is my understanding of the orbit of the question period, and it is all that I was attempting to demonstrate. The question put by the hon. member for Lotbiniere is no more in order when it is put to a new minister appointed at nine o'clock this morning than it is if it is put to the Minister of Transport

April 21, 1977
Oral Questions
or the President of the Privy Council, who have been ministers for many years. Also, it does not make any difference what day or what minister is involved. Either a question to a minister is in order because it touches his administrative competence, or it is not.
In this respect I think we should go back to questions put to ministers in respect of their previous responsibilities. The Chair has consistently held that a minister cannot answer questions which relate to previous responsibilities which he had. The minister is confined to answering for the responsibilities he now has in the ministerial sense. He is also responsible at all times for the administrative scope of his department. But he is not responsible-and again I am saying that I will review the matter-according to my understanding of the rules, for answering questions falling outside that administrative competence. Surely a question on the position of any individual minister on policy which does not touch his specific competence, it seems to me, is out of order whether or not the minister was appointed this morning or at any other time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I welcome your remarks because they are a vindication of the view that I took in discharging the duties now incumbent upon you but which was often called into question by the predecessors of this administration and by those who now occupy the treasury benches. It is easy to see how these things come back home to haunt people. However, there is one point on which I do differ with you, Mr. Speaker, and that is when the Prime Minister is asked his view as to the discharge of duties by a minister and he refers the question back to the cabinet minister. That is when I said that the Chair had come to the rescue of the minister in question. That was the point I raised. If the Prime Minister says that a minister is responsible for the question, then there shall not be any intervention by the Chair to the effect that the minister is not responsible.
Hon. members opposite may be as restive as they want, but I want the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to know that I welcome the ruling by Your Honour because it vindicated rulings that I have made in the past which were called into question.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In other words, it does not matter what members opposite have said in the past about rulings of the Chair. So long as Mr. Speaker is vindicated today, nothing matters. But when Mr. Speaker in the past was impugned by the predecessors of hon. members on this very point, then we are to shut the case. I am simply saying to them that they do not know what they are talking about. As long as they are in power, everything is allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I only want gently to remind the hon. member for Edmonton West that we are on a point of order and perhaps he would address himself to it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are very definitely on a point of order, and frankly it has to do with the conduct of this House. There are many hon. members who sit opposite whom I respect as friends, but as my political adversaries I may expect them to shout at me. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre sits in his seat indicating that, as far as the rules and the practices of the House are concerned, it is a totally closed book and he has never opened his mind. This question comes up almost every day, Mr. Speaker.
I have to agree that a minister can duck a question merely by going out to the country. Let me use the Minister of Transport, who is here, as an example. Say he speaks on regional economic expansion when he is down in the maritime provinces and he makes a statement which, frankly, could be deemed to be at variance with government policy. Is it wrong for members on both sides of the House to question the minister about his interpretation of government policy? It appears to me that the ruling is that a question of this kind cannot be asked of the Minister of Transport. If the Prime Minister were then to be questioned, he would simply say, "Over to the minister for DREE". The minister for DREE would say he did not hear the remarks of his colleague, so he cannot make any comment. In other words, it is a complete and utter farce.
The Minister of Transport should answer for his remarks, and he has done in the past. But somewhere along the line there has been a deviation in the ruling of the Chair. There is no reason why the Minister without Portfolio from Alberta- actually he is not from Alberta, he is just Minister without Portfolio from a riding in Alberta-having been directed by the Prime Minister regarding policy on language, should not say what he has to say. If not, without your active participation, Mr. Speaker, it is a great, total and utter cover-up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton West on this point raises the question as to whether or not a question can be put to a minister responsible for a particular policy, or to the Prime Minister if one of his ministers has made a statement outside the House as to whether such a statement conforms with government policy. Of course, that kind of question is always in order. That is quite different from asking a particular minister to step outside his own responsibility in a particular area.
In any case, I take very seriously the representations made. If it turns out that this precedent which I have set today in any way seems unfairly to restrict the scope of questions in the hands of the opposition, in the first place I will be very surprised, and in the second place I will be more than receptive to arguments if by this precedent today I have somehow tied the hands of the opposition.
I hope the hon. members will realize that I have tried very scrupulously to avoid that in all the time I have been in the chair. The precedent seems to me to be totally in conformity with the principles under which we have operated ever since the beginning of this parliament. If I can be shown to be in
April 21, 1977

error in any way with respect to that, I will be pleased to listen to arguments when the occasion arises in line with the presentation made by the House leader for the official opposition and others who participated this afternoon.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order which is certainly not a contentious one. I would like to ask the government House leader if he can advise as to the business following the budget debate today and as far as he can into next week.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will take Bill C-26, second reading of the scientific activities bill; Bill C-ll, the Pension Act; and Bill C-48, the improvement loans bill. Regardless of what happens tomorrow, on Monday we will begin second reading of the bill respecting the Auditor General bill; then the export development bill, C-47; C-39, the Bank Act; and C-9, regarding the James Bay agreement. It may be that we will discuss whether this list should be rearranged for tomorrow with particular reference to export development.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, one of the nice things about dealing with the government House leader is the way we have been able to settle the order of opposition days. Would he be open to a suggestion for allotted days that we might discuss together with particular reference to their use? If he committed himself to that, I would not want to say that he will be absolutely bound to any days to which he agreed, because I realize the government may have some problems. Would he be prepared to entertain a suggestion with respect to those days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the House business, may I ask the minister questions about two items that are on the order paper and one item that is not there yet? The two which are on the order paper and which he knows I am interested in are Bill C-12 and Bill C-30. If I may deal with them in reverse order, Bill C-30 has to do with next February's Heritage Day. As he knows, in this place one has to start well ahead of time if something is going to be put through in time. Bill C-12 has to do with reciprocal tax agreements with certain other countries. Because there are many Canadians who are affected by this legislation, I wonder if it will be brought forward soon.
The other point I should like to raise with the government House leader, and I raise it with him quite deliberately, has to do with the problem that has been discussed several times arising out of the denial of unemployment insurance payments to certain persons 65 years of age and over. In view of the conflicting statements that are made and, if I may say so with respect, in view of the failure of the Minister of Manpower and
Business of the House
Immigration to understand the situation, will the government House leader have a consultation with the House leaders on this side of the House as to the possibility of bringing in one separate bill to deal with this matter? If he finds that all of us on this side are in a position to give him the assurance that such a bill will be put through without debate, will he proceed along those lines?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, yes, 1 will undertake to consult members on the other side with respect to the proposed amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act and to consult the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to see whether some reasonable accommodation can be reached on that subject.
Dealing with Heritage Day, I have already indicated how eager I am to have that bill considered. I would like to have some assurance that it will be dealt with expeditiously when it is called. I am also considering bringing on the reciprocal tax agreements legislation at an early date.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise on the same point of order but it is related to the point of order that was started by my hon. friend. I want to refer to last night's minutes which were taken in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration wherein we were dealing with Bill C-27. I would like to bring this to the attention of the government House leader, where the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said:
Well, let me say right now, Mr. Alexander, we are looking at another avenue that I am hoping will expedite this or help us expedite the payments, and I want to check that out before I give a contradictory statement.
The point I am trying to make is that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration indicated that he tried to look into a private member's bill and because of the money involved that was not possible. He also indicated that he could not withdraw the present Bill C-27 and bring in two distinctly different bills. He indicated that he had another avenue.
I indicated yesterday by way of Standing Order 43 that this party is prepared to give a commitment to early passage of any bill or amendment that would bring relief to these 18,000 people. I hope that in the conversations the minister has with government House leaders he will pursue the other avenue of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in order to see whether that door has been closed. I know the expertise of the government House leader is quite dramatic.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: "Limitless."


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I like the word "limitless" because it means that we now have a solution. In conclusion, we hope that in this very serious matter a conclusion can be brought forth and that we can assure forthwith passage of that particular item.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Immediately. [Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me on a point of order although I would rather

April 21, 1977
Business of the House
have spoken after the question of privilege raised by my leader, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).
I am not criticizing you, because I understand your problem, the great responsibility of the Chair and I know that you sometimes have to take a quick decision. I do not hold it against you. I abide by your rulings and have always done so.
However, as a Canadian and a French-speaking member representing a minority in this House, I consider that 1 must fulfil my duty while respecting the majority. I believe that a certain agreement concluded in this country states that we have equal rights. During the oral question period, my leader put a very important question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on a matter which can promote the unity of the country or spell its destruction.
At my age, having worked hard all my life to build this country, I wish we could preserve this unity and understand one another and work together to keep on developing Canada and leave to our children not a spoilt and divided country but a united country in which we could understand one another.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be ruled out of order but I simply wish to draw your attention to the important issue raised by the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada relating to the new position held by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) in cabinet. Given his past attitudes as regards language matters, it is quite understandable that we, French-speaking Canadians, seriously wonder about his position-taking within cabinet. Will the new minister change the thrust of the government on bilingualism policy or will the present government maintain its position? That was the very essence of the question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
I thank the Prime Minister, in his wisdom, for suggesting to the hon. member for Lotbiniere that he should address his question to the hon. member for Crowfoot. That is what he did.
As I say, in view of the serious situation in which Canada now finds itself, I honestly believe we should have got an answer from the new minister on this very specific matter so that the French-speaking minority of Canada might be informed of his intentions. The question asked by the hon. member for Lotbiniere was not a trap but a very serious and important one. In fact, western members have seen fit to ask questions on the very specific duties of the new minister in cabinet, namely whether he would report for the Canadian Wheat Board. This is one of their concerns.
But we, Quebec members, want to know what will be the position of a cabinet minister toward bilingualism and the legislation which was passed in this country on behalf of bilingualism, of the rights of French speaking Canadians in Canada.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is an important matter. As French-speaking members of this House, it behoves us to tell our Quebec constituents what is going on in this Parliament, more specifically, what is the ministers' position on minorities' language rights. I am sorry if I get a little excited but I am

quick-tempered and I am proud that our forefathers helped build this country, and I would like my children to be the rightful heirs to this dominion, to all this land, and that their rights be recognized across Canada, even though they speak French. That is the issue at stake, and I would like the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the new minister in the present cabinet of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to give Canadians his candid views on language rights and bilingualism in this country. I believe he is an honest man and could frankly tell this Parliament what stand he will take in the future, regardless of his past attitudes. Let us forget the past and look towards the future but we are entitled to know what his positions will be from now on.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Bellechasse has raised a further argument with respect to the same question raised by his leader, and I have ruled, I think, properly. In keeping with our past practices, the propriety of questions put to individual ministers, from a procedural point of view, is not decided by the Prime Minister. It is decided by the Chair. If the Prime Minister indicates that a certain question should be put to a particular minister, it still remains for the Chair in all circumstances to decide whether that question is put properly or not put properly to that minister.
The decision of the Chair with respect to a question on bilingual policy put to the new Minister without Portfolio would be precisely the same as if another hon. member asked a question as to whether the Minister of Transport supports the policy of the government in respect of regional development, whether the Minister of Finance supports the policy of the Minister of Labour, or whether the Minister of Labour supports the policy of the Minister of National Revenue.
Those questions are not proper and never have been, and in my opinion, they do not become proper simply because the House wants to find out if a new minister has policies which are consistent with those of his new leader. Those questions are very important; there is no question about that. There is no difficulty at all in understanding the desire of the House to have a commitment from a new minister with respect to such fundamental and important questions, but from a procedural point of view that is not the problem. The question is, what should be the scope of questions put to individual ministers in this House?
The practice has always been that they must fall within the individual administrative competence or responsibility of particular ministers, and in that respect it does not fall within the individual administrative competence of the new Minister without Portfolio to make pronouncements on the government's policy on bilingualism. I am sure the question will be asked again and again on occasions when the minister appears in public or anywhere else where questions might be put to him, and they might also be put to the Prime Minister as to whether he has received the minister's agreement.
April 21, 1977

That question to the Prime Minister is quite in order; that goes without saying. The question has become whether the Prime Minister should respond in the way he did by saying, "You had better ask the minister." Indeed, hon. members may ask the minister, but from a procedural point of view the question is whether an attempt to ask a minister a particular question in the question period is procedurally acceptable, and if it is, it will be allowed; if it is not, it will not be allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my rising today springs from the answer given by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when responding to a question regarding unemployment insurance payments to the 18,000 persons over 65 and under 70 and those people who were on dependency allowance benefits when the new act came into being in January, 1976. Today we were told quite emphatically by the minister that, in effect, we must pass Bill C-27, which includes an amendment.
We have raised this matter before, as you know, Mr. Speaker, and in the past we were told that the Department of Justice said no amendment was needed. Then the minister told us an amendment was needed. In committee we were told no amendment was needed and that the claims could be processed and benefits sent out to the claimants. When we raised a question of privilege in this House we were told that we needed an amendment, that the Department of Justice had given the wrong information to the minister and to his department and that all he had done was pass on the information. Yesterday afternoon when we were in committee we were told by the minister that he was looking for ways to get around this so-called amendment and to bring something before the House so that people could receive the benefits due to them.
When ministers give answers in the House and in committee, I put trust in those answers because this House is built on trust. When ministers give answers we make decisions in terms of our constituents and the areas we represent on the basis of those answers. So there has to be basic honesty and trust operating here.
The point I raise is that it is regrettable that we have a minister who has shilly-shallied and dilly-dallied and in effect has held to ransom 18,000 Canadians. It comes through very clearly every day we question him that he is saying to us, "If you pass Bill C-27, these people will get their payments". It is public knowledge that there are clauses in Bill C-27 with which members from Atlantic Canada on both the government side and the opposition side have great difficulty. The minister knows that very clearly, and it is obvious to all who want to observe the fact that the minister is holding 18,000 Canadians to ransom. I find that most regrettable.
The minister must operate on trust in the House. If he told us he is looking for an avenue to get around the impasse, we would be able to accept that, but when he puts the condition to us that we must pass Bill C-27, it indicates incompetence on
Business of the House
his part in the way he has handled this whole matter, and he should resign from his position.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nickel Belt has raised a point of order, and were we now dealing with Bill C-27 perhaps I could accept it as such. It may resurface at the time the bill is debated, but today we are finalizing the budget debate.
The hon. member's question of privilege yesterday related to the same matter and did not qualify as a question of privilege although it was a very serious grievance supported by members of other parties in the House. Earlier there were some questions by way of points of order. Certainly, the remarks of the hon. member for Nickel Belt should be taken in connection with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in respect of this bill, and I take it in that context at the moment. There is nothing to prevent the hon. member raising the matter again, and the matter will be resolved in some way as indicated by the President of the Privy Council.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple point to raise with the President of the Privy Council. He has indicated his intention, if events follow along as he would like, to introduce a bill dealing with tax conventions. An essential feature of such bills is to contain a clause based upon what the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has persuaded the House to accept with regard to any changes in the regulations being subject to affirmation or otherwise by the House by way of resolution.
When the former minister of justice, Mr. Turner, piloted through the House the statutory instruments legislation, there was an undertaking that the House would then move to adapt its rules to conform with the detailed procedures contained in that act. This was five years ago, and nothing has been done. In the interval we have passed four or five acts, and I am sure we will be asked to pass further acts as a result of the minister's intention with regard to dealing with affirmative and negative resolutions.
If the minister, as director of the business of the government is afraid of sending something to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, will he please lay down a direction in this respect? I say, on behalf of my colleagues, that there will be no further debate and that the motion to refer the question of affirmative and negative resolutions in so far as they apply to the rules of the House shall be considered by the committee, brought back and established according to the intention of the government with regard to legislation in the past.
We want this as much as the government, but for some reason there has been an inordinate reluctance to bring forward this item. We have had to dredge it out of the legislation and spell it out in lengthy amendments every time we have had a bill. Frankly, it is nonsense. Both sides of the House are agreed on the procedure that should be followed with regard to affirmative and negative resolutions.
At the time the minister brings forward a bill with regard to a tax convention, regardless of the merits of that particular

April 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
bill, could we please have a motion laying down reference of this question of affirmative and negative resolutions of the House for consideration and recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, which would then report back to the House, so we can bring ourselves up to date on the government's intention stated five years ago? I am sure my colleagues will follow my advice in this regard, will agree not to debate such a resolution and allow it to go right away to committee and be brought back to the House forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Lot-biniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, this point of order is supplementary to the one which was already raised by my colleague the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). With the position which has been taken this afternoon, this will demonstrate that the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) agreed to answer an English-speaking hon. member on national unity in his first comment in the House; because this is what he did, under a round of applause from his colleagues, after refusing to answer a French-speaking hon. member. Let us conclude, Mr. Speaker, that the question asked by the hon. member for Bellechasse and mine were really basic questions. Mr. Speaker, government solidarity is an important concept and I wanted to make these remarks in a last point of order since you have mentioned this. Mr. Speaker, when a minister is asked an embarrassing question, it is because he has put himself in an embarrassing situation indeed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not the first time that someone rises on a question of privilege or a point of order concerning the question asked by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin), and I gave my decision on this subject earlier this afternoon.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 917, 927, 1,040, 1,256, 1,532, 1,872, 1,985, 2,015, 2,016, 2,093 to 2,142 inclusive, 2,212 and 2,256.


Mr. Howie: Has the government received any request for assistance in reducing the high cost of electric energy in (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Nova Scotia and, if so, in
each case (i) how much money was requested and what are the terms of payment (ii) what was the government's response?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (i) In the case of Nova Scotia, $150 million over a period of five years. In the case of Prince Edward Island, no specific amount requested, (ii) On December 29, 1976, the government announced a $12 million program to encourage energy conservation in Prince Edward Island. Key elements were: $6,940 million for a new Home Insulation Program administered by CMHC; $1,585 million for energy conservation in industrial and commercial operations; and, $3 million for renewable energy studies. On February 14, 1977, the government announced a $80 million program for Nova Scotia, of which the federal government will provide $63 million. Key elements in the program are: $33.41 million for a new Home Insulation Grant Program administered by CMHC supplemented by a $17 million Home Insulation Loan Program to be administered by the Province of Nova Scotia; $24.2 million for projects to reduce the use of imported oil for the generation of electricity, to be jointly funded by the federal government and the Province of Nova Scotia; and, $5.0 million to introduce energy conservation practices in industrial and commercial operations, to be administered jointly by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the province.


Mr. Muir: In each year since 1965, what has been the total federal allocation to Canadian universities to further basic research in (a) cancer (b) genetics?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned:
	(a) Cancer	(b) Genetics
1975-76	$4,751,819	$3,635,0291974-75	$4,387,506	$3,411,1641973-74	$3,752,149	$3,103,4581972-73	$3,515,318	$2,893,0331971-72	$3,316,297	$2,200,246
Note: It is not possible to provide data for the fiscal years 1965-66 to 1970-71 inclusive.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 370, does the sum of $20,621,000 (US) include the monies paid to Lockheed during the contract definition stage?
2.	With reference to the LRPA contract, has Lockheed been paid (a) the progress payment of $3,992,000 which was due on October 31, 1976 (b) the first accomplishment milestone of $616,000?
(Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).]
April 21, 1977

3.	Have any adjustments to the LRPA contract price been made in accordance with the formula and conditions set out in articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the contract?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Supply and Services as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Yes.
3.	No. The price adjustments referred to in articles 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 of the contract will be made but the actual labour and actual material Indices required to effect the calculation will not be available for three to six months after the close of each quarter.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	For each year 1968 to date, did any (a) departments (b) agencies (c) commissions (d) Crown corporations remove or replace from their (i) buildings (ii) stationery (iii) publications (iv) equipment (v) vehicles, any insignia and/or reference to the Monarchy and/or to the Crown and, if so, which ones?
2.	In each case, for the same years, what had been the insignia and/or reference to the Monarchy and/or to the Crown and with what were such insignia replaced.
3.	For the same years, in each case, what was the cost involved for removal or replacement of insignia and/or reference to the Monarchy and/or the Crown?


Robert Knight Andras: 1.	See Debates of the House of Commons October 23, 1970, page 507 and Question No. 56 answered January 31, 1973. Information concerning application of FIP by department or year is not readily available.
2.	The federal symbol (bar and leaf taken from the flag of Canada), together with the identifying name of the government organization involved, has been gradually replacing various crests, arms, logos, symbols and insignia used by the different federal government departments and agencies and organizations within them to identify their activities. The Canadian Coat of Arms and Flag remain the emblems of Canada, the nation.
3.	The costs directly associated with the application of the symbol are not readily available.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Department of Regional Economic Expansion obtained (a) parttime (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Department in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department
Order Paper Questions
of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. (a) Agency Employees hired for less than six months:
	1975/76	1976/January 1977
(i)	11	16(ii)	9	5(iii)	27	9(iv)	22	20(v)	248	137(vi)	30	1(vii)	Nil	2(vm)	30	45(ix)	Nil	3(X)	Nil	4(b) Agency employees hired for more than six months:	1975/76	1976/January 1977(i)	Nil	Nil(ii)	Nil	Nil(iii)	Nil	Nil(iv)	Nil	Nil(v)	23	22(vi)	Nil	2(vii)	Nil	Nil(viii)	Nil	Nil(ix)	Nil	Nil(x)	Nil	Nil2. Such agency employees are paid from the main estimates.	3. (a)	1975/76	1976/January 1977(i)	$5.20	$6.31(ii)	5.75	6.00(iii)	5.40	6.00(iv)	5.75	6.10(v)	6.01	6.57(vi)	5.55	6.33(vii)	N/A	6.00(viii)	5.18	5.44(ix)	N/A	4.30(x)	N/A	4.62
(b) As the hourly rates paid to employees of such agencies are determined between the employment agency and the employees, the department does not have such information.
(c)	1975/76	1976/January 1977(i)	$ 4,590.00	$ 6,872.00(ii)	5,667.31	2,661.88(iii)	13,373.98	6,502.61(iv)	21,892.00	21,106.35(v)	723,292.98	434,817.30(vi)	36,786.23	15,537.82(vii)	N/A	2,125.94(vm)	4,538.82	7,431.77(ix)	N/A	256.00(x)	N/A	785.88
Note: Part (V) also includes Headquarters.

April 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Dick: 1.	Since the inception of DREE, have grants been given to individuals and companies within the specially designated Renfrew-Pembroke area and, if so, to which individuals and companies?
2.	In each case (a) on which dates were the requests for grants (i) accepted (ii) received by the applicant (b) what was the amount of the grant?
3.	How many persons (a) were working for each applicant at the time of the request for a grant (b) did the applicant hope to further employ with the aid of the grant (c) does the applicant employ at present?
4.	Which of the applicants are presently in business in the designated Renfrew-Pembroke area?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. See following table.
2.	(a) (i) See following table, (ii) Payment details are not disclosed, (b) See following table.
3.	(a) This information is not generally recorded for modernization or expansion projects. In the case of new facilities there were NIL workers at the time of the request for a grant, (b) See table, (c) Current information not available.
4.	See following table, applicants marked with an asterisk.
Note: The information is supplied as of November 1976 and relates to R.D.I.A. cases. Additional information is also available from the monthly R.D.I.A. reports presented to Parliament.
R.D.I.A. Incentives Offered and Accepted for Projects in the Renfrew-Pembroke Area to November 30, 1976
Applicant	Location	Total Jobs Expected to be Created	Amount of Grant Offered	Date Grant AcceptedNortract Manufacturing Ltd.	Arnprior	39	$75,700	71/11/08Waltham Creative Printing	Arnprior	29	113,100	71/08/16Gomes Yarns Limited	Arnprior	58	98,765	72/03/21* Union Carbide Canada Limited	Arnprior	69	126,750	72/01/20* Hypernetics Ltd.	Arnprior	56	136,600	72/04/06* Arnprior Furniture Manufacturing	Arnprior	45	98,550	72/09/26* Hy-Hoe Corp. Ltd.	Arnprior	73	414,600	73/01/10* Playtex Ltd.	Arnprior	79	200,595	74/02/06* Chase Nuclear (Canada) Ltd.	Arnprior	33	496,500	73/10/26Canadian Pine Classics Ltd.	Arnprior	61	163,960	73/10/11* Noranda Metal Industries	Arnprior	125	2,754,625	74/03/11Qualicon Concrete Products	Arnprior	13	67,750	74/01/03* Deltaire Industries	Arnprior	28	134,327	75/12/30Ashton Furniture Manufacturing	Arnprior	21	42,280	75/12/31* Bow Badische Canada Limited	Arnprior	11	170,000	75/12/31Ostman Lumber Co. Ltd.	Bancroft	20	148,790	71/01/14Dawnwood Forest Products	Barry's Bay	30	210,200	72/03/21* Adventure Charcoal Enterprises	Barry's Bay	19	87,300	72/02/01* J. Hildebrandt Wood Products	Barry's Bay	19	49,239	73/09/13Quexoil Ltd.	Cobden	31	51,000	71/04/02* Welk-Um Steel Products Limited	Eganville	45	99,800	76/11/22* L. E. Welk Lumber Manufacturing	Eganville	29	94,800	74/06/14Eganville Planing Mills Limited	Eganville	26	164,485	74/09/06Welk-Um Steel Products Limited	Eganville	51	99,800	74/09/04E. K. Donovan	Eganville	15	88,800	75/03/12* McCann & Kitts Ltd.	Eganville	6	20,700	75/04/02* Foymont Industries Limited	Foymount	16	37,356	75/04/02* Haley Industries Limited	Haley Station	48	130,887	73/10/12* Ottawa Valley Grain Products	Horton	3	32,100	72/05/01* Ben Hokum & Son Limited	Killaloe	30	32,700	73/06/14L'Amble Lumber Limited	L'Amable	5	66,955	75/12/31* Murray Bros. Lumber Co.	Madawaska	140	464,080	71/05/31* Gulick Forest Products Limited	Palmer Rapids	11	55,280	72/11/17* Middlestadt Home Bakery	Pembroke	10	11,584	71/03/19Shuffleboard International	Pembroke	30	72,540	70/10/30Renfrew Industries	Pembroke	103	646,720	71/06/10* Eddy Match Company Limited	Pembroke	13	51,066	71/11/17Homco Industries Ltd.	Pembroke	116	312,000	72/04/20Dry Kiln Services Ltd.	Pembroke	18	148,650	72/09/28* Rapp Package (Canada) Inc.	Pembroke	85	172,050	72/08/11* Ottawa Valley Pure Spring	Pembroke	2	21,740	73/08/13* Unitog Canada Ltd.	Pembroke	86	171,000	73/12/13* Storwal International Limited	Pembroke	88	430,350	74/03/29Homco Industries Limited	Pembroke	0	33,612	74/09/13Stephen Bujaki	Pembroke	3	12,660	74/10/31* Boire & Verch Construction	Pembroke	8	20,700	73/03/10* Ottawa River Veneers Ltd.	Pembroke	29	126,500	75/12/18Algonquin Lumber Inc.	Pembroke	6	25,000	75/12/30* R. E. Hodgins Industries	Renfrew	13	79,200	70/10/20Valewood Products Ltd.	Renfrew	43	170,825	70/10/21N. A. Valve & Mfg. Corp.	Renfrew	175	774,667	70/10/19Acme Seeley Limited Mr. Lumlcv.l	Renfrew	137	862,850	71/03/12
April 21, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Applicant	Location
Vale wood Products Limited	Renfrew
* Hanson Mills Ltd.	Renfrew
Educational Fitment & Millwork	Renfrew
Shuffleboard International	Renfrew
Step-Lite Manufacture Limited	Renfrew
Ottawa Valley Laminates	Renfrew
* Magline of Canada Limited	Renfrew
* Gary Wilson Tire Service	Renfrew
Lindal Cedar Homes Ltd.	Renfrew
Renfrew Machinery Builder	Renfrew
* Edwin D. Kennedy Lumber Co.	Renfrew
Educational Fitment and Millwork	Whitelake
* McCrae Mills Limited	Whitney
Applicants in Commercial Production as of November 30, 1976.


Mr. Malone: 1.	Has Canada ever given or sold musk oxen to another country and, if so, in each case (a) to which country (b) in what quantity (c) on what date?
2.	Were the musk oxen given or sold under the circumstances of (a) a gift and, if so, how many and what was the nature of the occasion (b) a sale and, if so, what was the price (c) other means and, if so, what were they?
3.	Which department authorized the disposal of the musk oxen?
4.	On what basis is a value established for such animals?
5.	From what area or region of Canada were the musk oxen obtained?
6.	What is the estimated musk oxen population in Canada and where are they located?
7.	What level of government has Final jurisdiction over their disposal for sale or as gifts?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. Yes. (a) Russia; (b) 10; (c) September 1974.
2.	(a) As a gift-10 musk oxen provided as a gift from the Governments of Canada and the Northwest Territories in response to a U.S.S.R. request for help to re-establish the animals in the Soviet Arctic.
3.	Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Banks Island.
6.	In Canada today there are about 10,000 musk oxen in a number of herds, mostly in the Arctic Islands. The largest of these herds, on Ellesmere Island, is estimated at 4,000 animals.
7.	Government of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act?
Total Jobs	Amount of	
Expected	Grant	Date Grantto be Created	Offered	Accepted57	171,675	71/02/0424	39,686	71/08/1616	42,290	71/09/0732	77,238	71/07/0588	192,604	71/10/1525	79,600	72/06/2818	61,500	72/11/016	13,498	72/09/2986	404,250	72/06/3056	445,600	73/07/2521	132,950	71/03/179	35,830	74/10/2344	152,350	73/11/283. In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?	4. In each of the last five years,	either calendar or Financial, for whichstatistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of	the superannuate?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. How many persons have	received payments since 1959
under the Public Service Pension Adjustments Act.	
Year	Number
1959-60	14,311
1960-61	13,885
1961-62	12,533
1962-63	11,709
1963-64	10,852
1964-65	10,077
1965-66	9,078
1966-67	8,162
1967-68	7,483
1968-69	6,860
1969-70	6,651
1970-71	6,474
1971-72	5,793
1972-73	4,647
1973-74	3,901
1974-75	3,253
1975-76	2,706
1976-77	2,381
2. In each of the above years total amount paid out under	
the said Act.	
Year	Amount
1959-60	3,112,231
1960-61	2,956,515
1961-62	2,817,263
1962-63	2,657,706
1963-64	2,504,503
1964-65	2,344,711
1965-66	2,236,212
1966-67	2,038,329
1967-68	1,905,478
1968-69	1,777,869
1969-70	1,641,304
1970-71	1,515,000
1971-72	1,368,879
1972-73	1,000,941
1973-74	838,715
1974-75	697,981
1975-76	501,691
1976-77	417,415
4862

April 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3. In each of the above years average amount paid under said Act. (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others.
Year	(a) Public Servants	(b) Widows	(c) Others1959-60	226.72	124.88	12.321960-61	225.43	124.42	11.791961-62	222.01	123.92	10.351962-63	220.60	123.59	10.061963-64	220.26	123.75	7.991964-65	217.94	123.08	6.191965-66	216.03	122.69	7.131966-67	212.52	122.64	5.931967-68	210.27	121.27	6.111968-69	208.19	119.21	4.561969-70	196.52	125.05	5.791970-71	184.83	127.87	1971-72	177.51	130.19	1972-73	174.19	128.47	1973-74	163.05	114.27	1974-75	161.19	102.98	1975-76	158.27	101.01	1976-77	157.21	99.81	4.	In each of the last five years-pensions paid under the P.S.S.A. which have been discontinued because of death.
Retired public
(a) servants (b) To widows
1972-73	3081	1972-73	6871973-74	2488	1973-74	7501974-75	2250	1974-75	5321975-76	2367	1975-76	6811976-77	2319	1976-77	702


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount contributed (a) by employees (b) by the government, to the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account during the year from April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976?
2.	What was the total amount paid out of the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account, during the year from April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976, in the form of pension supplements and to how many individuals were such pension supplements paid at any time during that period?
3.	What was the balance at credit in the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Account (a) as at March 31, 1975 (b) as at March 31, 1976?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) $25,040,785; (b) $25,040,785.
2.	$89,754,131 was paid as pension supplements, as at March 31, 1976 there were 108,598 recipients of pension increases.
3.	(a) $76,315,286; (b) $129,564,865.

1977-78 ESTIMATES


Mr. Herbert: 1. In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Canadian International Development Agency, of the $2,558,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2; In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?


Robert Knight Andras: Calculations are not made separately department by department for contributions to employee benefit plans. A single calculation is made centrally for all the employee benefit plan costs and then the departments are instructed to apply a common percentage for these costs to their salary provisions; the latter being a department by department calculation. The percentages and amounts for the three years in question were:
$ Millions
	1977-78	1976-77	1975-76
	Main Estimates Main Estimates		Expenditures
(13 per cent)	(10 per cent)	(9 per cent)Public Service Superannuation Supplementary Retirement	357.7	308.5	288.2Benefits	143.0	69.6	78.6Canada-Quebec Pension Plans	42.8	42.0	33.4Death Benefits	4.9	3.0	3.6Unemployment Insurance	64.2*	-	-Total	612.6	423.1	403.8
This item had previously been included in the estimates of Treasury Board.
The above answer applies to questions Nos. 2,094 to 2,142 inclusive which follow.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of the Environment, of the $31,126,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for
(a)	pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,095-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Labour, of the $2,028,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions
(b)	unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,096-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Justice, of the $3,681,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,097-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of Statistics Canada, of the $11,539,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

April 21, 1977


Question No. 2,098-Mr. Herbert:
1.	in the 1977-78 Estimates of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, of the $389,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,099-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, of the $8,084,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,100-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs, of the $15,450,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,101-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Treasury Board, of the $2,626,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,102-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Canadian Transport Commission, of the $2,297,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,103-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Transport, of the $48,117,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,104-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, of the $24,831,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,105-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Tariff Board, of the $141,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,106-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Finance-Insurance, of the $565,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 2,107-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Auditor General, of the $1,384,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,108-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Anti-Inflation Board, of the $1,571,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,109-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Finance, of the $1,939,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,110-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the International Joint Commission, of the $126,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,111-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of External Affairs, of the $7,060,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,112-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the National Energy Board, of the $1,005,908 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,113-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Atomic Energy Control Board, of the $534,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,114-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, of the $10,215,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,115-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, of the $6,477,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?
80012-29%

April 21, 1977
Order Paper Questions 
Question No. 2,116-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, of the $1,199,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,117-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Communications, of the $4,756,435 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,118-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, of the $26,285,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,119-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Canada Labour Relations Board, of the $279,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,120-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration, of the $28,817,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,121-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Immigration Appeal Board, of the $207,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,122-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, of the $246,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,123-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of National Defence, of the $65,608,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,124-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare, of the $20,635,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,125-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Medical Research Council, of the $101,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,126-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of National Revenue, of the $53,677,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,127-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Post Office Department, of the $120,629,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,128-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Public Works, of the $19,845,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,129-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, of the $5,237,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,130-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, of the $530,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,131-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the National Research Council, of the $8,480,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,132-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Science Council, of the $176,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,133-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of the Secretary of State, of the $7,312,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?
April 21, 1977


Question No. 2,134-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the National Film Board, of the $2,296,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,135-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the National Library, of the $962,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,136-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the National Museums, of the $2,387,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,137-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Public Archives, of the $1,349,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,138-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Public Service Commission, of the $7,410,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,139-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General, of the $666,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,140-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General- Correctional Services, of the $23,064,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,141-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, of the $5,582,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?

Question No. 2,142-Mr. Herbert:
1.	In the 1977-78 Estimates of the Department of Supply and Services, of the $11,525,000 listed as contributions to employee benefit plans, how much is for (a) pensions (b) unemployment insurance (c) other?
2.	In comparison to the (a) 1976-77 Estimates (b) 1975-76 expenditures, what are the percentage changes?
The Budget-Mr. Tessier


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a decision made to fingerprint a number of public servants and, if so (a) what is the highest level in the government responsible for the decision (b) what are the names and job designations of all involved in the decision (c) was the decision made by the Cabinet and, if so, on what date was it made (d) is there an Order-in-Council which set up the procedures being followed and, if so, what is its number and date (e) what are the reasons justifying the government's move to fingerprint (0 is it government policy to compile dossiers on the private lives of public servants including their fingerprints?
2.	Are public servants being required to complete personal history forms asking for numberous details of a highly personal nature?


Ralph Goodale: 1 and 2. Fingerprinting and completion of personal history forms are procedures which are required, and which received specific mention and explanation, in relation to the security screening arrangements outlined by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Chevrier, in the House of Commons on October 25, 1963. The procedures were not established by Order in Council.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): What was the total cost to the government of the Commission on Canadian Railway Pension Plans, headed by Dr. Noel Hall, which was appointed in 1974 and made its report in September 1976?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: The total cost of the Commission on Canadian Railway Pension Plans was $345,917.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, April 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday, I was just about to get to the main thrust of my speech after a short introduction.
First, I shall talk about agriculture and especially the latest dairy policy. In addition to the bill of $477 million that will be paid, Mr. Speaker, a principle of justice and equity will be

The Budget-Mr. Tessier
consecrated, and this is the merit of the 1977-78 dairy policy, that is that the poorer and less favoured in the system have now a means to protect themselves against the justice of the strong. And curiously enough, this fight that we have waged is a typical and also an illustration of the instruments of power in the House of Commons. Indeed, to do a good job as a member of parliament we must not only face the public service, but also win over it. Of course, the dairy policy includes elements which will be difficult to apply since there are many variables and virtually every producer has become a special case. However, the adjustments are essential and necessary and they are an integral part of the dairy policy. Beyond these adjustments, there are fights which are nearly institutionalized and which are damaging since they do not do anything to the producers themselves and tend to destroy the government. This last year has given important evidence of this. The producers have been used by certain manipulators. The rules of the games have been distorted either by personal interests or by conflicts of interest. When you add to all this the power, the dominating public servants, we can have the same type of situation as that which we witnessed during the milk crisis in 1976-77, because for the public service, the only rule that seems to apply is always to win as and when it wants to, whatever the price.
I would like to note that the results obtained at the announcement of the latest dairy policy were simply those expected more than a year ago, and I am still convinced that today's offer is reasonable without offering the minimum. However, it is far from the maximum mentioned by certain members, who act as the champions of the public service or the consumers.
I would not like to be unduly rash but I want to warn our opponents that if we deal with working conditions and remuneration, farmers will have a field day of it for many years to come. But if w.e place the milk issue in the narrower context of national unity or, to be more specific, the obscure corridor of profitable federalism, we have a situation like the one prevailing in Quebec where the government floundered or was "hoodwinked" all the way. The question is, who is to blame?
It is simply coincidence that Quebec happens to produce mainly industrial milk while Ontario produces fluid milk for the most part? Is it pure chance that Quebec has two milk producer federations, of which, the smaller appears to be the stronger, labour wise, while the federation of industrial milk producers, although six times as large, seems to be the weaker? Is it only by chance that Ontario has only one such federation strongly dominated by fluid milk producers? Is it a coincidence that the marketing board plays second fiddle to fluid milk producers? Who controls the Canadian Federation of milk producers? Who controls the Canadian Agriculture Federation? Who controlled and still does the Quebec Agricultural Producers' Union? What is the Department of Agriculture's stand with regards to the milk industry? How could it accept the iniquity and unfairness of the 1975-76 policy?

This policy cost industrial milk producers about $58 million, while industrial milk producers in Quebec had to pay out $34 million. Who could dispute that? Indeed, the quota system cost industrial milk producers some $30 million. The levy cost them $18,401,429. Industrial milk producers also had to pay out $9,570,260 in subsidies for a grand total of $57,971,689.
Such is the argument of those who claim that the industrial milk industry was being taken down by the fluid milk producers. But when Separatists got hold of this argument in Quebec, they accused the Federal government of stealing $35 million from them. No one has the right to rob Quebec, just as we do not have the right to let producers cheat one another. The Cabinet has understood this and so should the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).
We will keep fighting as we know that we have a just cause. We can only hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will find the means to help the other categories of producers in order to ensure for each of them a fair return for their work. Mr. Speaker, besides the problem of agriculture, there is another area in the 1977-78 budget which is of great concern to me, and that is industrial decentralization. And believe me, I am not seeking a theoretical definition but a declaration to the effect that industrial decentralization must be extended to our rural areas, as there are many regions where agriculture alone cannot generate a healthy and dynamic economy.
At the moment, the government does not have the appropriate means to deal with this and we shall have to find other ways, since it is our contention that the government is responsible not only for unemployment insurance but also and above all for work insurance and will always be. There is no point in reminding the House of the failure of the Regional Economic Expansion Department in its fight against regional disparities since it was on the whole a success, but now we need another instrument, to develop and secure the means to provide our rural areas with a prosperous economy which our people greatly need, not just to make ends meet but to live comfortably and grow.
In Quebec especially we have been hearing phrases such as: Let civil servants serve! Let students study! Let teachers teach! Let nurses nurse! Let workers work! But we have yet to hear: Let the unemployed remain unemployed! But unless there is a change it will be said and who will be responsible? If the government wants to avoid that, it must say right now: Let "industries produce"!
Let me refer for a moment to my experience as mayor of the municipality of Lake Megantic. Why should anyone with a little money send it down the drain, in the almost chaotic situation we now face, in an attempt to create jobs? Because the next day he is sure of nothing. Businessmen told me, and rightly so in my view: "We are ready to produce, we are even ready to work day and night, seven days a week if need be, because this is our job.
April 21, 1977

But one thing we are not ready to do, is build walls and roofs when there is a risk of not having workers to do the work, or work to give workers." The answer to that is: Let the government build walls and roofs for workers to work under, and let industries produce. Such is the way to induce and direct industrial decentralization and to give work to those who can and want to work.
Let me have $5 million for my constituency. More than 1,500 permanent jobs will be created and anyone will be able to see that such an initiative will be profitable to all Canadians. In this way, a sense of purpose will not only be restored but become accessible, and this is something we have all been waiting for. Thirdly, when reference is made to inflation, the spiralling wage increases, the productivity gap, even when such reference comes from the Minister of Finance, I wonder if anybody is listening. As for us, if we consider the matter more thoroughly, we become alarmist, especially in non-industrial-ized areas with low population, because it means an exodus or poverty but just the same, individually or as a whole, we are responsible.
Mr. Speaker, an assembly such as ours must face those facts daily but unfortunately they are not known outside the House as they should be. What is our responsibility in that regard? As a member, as a government or as a Parliament? Should we become salesmen? Mr. Speaker, the fact is that as long as we are here, we try to offer more than we can afford since our constituents can no longer pay. What should we do then? Let us reconsider together a new order for a new balance in Canada and afterwards let us sell it to our constituents.since the procedure is out-of-date and too many cannot make use of their aptitudes or their devotion. Energies and skills are wasted. The very credibility of Parliament is at stake, and the credulousness of our constituents is not to be taken advantage of any longer.
In summary, the budget speech is a perfect demonstration that members of parliament are no longer what they ought to be, for the only thing they can do is to ask, while Parliament has nothing left to give and they have the individual and collective obligation to refuse. Let us stop slighting our respective constituencies, for the times we are now living in are not for speeches, but for necessary action.
I remain convinced that I am more useful to my constituents at home and when they need me than when I try to have them believe that I can do something for them here in the House. They are honest with me, I need them to continue to be so and that is why I want to be honest with them.
We have therefore the duty to advise the public of the limits within which we operate. In this endeavour, we must try and do a good job. By way of a conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that if a budget did not hurt, it would not be a real budget. Of course, we are aware of a great many needs, and all of us are eager to find the way to meet these needs effectively; unfortunately we could not do it without writing a cheque, and the amount would be so great as to compel us to rationalize our expenses, limit our expectations, and even deny legitimate
The Budget-Mr. Fraser
demands, while trying to set up a new economic order for and by all Canadians.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to participate in the debate on the budget. As the labour critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I wish to address my attention primarily at the beginning to the remarks the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) made a few days ago in this debate. I refer especially to the following part of his speech as reported at page 4799 of Hansard:
I would like to come now to a point which is particularly important to me, that is, the co-operation among the major interest groups in the economy, those of the labour movement, business and industry, and consumer groups. We have to work out, on a voluntary basis, a process for consultation which will allow us to make the necessary adjustments to our current economic predicament and to prevent disastrous schisms between various elements of society.
My 14-point program on labour affairs is intended precisely to create a consultative council or forum which would provide facilities for bringing together representatives of the various sectors working together to diminish social conflict. The establishment of such a commission would be particularly useful in the difficult period through which we are now passing.
I suggest it is difficult for any hon. member to quarrel with the minister's objective. But I remind hon. members that the minister spoke this way some years ago. Largely as a result of his initiative, the Canada Labour Relations Council was established. The objectives of which the minister spoke were to be realized through the work of the council. But the Canadian Labour Relations Council became a defunct organization as soon as the government broke its commitment to labour that there would be no controls. It broke its commitments when it imposed controls some 18 months ago, after saying there would not be controls. Our labour people withdrew their participation in the Canada Labour Relations Council and also left the Economic Council of Canada.
What has been the result of all this? Attempts to bring various sectors of the economy together in some kind of consultative forum have been futile. Any such attempts made in the past months have failed, because of the policies espoused not just by the Minister of Labour but by the government generally. I say this advisedly and anyone examining recent history must concede that what I say is correct. We are living a year of change, something which is well recognized by that well known writer on labour matters, Ed Finn. In a column which appeared in the Toronto Star of January 3, 1977, Mr. Finn, who researches his subjects well, wrote in part:
The safest prediction is that 1977 will be a hectic bargaining year. No fewer than 630 major collective agreements-229 of them in the construction industry-will be expiring before year's end, covering more than one million workers.
In addition, about 250 sets of negotiations involving another half million employees have been carried over from 1976, and remain to be settled. So it shapes up as one of the busiest bargaining years on record.
Clearly, we have a difficult year before us. Although the government is to lift controls, it has established no mechanism for creating a climate in which we can disengage ourselves from controls without chaos. The reason for this situation is partly that the government flip-flopped on its position with regard to controls. Labour has no confidence in the government, but it must be confident that its views on the establish-
April 21, 1977

The Budget-Mr. Fraser
ment of a tripartite consultative arrangement will be accepted. Labour feels that some kind of consultative tripartite arrangement is essential if labour, government and industry are to know in which direction the economy is moving, how the economy is to be planned and how large a share of the economic pie will be available to the various sectors of our economic community. Mr. Finn went on to say in the article from which I quoted:
The CLC's proposal for a tripartite economic planning system is barely alive after a cold reception by business and government, and some back-peddling by union leaders themselves. If it is to have any hope of being considered seriously, it could only be in a climate of relative industrial peace.
It is important for members of the House, the business community and the labour community to know generally and understand well the aims of the CLC. Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members to cast their minds back to May of last year, to the time of the CLC manifesto. There was considerable legitimate concern in this country that proposals in the manifesto for a tripartite council which would report to government and have extensive decision-making powers were unacceptable in that they went beyond the scope of the parliamentary system.
My party's position on this was made very clear at the time. The position of other parties was also made clear by their spokesmen. That position as it was originally put forward was expressed clearly in a speech by Mr. Morris of the Canadian Labour Congress. Speaking to the Trade Union Congress in Great Britain on September 9 of last year he said this:
We also adopted a policy statement, called Labour's Manifesto for Canada, which determines the general orientation of our movement and calls for the creation of a tripartite decision-making body which would have powers to plan social and economic policy, control private and public investment and supervise national income redistribution.
If we are to understand labour's point of view, it is very important to recognize that for whatever the reasons the position taken originally in May of last year and on subsequent occasions has been very considerably modified by the Canadian Labour Congress. It is important to remember this because the concept of tripartism on a consultative basis is not nearly the ogre it has been painted by some people who may have looked at the Canadian Labour Congress manifesto but clearly have not been talking to people in the labour movement in the ensuing months.
It is appropriate to point out that Mr. Morris, President of the Canadian Labour Congress, in a speech to the Canadian Club on February 21, 1977, stated very clearly the present position of the CLC on tripartism. His words ought to be recorded in Hansard and considered by all hon. members. This is the position of the Canadian Labour Congress. I quote from page 4 of Mr. Morris' speech:
What the congress has proposed to the government and to Canada is a national council for social and economic planning in which the two partners in industry-labour and management-can meet to discuss and debate the major issues which confront them. The government would be invited to sit in, either in an observer capacity or to chair the meetings. The council would be mainly advisory and consultative in nature with an independent research group attached to it and under its direction. This would guarantee that the council would have a

life of its own and would not be captive to the massive flow of government statistics and information only.
The reason it is important to recognize the position of labour is that despite difficulties with the government, labour has been moving along with representatives of the business community to reach exactly what Mr. Morris was talking about in his speech.
It is of considerable interest to all hon. members, especially those on the government side, to recognize that on October 28, 1976, the Minister of Labour made a speech to the International Federation of Chemical and General Workers' Union in which he set out his own proposal for consultation. That proposal calls for a multipartite national forum which would bring together representatives of government, labour, business,the farm community and possibly others. This multipartite body would provide decision-makers in the industrial relations field with the documents, information and recommendations they need for making decisions that are in their own interest and in the public interest.
That national forum which the Minister of Labour has been putting forward as the first plank in his 14-point program has just not come about. One can ask why it has not come about, even though the minister keeps saying it is government policy. Part of the reason is that labour has said quite clearly to the government that it does not want to meet, at least in the initial stages, in a situation where it will be outnumbered, where labour will just be another voice in a multipartite meeting with representatives from all sorts of different interests within the Canadian community. Labour wants to get at the fundamentals that have to be faced by business, labour and government, not just with respect to the state of industrial relations but with respect to what is a fair and equitable approach to the economy of this country.
Questions have been asked in this House by myself and others for a number of weeks and months in an attempt to find out whether what the minister proposed as his national forum in October is still government policy. In answer to questions which I directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) he said what really amounts to this, "It is too early to talk about multipartite arrangements".
In an effort to try to find out whether the Minister of Labour is actually putting together any multipartite forum it is interesting to look at the chronology of events. On November 27 last I asked the minister who would compose this national forum. I asked if the minister could say whether the Canadian Labour Congress accepted the format on the national forum as he had set it out. The minister replied as follows:
We are not sure at this stage whether the type of forum we are suggesting-an alliance of various interests on an equal footing to discuss national problems- would be suitable to the business community or to labour.
That was on November 27, a full month after the minister had announced that his policy was to establish this national forum. He admitted that at that stage he did not have the agreement of labour. It is impossible to put anything together on a voluntary basis with labour unless there is acceptance of the format in which labour is to be asked to function. The
April 21, 1977

minister insists upon going on with this concept of a national forum although it is apparent that he cannot put it together.
On November 29 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was asked about this. He said at a meeting with representatives of the business community:
-but they were positive about participation in a multipartite group which would make it possible to have discussions and perhaps agreement on some of the major economic questions-
Of course, I was not at the meeting to which the minister referred, nor did I have any chance to be privy to the proceedings. However, if you talk to business leaders and businessmen it is quite clear there is no unanimity at the moment by the business community that at this stage, at least, they want to get involved in a national forum such as the minister has described. On December 3 another question was put to the Minister of Labour by myself. I asked:
-will the minister now please tell the House what other parties the government will be talking to, to whom he referred in his answers a few days ago and whether he has told labour what other parties he has in mind?
He was unable to set out what other parties he was referring to, he said:
We do not know whether there is going to be some real participation by, for instance, labour.
It is rather incredible that on October 28 government policy was set out by the minister calling for this national forum, and two months later he admitted he did not know whether labour would take advantage of it. I repeat, the minister will not be able to put together the national forum he talks about, which is the first plank in his 14-points program, unless he has the agreement and consent of labour. As I said before, from what I can learn from discussions with business leaders there is no way labour is going to sit down at a multipartite arrangement in which they do not have a significant role to play and are on some kind of equal basis with the other two partners with whom they are prepared to discuss the matter, that is, industry and government.
The minister made matters no better by his inept attack on the relationship between the Canadian Labour Congress and the New Democratic Party. It is no secret to anybody who has studied labour history that such a relationship exists. It is a special relationship. It has to be respected and, above all, it is not one which a minister of labour trying to seek the co-operation of labour ought to be attacking, ridiculing or using in any way to embarrass the very people with whom he must deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I notice that some members to my left support what I have said. Mr. Speaker, this relationship between the CLC and the NDP is one of the realities of life, and it amazes me that the Minister of Labour could be so insensitive, particularly at a time when it is necessary to arrange for accommodation and discussion, and that an attack on such partnership should be put into the mix.
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
I should like, now, to refer to another incident of the same kind. Following a meeting between labour, business representatives and the government a few weeks ago, some altogether unnecessary and unwise statements were made, primarily by the Minister of Finance. I have to be frank here and point out that the Minister of Labour was incorrectly quoted at the time. But the Minister of Finance said at the time that commitments had been received from labour leaders to speak out on the need for restraint. That was foolish, because such commitments had not been made and, of course, labour leaders immediately had to deny making statements of that kind.
It is easy to ask why no commitment had been made by labour leaders along these lines, but it will harm none of us to understand why there could not be any such commitment at that point. These men are executive officers of the CLC and they cannot walk out of a secret meeting and start to announce policy or concessions in advance of consultations with their unions. If a Minister of the Crown does not understand this, it is no wonder the government has difficulty in establishing rapport with labour representatives.
This is just one more incident in a series of inept actions over the last several years which have made it difficult to put together the results the minister says he wants to achieve. Whatever may be the result of this debate, it is necessary for government members to be much more careful and understand the situation better that they seem to. They must show themselves more sensitive toward politics in the labour family. They must understand that labour in Canada no longer wants to be brought to the railway committee room once a year to present a brief to the Prime Minister, be photographed with members of the cabinet and then told to go away for another 12 months. Nor, for that matter, do they want to carry on as they have in the past several years, speaking to the business sector through press releases and columns in the newspapers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


John Allen Fraser: I wonder if I might continue for a few moments, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: There was an order of the House yesterday that speeches would be limited to 20 minutes.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the budget debate, I would like to express my views as briefly and objectively but also as frankly as possible. Obviously, I have criticisms to make but also suggestions to present, which I consider as valid and which may help check this terrifying unemployment crisis which affects young workers particularly. I know that many industrialized countries are presently experiencing a very high rate of unemployment but merely stating that the economic situation is not better elsewhere will not solve our problems. We are living in Canada, it is our country which is in trouble. We must take up the challenge right here so that our vast and resourceful country
4870

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
can provide each Canadian with the opportunity to make an honest living.
Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to discuss the present budget without reference to money. Indeed, this year's budget, as the previous ones, is merely an alignment of figures representing dollars under two distinct headings, incoming and outgoing. I heard a backbencher on the government side a moment ago say that we keep repeating the same hackneyed phrases. If he thinks that his argument will change our approach when dealing with the shortcomings and flaws of our financial system, he is wrong. We take the same stand, because the government keeps making the same mistakes over and over again. To convince ourselves of this, all we have to do is read over the speeches of various ministers of finances, Messrs. Benson, Turner or Macdonald.
I remember among other things, Mr. Speaker, that one year Mr. Turner introduced an anti-inflation budget, at the risk, as he said, of increasing the unemployment rate, and, the following year, he presented a new budget which was supposed to fight unemployment, at the risk of fanning inflation. You need only read over his speeches to see that I am saying the truth.
As a result, Mr. Speaker, inflation kept increasing and so did unemployment, which proves the inefficiency of both systems. That is why I am saying there is no risk in trying the solutions proposed by the Social Credit of Canada, which consist, among other things, in financing the public sector through the Bank of Canada, granting a discount on Canadian products and a national dividend to every Canadian, in order to increase the family income, without having to increase retail prices to the consumer.
In refusing to tackle the situation, the government had to make compromises on both sides, on the right as well as on the left, and it does not seem to realize that a country cannot prosper, if there is not enough work for its industry and labour force, and if the national debt is constantly increasing to the benefit of finance companies, instead of using the national bank, which is in fact the people's bank, to meet its financial needs. I know that at times ministers chide members on this side of the House for accusing the government of spending too much and, in the same breath, for requesting increased funds for old age security, rebates on milk products and Canadian products, national dividends and pensions at 60 years of age.
As far as I am concerned, I blame the government for indebting the country for things we could now do without so as to have more money for more important sectors. I will give an example of that-the national debt service for which we will pay $700 million more this year. For the financial year 1976-77, we paid $4.65 billion in interest while this year we will be required to pay $5.35 billion.
I suggest that if the government were to regain control over credit money within the nation to finance the public sector, it would thus save a lot of money in interest which could be used for public works, for repairing and building wharves, for

improving municipal airports and for many other public facilities.
The Department of National Defence got an increase of $414 million; yet, we are not at war. To my mind, we would be well advised to take part of that amount to help finance the housing program which would create jobs while giving Canadians additional housing. The other part could be assigned to the Canada Works Program: many sponsors have been disappointed to see well-prepared and serious projects denied.
We must recognize the fact that mechanization and automation replace man. That has been proved. A few years ago, it was claimed that it had yet to be proved that the machine was replacing man. Learned economists told us that for a given production, a number equal to that of the men who lost their jobs to machines were being employed in manufacturing those machines. In other words, they claimed that the machine does not replace man but displace him only. With passing years, the capacity for material production increases. And in the meantime, fewer man-hours go into every unit of production, or expressed otherwise, there is more production to buy and lower total salaries to buy. That is one of the causes of unemployment.
The total salary can no longer buy the total production. Between the two, there is a difference which must be compensated. Various means are available to us to achieve this. First, an extensive program of public works aimed at providing jobs, therefore incomes, without necessarily producing consumer goods. Second, providing dividends to each and every Canadian would increase his purchasing power without raising prices and allow him to benefit from surpluses; and through a discount on all Canadian goods.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that we should finance consumption if we want our economic life to resume its normal course, and the domestic market is still the most stable one. As I was saying, there must be another income in addition to salary. Though labour unions may do their utmost to increase wages, they will never fill the void between the income earned and the total cost of production. Therefore, another solution must be found. Mankind has set up an incredible production system but it has yet to devise a fair distribution system. We must develop a new economic system to get our country out of the rut, and that is what I think the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) said earlier in his speech.
As regards private assets, we should invent another revenue for each Canadian by distributing new money based on the missing equivalent between the total value of products and the total value of wages. Major Douglas proposes as a solution the national dividend and the discount.
As regards public assets, we will have to answer yes to the four following questions: Are those works necessary? Do we have the material to execute them? Do we have the required labour? Do we have the equipment to help the workers in their job? If we can give an affirmative answer to those questions, we will have to execute the work without asking ourselves whether we have the money. Money should be immediately available through new votes, not borrowed from the private

sector. I suggest that Canada should have its own merchant marine. That is another honest suggestion I am making to the government. We already have shipyards, as well as workers capable of building very good ships. We could therefore orient ourselves gradually in that direction. At the present time, our country pays subsidies to our shipyards which build ships for foreign countries, and that, in order to give work to our people. Why not use that money to build ourselves a good merchant marine?
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to share another idea with the government; it seems quite feasible to me and would improve things in several regards. I know there are people who will be startled when they read this, but I could not care less because even Pasteur, when he gave mankind his formula for pasteurization, was scoffed at; yet, today, everyone uses it.
Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that we have fairly severe winters and that the snow is usually quite abundant, especially in eastern Quebec, consequently road maintenance is very costly since snow must be removed to facilitate the use of motor vehicles. Because of our climate, the cost of road construction is very high and every possible means should be taken to ensure that roads are properly built in order to lower maintenance costs. Mr. Speaker, I have noticed while driving on the highway in winter that trees along the road make for much less drifting, less snow on the pavement and much safer driving.
Since highways come under provincial jurisdiction, I suggest that the federal government submit to the provinces a joint plan to plant trees along completed highways like the trans-Canada highway. When those trees have reached a certain height, not only will they be a pleasing sight, but hopefully they will help, first, to reduce maintenance costs. Second, with less snow on the roadway, visibility will be improved since the trees will reduce drifting, and there is every reason to believe that there would be fewer accidents, and then insurance rates could go down. Fewer accidents causing costly material damages would obviously result in lower transportation costs which would help small and medium-sized business in outlying areas to compete with businesses in large centres.
1 am thinking, Mr. Speaker, especially of the south shore and the far eastern part of Quebec, as well as of the Mari-times. God knows that we have trouble setting up and maintaining industries to provide employment in these areas of high unemployment. Third, this tree planting program along highways would help create summer jobs for students and for a number of other workers who have trouble finding jobs. It would also be a worthwhile project from which the people would benefit eventually. Fourth, since trees serve two other major purposes in nature, it is advisable, in my opinion, that young people be aware of this so that they may contribute to their protection and ensure their development.
It is a known fact that tree roots make some kind of natural filter and improve the quality of water. Woods and trees also help to maintain the underground water at a higher level.
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
Many communities are now faced with a shortage of drinking water and that it costs millions of dollars to lay down water-pipes often over very long distances. Tree-cutting and drainage lower the water level.
Fifth, since we use pollutants for road maintenance in winter, tree planting along the roads would also fight the pollution caused by such chemicals. Mr. Speaker, I feel that for all these reasons, the government should seriously consider this suggestion and try to implement it starting with the areas most affected by severe winter weather conditions.
Since private enterprise is unable to take care of all the labour available and it is very bad for a developing country like Canada to have one million unemployed, it is therefore the government's duty to step in and carry out worthwhile public works. Let us keep in mind the proverb: Idleness is the root of all evil. Now, evil can only be rooted out through the wise use of human resources, and the oldest formula known to date is work. I feel that when the entire population will be put to work, we shall need fewer jails. And it would be a saving as it costs $15,000 a year for each inmate. There would also be fewer nervous breakdowns caused to many people by a lack of revenue to meet their needs. It would also help reduce hospitalization costs as it is generally recognized that work is a good health factor. Hon. members who are working very hard are in good health.
It is also through work that we can boost our gross national product on which our monetary system is based, for it rather than gold determines the real value of our currency. The government should not increase only the gross national debt. It should also expand the gross national production and raise the revenues of the working class. Low income earners are the main victims of inflation and unemployment.
To come back to our gross national debt, it climbs discouragingly but nobody seems overly concerned. According to an official document tabled in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, we can see that this debt on March 31, 1968 was $42 billion, $78 billion in 1975, close to $89 billion in 1976-almost $4,000 per capita. Think about it, a jump of $46 billion over an eight year period. No wonder the 1977-78 budget sets aside over $5 billion for interests, more than $16 million a day.
Mr. Speaker, such is the result of a broken down and obsolete financial system. Canada has an urgent need for leaders able to fight the financial dictatorship. This dictatorship is the main cause of all our national economic difficulties. This government should officially answer the following question before Parliament: Who creates our Canadian money supply, the government of private banks? If the government makes all our monetary stock as many people believe, why does it borrow from private sources billion of dollars on which it pays interest?
In a speech before the Union commerciale mauricienne in November 1959, former minister of finance Donald Fleming said this: I want to emphasize that the Canadian government has absolutely no control over our money supply. It can neither increase nor reduce it. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very clear
80012-30'/2

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. A. Lambert
recognition by the government that it has surrendered that important responsibility to financial institutions. I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are preparing to inform me that my time has expired, but if you will allow me to continue, I have very interesting things to say to the House which, I think, will not waste its time. So, I was saying that as early as 1931-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I still want things to be in order. Yesterday an agreement was reached under which it was not clearly established whether the hon. member would have 20, 22 or 30 minutes. I am therefore willing to ignore the clock for a minute or two, hoping that he will stay within 20 or 30 minutes, which will be agreeable to all other members who also want to speak before 9.45 p.m.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I thank the Chair and all my colleagues. I once said that we could speak more rapidly and I want to repeat that it is possible. But since the standing orders did allow more time, I acted accordingly and this is why I would like to finish very briefly.
I said a while ago that as early as 1931-quite before our time-Pope Pius XI had denounced the financial dictatorship in the following terms: Those who control credit somewhat control the economic blood of the nation so that without their permission it is impossible to breathe. This is still true today. When we advocate a monetary and financial reform, financiers say that it is quite a complicated field, that it has never been done elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is not worthy of a Canadian to show suh an inferiority complex. We must have the courage to innovate in that field. After all, we are not monkeys, as the late Real Caouette used to say. He was brave enough to be true to himself without aping others. If he were here today, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that he would openly advocate the same reforms with the same courage.
Last December I pledged in the House to remain faithful to the principles of Social Credit and to the memory of Real Caouette and till someone comes up with a better formula ensuring a more equitable distribution, I shall fight for the ideals for which that great Canadian, Real Caouette, fought all his life. There was no atomic bomb at the outset of the war in 1939, yet atoms exist since the beginning of time. They tackled the problem and after six years, finally produced the first A bomb. They decided to do it, yet it was harder to bring about than the monetary reform we are advocating.
Armstrong was the first man on the moon, yet it presented more problems than the reform of our monetary and financial systems so that they serve the people and not the other way around. Armstrong did not say: Nobody went there before, so neither will I. He accepted the challenge and went.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I deplore the fact that the 1977-78 budget does not provide an income tax cut for small wage earners while this category is hardest hit by inflation. We must keep in mind that inflation is the rightful heir to the current financial system before which the government bows down low, while Canadians bear its consequences.
In conclusion, once more I urge all those listening tonight and those who will read these words to assume their respon-

sibilities, some of which are considerable, and fill the mission for which they were elected, that is to exercise the right to govern for the common good of all by acting as impartial referees to protect the meek. It is the only way, Mr. Speaker, to save our democracy. Let us act while there is still time. That is the watchword I wanted to give my colleagues so that together we examine closely the question of financing the public sector and if we resolve to propose solutions, the government and all hon. members will certainly rejoice along with the entire population because, by so doing, we will check inflation and enable all Canadians who have enough guts to want to work, to find a job and be productive.
That is what the people of our country expect from members of parliament, and I hope that in the following days we shall set to work seriously and get something done to stand up against those financial institutions whose only goal is to make profits, instead of serving the public seriously.


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on a day of such profound and positive political excitement I know a speech on the budget will probably lack the kind of attraction for public notice that would ordinarily be the case, judging from some of the speeches we heard this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell us what you really think of the budget.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: I think it will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that several objectives of the government's economic policy as enunciated by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), in his address and supported by specific budgetary measures, are also related to proposed changes to competition policy in Bill C-42.
The minister pointed out that the recent decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, partly reflecting lower interest rates in Canada, can be of benefit to Canadian firms by helping them to offset high costs. The change in the exchange rate will provide them with new opportunities to compete with now higher-priced imports at home and high prices in markets abroad. The Minister of Finance noted that these benefits are ours to seize, but only if we keep our domestic costs and prices firmly in check. This is where an important contribution can be made by the proposed amendments to the law on competition which I introduced in the House a month ago.
There are too many industries in Canada which have been able to pursue, as a traditional pricing strategy, the adoption of the U.S. price, plus the tariff, plus transportation costs in establishing the going price in Canada. If such industries now do not strongly resist cost increases, they will quickly dissipate the advantage which the decline in the value of the dollar has provided. It is my belief that industries in which competition is not very vigorous are less likely to resist cost increases because they can anticipate the passing on of such increases to buyers without too much trouble. The strengthened Competition Act
April 21, 1977

will encourage more effective competition, which can be expected to make the passing on of cost increases more difficult.
Bill C-42 takes account of the need to improve the competitive position of Canadian industry at home and abroad in specific ways. Under the provisions of the bill, mergers which are seriously anti-competitive will be blocked, but mergers which are likely to bring about substantial gains in efficiency will not be prohibited by the competition board where any anti-competitive effects fall short of virtual monopoly.
Even where a virtual monopoly is likely to result, the board may still permit the merger to proceed, to take advantage of the efficiency gains, provided suitable safeguards can be prescribed. In addition, specialization agreements may be permitted, either absolutely or conditionally, where otherwise unobtainable substantial gains in efficiency are likely. Similarly, the broadening and clarification of the export exemption should remove the fears of businessmen about entering into export agreements, to our benefit as a trading nation. Thus, the investment incentives offered business by this budget, along with the opportunities for both increased exportation and import substitution afforded by the decline in the value of the Canadian dollar, are reinforced by direct government encouragement of, and support for, enhanced efficiency.
Of course, opportunities for exports and access to needed imports can be frustrated by international cartels or allocation of world markets between affiliates of multinational enterprises. No budget measure can easily deal with these restraints. Competition policy can, however, proscribe such practices and Bill C-42 contains several provisions of this kind. Canadian firms participating directly in international conspiracies, if they account for half or more of domestic production or supply of the product involved, are to be subject to criminal prosecution.
In the case of agreements or communications between a Canadian firm and a foreign affiliate to restrict imports into, or exports from, Canada for the purpose of protecting price levels here or abroad, the competition board may prohibit the agreement or the implementation of the communication whenever the Canadian firm accounts for 25 per cent or more of domestic production or supply of the product involved.
These and other measures are designed to protect Canadian production and employment from artificial restraints on exports and Canadian consumers from exploitation by artificial restraints on imports. They are a Canadian contribution to the international effort directed against private restrictions on world trade, and thus to the goal of a freer world trading environment cited by the Minister of Finance.
Another feature of the budget is to make changes affecting the financing of small business. Certainly, tax policies affect their efficiency and ability to compete, and I welcome the changes introduced by my colleague. Also affecting competitive relationships in the market, the amendments to the combines act are of paramount importance. The strengthening of the conspiracy provisions dealing with price fixing and market sharing as a result of the stage one revisions of the combines
The Budget-Mr. Abbott
act will provide the small businessman with more assurance than he had previously of being able to buy in competitive markets.
Likewise, the strengthening of the provision on price maintenance means that the small businessman will be protected from any attempt by suppliers to assert control over his pricing policy. Under the "refusal to deal" provisions of state one the small businessman has some recourse when he is refused supply of a commodity or service because of the non-competitive or monopolistic character of the supplying industry.
The further strengthening of the competition law proposed in the stage two legislation -will play an important role in protecting small and medium-sized businesses in Canada from anti-competitive practices of larger firms which possess market power. The stage two proposals should improve significantly the business environment in which small and medium-sized businesses operate. They will do this by removing or reducing artificial barriers which block or inhibit small firms from either expanding in the market or entering new businesses as effective competitors.
The purpose of the legislation is to encourage a flexible and dynamic economy in which the decisions about whether businesses will succeed are made to the greatest extent possible by the market and not by firms or groups of firms seeking to protect the status quo as expressed in their market shares. Any firm, whether small or large, that has a better product or a better way of doing business should not fail because artificial barriers to competition have inhibited its ability to offer its products for sale in the Canadian marketplace. There are many Canadian industries in which a small number of large firms account for a very high proportion of the total output and sales of the industry, and this makes the stage two proposals of particular importance for small and medium-sized firms.
My colleague also noted that control of government spending is an integral part of our anti-inflation policies, providing room for the growth of business investment and job creation. The measures in Bill C-42 which I have already mentioned also stimulate job creation by promoting efficiency in private industry, thus increasing employment through improved competitiveness. Another feature of the bill also makes a contribution to our anti-inflation efforts-the provisions concerning regulated conduct.
Just as we seek to control government spending, we seek here to limit the scope of regulation to what is necessary and to promote as far as possible the principles of allocative efficiency and competition in areas under federal regulation. The criteria proposed in the bill for conferring an exemption from the combines act on persons subject to regulation all serve to impose public accountability on public monopolies. Moreover, the requirement that federal regulatory agencies exercise their powers, when alternatives exist, in the manner least restrictive of competition will respond to the criticism that government

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Abbott
regulation has suppressed market processes and has sometimes been a significant cause of inflation.
[ Translation]
It is no coincidence if the budget proposals and the provisions of the competition bill complete and strengthen one another. This is the result, not only of the policy, but of the economic strategy the government is putting forward. In an editorial, Claude Ryan referred to Bill C-42 in Le Devoir of 17 March as " ... one with the most far-reaching consequences, and one that most clearly reflects the government's plans for the economy".
Complete freedom of action without rules is the fastest way for the powerful to swallow the weak. Such spiralling concentration is soon detrimental to the public interest. On the other hand, because of our small Canadian markets, we must allow for concentration of economic power for the purpose of achieving economies of scale and offering more goods of higher quality. This also allows Canadian companies to be more competitive on world markets and therefore to employ more people and produce more goods.
These two aspects of our economic life can be controlled by a set of government measures. Both the competition policy and the fiscal and monetary policy fit into that framework. Here is how Mr. Ryan describes the situation: "There is quite a number of tools available to governments to meet the problem. From income tax through the various specialized regulating bodies to the increasing forms of government involvement as an entrepreneur, there is quite a number of initiatives governments use to limit the excessive lust for economic power felt by many groups, and foster a more equitable distribution of wealth than the market forces alone would permit. In this gamut, there is a special place for measures to harness more directly the economic power such as in our current Combines Investigation Act."

Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions I have spoken of my department's overriding concern with the effectiveness of the market and its capacity to meet the needs and aspirations of producers and consumers alike. From this vantage point I am extremely sensitive to the personal hardship and the very serious long-term damage that can be wrought by uncontrolled inflationary pressures. The budgetary address by my colleague indicates a clear awareness of these dangers and a recognition of the vital importance of prudent economic management. Canadian consumers will certainly share in the benefits that accrue from this policy approach. They will benefit, as well, from the tariff adjustments announced in the budget which support this government's over-all pursuit of a more liberal trading environment.
In considering the budget measures we should take account of the fact that they are only one facet of government economic policy, a vitally important one, to be sure, but requiring help from and co-ordination with numerous other aspects. I am pleased to speak in support of them today, and I am equally pleased to be able to reinforce them with strong legislation
[Mr. Abbott.)
standing in my name. I commend them to the House for its consideration.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will address myself to what in my view is the maladministration of the revenue side of the government. My colleagues have dealt with the budget generally, pitiful document that it is, and how it fails to fulfil the needs of Canadians. I have just 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker. I was not here yesterday, and if I had been I would not have given unanimous consent to restricting speeches to 20 minutes. It is an outrage that when you are absent from this place-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member does not have the right to criticize decisions of the House of which he is a member. All hon. members are supposed to be in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I may not have the right to criticize actions of the House, but surely I can express my opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot express his opinions on a decision that has been made by the House. He will find that out quickly if he reads the rules.


John Carnell Crosbie: Then I will express it outside the chamber, Mr. Speaker. In any event, I only have 20 minutes to speak and not 45 as I had anticipated.


An hon. Member:: Thank God.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is supposed to be a document of the government of the just society, and I want to examine one area of that government's administration to see how just it is to society. There are 8,930,000 taxpayers in Canada, people who paid personal income tax in 1974. In my view, this government has failed to collect income tax fairly, efficiently and with impartiality as the facts that I will recite will show. In 1976, at the end of March, the government collected in excess of $17 billion in income tax from individuals from across Canada; eight million people paid income tax.
I have here a document put out by the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin), entitled "Inside Taxation". This document is well put together and reads well. I should like to read from page 34 where it is stated that in the year ended March 31, 1976, the department issued close to 11.5 million notices of assessment. In the same period, approximately 13,500 notices of objection were received with about 93 per cent of them being settled without litigation. The Department of Justice, tax litigation section, is responsible for providing all legal services and advice required by the appeals branch in disposing of notices of objection, in appeals to the tax review board, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada.
April 21, 1977

What I am going to say relates to the Department of Justice and the Department of National Revenue. On page 28 we are informed that forceful procedures are available to taxation collectors to use against those taxpayers who do not pay voluntarily, and that taxes are collected by means of wage garnishments from other income or bank deposits or through the seizure and sale of assets, or both. That is the principle that this document gives. It goes on to say that during appeal periods the amount assessed must be paid, whether or not there is an objection or appeal outstanding. Whether or not you appeal, whether you object or not, you have to pay your taxes and the interest.
In certain circumstances the department may accept collateral security for the amount of a debt until the issue is resolved. In my experience, the collateral security is a bond from a bonding company fully covering the amount that the department claims is owing in interest and penalties. That is what the ordinary taxpayer has to observe-that is what the people whom I have come across in my practice as a lawyer, have to observe. Why is one particular taxpayer in Canada allowed to get away without observing these rules? That is what I am going to deal with today.
On March 31, 1977, Mr. Speaker, there were nine appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada dealing with the Income Tax Act waiting for a hearing, and one appeal waiting for a judgment. So there were ten appeals from taxpayers before the Supreme Court of Canada. There were 77 appeals before the Federal Court of Appeal; 66 waiting for hearings, two waiting for judgments, and in nine the judgments were given but they were waiting for the appeal time limit to expire. There were 77 cases before the Federal Court of Appeal, 671 cases before the Federal Court of Canada, and ten cases before the Supreme Court of Canada, for a total of 758 cases.
One of the appeals before the Supreme Court of Canada has been there since October, 1970, without anything being done about it. It want to know why seven years should be allowed to go after a notice of appeal was given in the Supreme Court of Canada by John Christopher Doyle and yet the Crown has not proceeded or forced him to proceed, or asked the court to dismiss the appeal. I want to know why some $4.5 million should be owing to the government in income tax, penalties and interest, and still be unpaid. These appeals deal with the taxation years 1950 and 1954-27 and 23 years ago.
This matter went before the Income Tax Appeal Board in 1967. The taxpayer lost his appeal. He then took it to the Exchequer Court of Canada in 1970 when Mr. Justice Gibson brought down judgment in two appeals which are on the public record-Doyle v. M.N.R. (1970) Dominion Tax Cases, page 6251, which relates to the income tax year 1950 and held that $200,000 had to be added to his income for that year. Mr. Justice Gibson of the Exchequer Court dismissed the appeal. In 1970 Dominion Tax Cases, page 6262, Doyle vs M.N.R. relating to 1954 income, Mr. Justice Gibson held that $2,080,000 had to be added to the taxpayer's income for that year and tax had to be paid on that amount. His income had previously
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
been seen to be $198,173. The reassessed tax was $1,859,000. Sixteen years after 1954, judgment was delivered, on June 29, 1970.
That was bad enough, Mr. Speaker, but the next thing that happened was that leave to appeal was applied for and granted in October, 1970 six years and eight months ago. The relevant file is Supreme Court No. 12028/9. Every year since-and certainly this happened last year-the taxpayer has applied to the Supreme Court for his case to be taken off the list, and representatives of the Department of National Revenue have concurred. What is going on, Mr. Speaker? This would not happen for you or me, so what are the exceptional circumstances here?
John Christopher Doyle is a fugitive from justice in Canada and in the United States. He has control of a Canadian company incorporated under the Federal Corporation Tax Act known as Canadian Javelin Limited. He owns 18.2 per cent of the shares of that company, which gives him control because the other shares are widely distributed. For 25 years he has despoiled that company despite the best efforts of the Securities Exchange Commission and others to stop him. The company has been raped repeatedly. The Canadian authorities have failed to act to protect the shareholders. There are some
30.000	shareholders altogether, some 65 per cent of them being American. Mr. Doyle has 1,319,000 shares of Canadian Javelin Limited, and the public record shows that the government holds 125,000 of those shares for the income tax owed to the government. As far as I know, Mr. Doyle has been allowed to vote those shares down through the years to help him keep control of the company he is despoiling.
In 1965 the government issued a writ of extent against Canadian Javelin Limited presumably for the moneys it owed to Mr. Doyle, or to inform the company that they should not pay such moneys to him but should pay them to the Crown, against this judgment. Canadian Javelin Limited ignored these attachments. The company's records show that it is contingently liable for $525,055 which it paid to Mr. Doyle despite the writ of extent.
What else happened in connection with this feeble attempt by the Government of Canada to collect the moneys owing to it and get some security? Apparently they did not get the other
1.319.000	shares that Mr. Doyle owned, although he was in Canada all during that period. He is not here now but is a fugitive from justice. To get around the injunction that Canadian Javelin Limited should not pay him any moneys, he set up a company in the Bahamas called Javelin Export Limited. This company performed so-called consultant services for Canadian Javelin Limited. The sequence is that Canadian Javelin Limited pays Javelin Export Limited for these services, and in turn it pays Mr. Doyle. But Mr. Doyle is not paying a cent in Canadian taxes today, and has not paid for years. Using that simple device, he is receiving income from a Canadian company which receives most of its income from the Wabysh Mine Iron Ore Company's property in Labrador.
The government is standing by, is sitting by, is slinking by, and has slunk by for the last 14 years, allowing this to go on.

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
This calls for an explanation, Mr. Speaker, and we have not received one. I put a question on the order paper on February 8; I put a question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) early in February; I wrote to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) on March 23, 1977, informing them of this situation, but I have not had an answer from anyone. I am not going to let this drop, Mr. Speaker; I do not see why I should. Why should one taxpayer, and he a fugitive from justice, be allowed this 16-year leeway by the Liberal government? There is misfeasance, malfeasance, or some kind of feasance involved here, Mr. Speaker.
I am only getting warmed up, Mr. Speaker, but I see time is passing and there is a lot more information to come yet.
On February 8 this year I put a question on the order paper. On February 10 Mr. Doyle's appeal was again removed from the Supreme Court registry at the request of his solicitor, and neither the Department of National Revenue nor the Department of Justice did anything about that. What is going on here, Mr. Speaker? Why should the taxpayers of Canada pay up and have their arms twisted, and perhaps have the bailiff sent into their homes and their assets seized, yet one man is allowed to get away with this?
I have not got time to go into the machinations of Canadian Javelin Limited, Mr. Speaker, but they would shock the House. Its shares were once worth $18 each, but they have been delisted from stock exchanges. Trading in them has been suspended, and according to last trading reports those shares were worth $1.55 each, in Canada. That has happened because of the despoliation of the company by Mr. Doyle and his group. Therefore the 125,000 shares the government holds as security have declined in value from $18 each to $1.55. Does this not show negligence? Does this not demand an explanation?
In 1974 Mr. Doyle was paid $118,750 by Javelin Export Limited, which got the money from Canadian Javelin Limited. In 1975 he was paid $100,600 by the Javelin Export Company, which got the money from Canadian Javelin. Mr. Speaker, all these transactions make a mockery of our laws. He was paid down in the Bahamas, where he pays no income tax. That gentleman at one time was a Canadian citizen, but I am informed that he is going to become or has become a Panamanian citizen. He has taken out those papers to have a better chance of not being extradited to Canada for the offences with which he is charged. He has not been in Canada for several years. He has paid no Canadian taxes, and either is or is about to become a citizen of Panama.
What is the answer? The two ministers to whom I wrote have not told me why the Department of Justice and the Department of National Revenue have been so dilatory in this matter. Surely the government has enough lawyers with which to pursue this matter quickly. The government employs enough lawyers to fill this House ten times. Why did the Minister of National Revenue or her representatives agree to

the postponement of the appeal? Surely if the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Revenue were doing their job properly they would instruct their lawyers to ask the Supreme Court of Canada to tell the appellant to bring forward his factum and have his appeal heard, or have the appeal dismissed altogether. That way the process would be over.


John R. Rodriguez: Right on.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why has the government not taken other steps to secure its investment? Why was not Mr. Doyle asked to pay income tax and the interest penalty back in 1954, 1967, 1970, 1971, 1975, or 1976?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is a scandal.


John Carnell Crosbie: This matter cries out for investigation, Mr. Speaker. Why was Mr. Doyle allowed to get away with his transparent devices? Mr. Doyle carries on, on his merry way; he does not have to obey Canadian law, criminal or civil. But he goes on taking his moneys out, not paying Canadian tax, nor even paying tax for those two particular years previously mentioned.
I do not have time to recount everything that has happened in connection with Canadian Javelin Limited. But their carryings-on would open your eyes. You would be astonished to note what has happened to the assets of that company. Most of the company's revenue has come from the iron ore deposits of Labrador. And, Mr. Speaker, there was $3,900,000 paid out for a worthless piece of paper to a company in Lichtenstein by Canadian Javelin Limited. The Lichtenstein company called, I think, Society Trans-shipping, got a letter from the then premier of Newfoundland saying they had 10,000 square miles of timber rights. In law that letter was not worth one iota, jot or tittle. The company had no right to that timber.
That letter was sold by Society Trans-shipping of Lichtenstein to Canadian Javelin Limited for more than $3,900,000. The money was taken out of the company. And we do not know who Society Trans-shipping of Lichtenstein is. Mr. Speaker, the amount paid was $3,997,500.


John R. Rodriguez: Bring it up with Tony Abbott.


John Carnell Crosbie: On May 21, 1976, Mr. Doyle's lawyer in Nassau sent a letter to Canadian Javelin Limited saying that he was owed $3,278,000 by Canadian Javelin, that being income Javelin Export had promised him. That was the amount Javelin Export had promised him over the years. Apparently Canadian Javelin owed the money to Javelin Export. In any event this money, according to the lawyer, was owing to Mr. Doyle. That was another method of getting more money out of Canadian Javelin Limited, on none of which Mr. Doyle intended to pay Canadian taxes.
Despite all the money which has been pouring into the company, Canadian Javelin has not paid its shareholders a dividend for ten years. I say it is time the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) acted to protect the
April 21, 1977


COMMQNS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
shareholders of the company by appointing a receiver. The minister should have the assets of the company frozen and appoint a receiver to look after Canadian Javelin Limited to protect what is left of the company, and to protect the 30,000 odd shareholders and creditors of that company. If the minister does not have the power now to do it, this House ought to give him the power. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrageous, tragic, terrible situation and should not be allowed to go unchallenged under Canadian law. After all the company was incorporated under Canadian companies legislation. It is disgraceful that a director of that company should be able to take money out of Canada year after year without paying tax. The writ the federal government issued in 1965 is of no purpose or use whatsoever.
An hon. Member:: Apparently the hon. member has corrected a number of things on the record.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, I have corrected a number of things. I am asking the government now to correct a few matters in the administration of the Department of National Revenue. Let us see that justice is done. I should like the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Justice to tell this House what they propose to do about this situation. I want the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to show us some teeth in Canadian corporate laws. The Securities and Exchange Commission of the United States is trying to remedy this situation. It has taken civil action.


John R. Rodriguez: What's the matter, then, with our government?


John Carnell Crosbie: But in this country no action at all has been taken. A group of directors of Canadian Javelin Limited not under Mr. Doyle's control acquired control of the company for a six-month period last year and instituted remedial court action. They began to clean up the company. Unfortunately at a shareholders' meeting last summer where proxies were exercised, Mr. Doyle's group was voted back to power in the company. Once again Mr. Doyle appointed his puppet directors to the board of that company. Once again he controls the company, one member of the board being a member of the other place. The chairman of the board of directors is S. Fournier of the other place. As I say, that puppet board of directors once more controls Canadian Javelin.
The former board of directors instituted law suits involving millions of dollars. I do not know what has happened to those law suits. In the United States the Securities and Exchange Commission has instituted civil action. In this country we seem powerless to do anything. Why? Surely there is law covering the situation? I know there is. Mr. Speaker, I know that the powers exist under the Income Tax Act. The government's powers under the income tax legislation are savage. If the department feels you owe it any money, it can seize your assets and place attachments on your property without going through the courts. I have had some experience of this. They say that you must pay what you owe them, together with interest and penalty, before you can even proceed with your appeal.
The Budget-Mr. Crosbie
I am concerned about the protection of law abiding citizens who live and work in this country, and whose assets are here. Their families are here. Why was an international, corporate scallywag, who I do not think is a native born Canadian, allowed to fleece tens of thousands of United States and Canadian citizens? Why is he allowed to owe income tax from 1950, and from 1954? Why has this continued, despite judgments handed down by the Income Tax Appeal Board? And these judgments I might add, are slow enough in coming down.
The Income Tax Appeal Board was asked to rule 17 years after 1950 and 13 years after 1954. Three years later the Exchequer Court handed down its judgment. According to the court, the man in question owed over $3 million. Now the amount is over $4 million, if you include interest. And the government sits back and does nothing. What is wrong? I call on the Ministers of National Revenue, Justice, and Consumer and Corporate Affairs to provide the answer. Let them answer the question I have raised today. I have written about this matter to two ministers opposite. If this is to be a just society, if we are all forced to pay our taxes, if our constituents must pay taxes, if we must observe the laws of this country, I say that Mr. John Christopher Doyle, who for years-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but must inform him that his allotted time has expired. Of course he may continue with unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: No.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the last three occasions when I have spoken in this House, hon. gentlemen opposite have not seen fit to extend me the courtesy of a few more minutes of time in which to finish my speeches.
I note that the time of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) was extended for five minutes. I say this: as long as I am in the Chamber I will never consent to any hon. gentleman opposite speaking beyond his allotted time. They are a discourteous bunch, and ignorant.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In order to set the record straight on this question let me say that I was one of the first speakers in this debate to suffer yesterday from the agreement made, limiting speeches to 20 minutes. I wanted only a few more minutes in which to finish my speech but colleagues beside me vigorously said no, even though hon. members opposite probably would have allowed me to continue. The rule has been applied to all, no matter where they sit in this House. The 20 minute limit has been observed ever since the agreement was made yesterday.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Might I bring to the attention of the hon. member that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) was not given extended time by the House but by the Chair on account of the fact that the agreement accepted yesterday was not clear. The hon. member for Bellechasse had to seek 22 minutes. The parliamentary secretary suggested that he be allowed 30 minutes. The Acting Speaker asked for

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
unanimous consent for 20 minutes so the Chair could be fair to the hon. member, but after him I have to apply the rule of agreement which is 20 minutes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I assure members opposite they are not going to howl me down. I can get up on a point of order any time I want. Mr. Speaker will rule on that. I am not disputing your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am complaining of the rudeness of members opposite. I will reciprocate whenever I have the opportunity.


Mr. MacFarlane:: We won't have to worry; you are not here that much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, the budget speech delivered by the Minister of Finance on March 31, 1977 contains several measures aimed at restoring confidence in society and stimulating economic growth by promoting corporate investments. It provides more assistance to small and medium-sized businesses and to venture enterprises, and thus promotes job creation. The budget provides tax relief for Canadians most affected by the rising cost of living. It also contains other measures aimed at promoting regional growth.
The first matter I would like to deal with, Mr. Speaker, concerns tax relief for individuals. For the first time since taxation year 1972, Canadian workers were entitled to deduct as working expenses 3 per cent of their earnings up to $150. On several occasions in the past, like some of my colleagues no doubt, I urged the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and his predecessor to increase that amount.
The budget provides for a new maximum of $250.
This amount represents a tax reduction for the Canadian worker, but I should have liked a greater increase to cover more of the additional costs for transportation to the place of work, the purchase of tools, books, working outfits and what have you. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as soon as economic conditions will permit it, we shall look again into this matter, and that we shall not wait four or five years before doing so.
Moreover, income tax cuts have increased from 8 to 9 per cent, as a result of the new fiscal agreements with the provinces. These cuts vary from a $500 maximum to a $200 minimum, and thus favour taxpayers with low incomes. Effective in 1977, the taxpayer will be able to deduct also up to $50 for every dependent child under 18 years of age who is residing in Canada. For instance, the taxpayer with two children who is now entitled to a $350 tax cut, will be able to deduct an additional $100. The current $500 ceiling remains the same, so that this measure will mostly benefit the taxpayers with large families and low incomes. In 1977, with this change millions of Canadians should be able to save a total of $275 million in income tax.

Thanks to those new measures, a great many Canadians will also have a higher personal income. In some cases, they will no longer have to pay any federal income tax; that will be the case for the wage-earner with two dependent children and earning less than $7,360. The same will apply to a family man with four children whose income amounts to $8,295. Of course, many other categories of taxpayers will also benefit from a lower income tax.
Some hon. members of the opposition parties claim that the government should have done more to relieve the taxpayers. But no one has mentioned another decrease in income tax, which will amount to $900 million in 1977, as a result of indexing personal income tax. This plan which was approved by Parliament in 1973 and has been applied since tax year 1974, provides an annual increase in the main exemptions and personal deductions, as well as tax levels which take into account the variations in the cost of living index. As a result, taxpayers do not automatically reach a higher tax bracket merely as a result of inflationary pressures.
For instance, the basic personal exemption, which was $1,706 in 1974, will be $2,270 in 1977. The personal exemption of married couples for the same period increased from $1,492 to $1,990, and finally, the exemption allowed to elderly and disabled persons will now be $1,420 compared to $1,066 in 1974. Maximum exemptions for children increase from $320 and $586 in 1974, to $430 and $780 for the current year. All these changes in exemptions represent an increase of about 33 per cent. In 1976, tax indexing resulted in a $1.25 billion reduction in tax revenue. In another sector involving workers, Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance premiums in 1977 will decrease by approximately $250 million.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent to continue until the hon. member has concluded his 20 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have just heard the suggestion. It has also been brought to my attention that after the hon. member has completed his remarks, I should recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) and then call it six o'clock. Is it agreed that I do not see the clock until the hon. member has completed his remarks and I have given the floor to the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Gaston Clermont: As regards job creation, in the last budget the federal government injects an additional $100 million in the employment program, thus increasing to $660 for this year the appropriation for a comprehensive employment strategy by the government. Under this employment strategy, the new programs Canada Works and Young Canada Works will have
April 21, 1977

a major impact on job creation, but on the whole those are temporary jobs.
Let us be realistic. In order to reduce substantially the number of unemployed, the co-operation of all government levels, private industry and labour unions is required. I for one believe that the private sector is still in a better position to create the largest number of permanent jobs. We must create a favourable climate and in some cases offer incentives so that the private sector can produce at a cost which allows it to be competitive at the import level both on the domestic and the international markets. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, small and medium-sized businesses can play a very important role.
I welcomed the appointment of a Minister of State who would look exclusively after matters relating to small and medium-sized businesses. There are about 400,000 of them in Canada and this sector could play a very important part in creating new jobs. I read with interest the speech delivered on February 19, 1977 by the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), the Minister responsible for Small Businesses, to the Yellowknife Chamber of Commerce, when he said among other things that he would bring forward amendments to the Small Businesses Loans Act in order to make it more useful. This initiative is timely because the last amendments to this act go back to March 12, 1970, and those were only minor amendments.
Under this act, between January 1, 1976 and September 30, 1976, 3,783 loans were granted for a total amount of approximately $53,593,192. The Small Businesses Loans Act took effect in January 1961. From that date until the end of September 1976, a total of $452,453,213 was granted in loans, that is an average of $28 million a year, which means that this act was not fully used, and we should seriously wonder why, Mr. Speaker, because after all, its effects are spread over a period of 16 years.
Small businesses are faced with several problems, but I am going to mention two of them: working capital and management. It is often difficult for small businesses to find outside capital. They have no access to financial and monetary markets because of their size. Very often, banks are reluctant to loan them money either because the extent of their needs exceeds the duration of normal credits or because their financial situation and their profit-earning capacity do not meet the standards which apply to the regular reimbursement of the loan requested.
Mr. Speaker, I urged the Ministers of Finance and Industry, Trade and Commerce on several occasions to improve the existing legislation in order to help small industry. I hope the Minister of State reponsible for Small Businesses will amend the Small Businesses Loans Act, in order to prompt financial institutions such as banks, credit unions and other such institutions to finance small businesses at more favourable conditions than those offered their regular customers and that he will coordinate all the operations of departments and Crown corporations which are in a position to provide services to small businesses.
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
Someone will certainly say, Mr. Speaker, that many financial institutions in the private sector can help finance small businesses and that loan applicants turned down by these institutions can always go to the Federal Business Development Bank, which replaced the Industrial Development Bank in October 1975. The Federal Business Development Bank is a Crown corporation and, according to the mandate it received from the Canadian Parliament, it acts as a last recourse for loans for small businesses in Canada.
In certain sectors, it is even considered superfluous competition. I for one do not believe this to be true. According to the latest information given on February 24, 1977 to the members of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs by the chairman of the bank, Mr. Richard Murray, it provided financial assistance to 32,300 businesses and its liabilities totalled $1.4 billion. Others will say that its requirements for granting loans are still too strict. It seems that the bank has been more open in the last three or four years, but in my opinion its services are limited since it has only 88 branches in Canada, including 18 in Quebec. This is why it is very important for managers of small businesses to have local access to financing.
The Industrial Development Bank had an advisory management service which was much emphasized in November 1975 by the Federal Business Development Bank, under sections 21, 22 and 23 of the Act. The advisory management services of the bank come under three categories, which are management counselling, management training and information services. As concerns management counselling, the Federal Business Development Bank offers services through consultation with the business service, whose staff includes retired businessmen and businesswomen. In 1976, 3,600 requests were received for these services.
As concerns management training for small businesses, the bank offers seminars. In 1976, 13,000 people took part in such activities. Under its information services, the bank publishes a series of brochures entitled Your business is our business, which deal with various aspects of small business management. Some 472,800 copies were distributed free of charge in 1976.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that during the course of its consultations, the Federal Business Development Bank is only working on the surface considering the number of small businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to discuss another matter, that is the Neighbourhood Improvement Program under which the federal government can offer a wide range of subsidies and loans through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to encourage the upgrading of living conditions in neighbourhoods which otherwise would become unfit for living.
This program aims at encouraging and assisting efforts of municipalities which work in cooperation with residents of these neighbourhoods to improve the physical environment and develop social and recreative services. Implementation of this program is being done through agreements concluded between the government of Canada and each province. The provinces designate municipalities which can be part of that program and municipalities in turn select the neighbourhoods to be

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Clermont
improved. Within this program, the rehabilitation of existing homes is one of the main objectives considered by the federal government. As soon as a municipality starts implementing its Neighbourhood Improvement Program, local residents become eligible for loans and subsidies which can be granted for repairing and restoring their homes.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit two changes to the minister in charge of this program. The first one is that the present $10,000 maximum loan be increased and the second that the present $11,000 adjusted family income maximum be also increased for live-in owners. The reason we should raise these limits is that construction and repair costs are higher than they were, and so are the average wages of the people who could benefit from this program.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with a point which is very important for my area; it has to do with the economic revival of the private sector through the growth and the creation of new manufacturing and processing industries, which will give more job opportunities to the people of this area. It is more than ever a matter of urgency now that the federal government has decided to decentralize its administration in different parts of the country and also due to the lower increase in the number of civil servants.
It is a well-recognized fact that the federal government is a very large employer in the national capital area, although two-thirds of the working population are employed elsewhere. It can be expected that the civil service growth rate will not go unchecked. Here are certain indications to that effect: in 1973, 1974 and 1975, the growth rates in our area were 5.5, 5.6 and 6.8 per cent. The President of the Treasury Board forecasted a 1.3 per cent increase for the whole civil service in 1976, and his forecast for 1977 is 0.06 per cent. The Minister of Public Works of Canada announced that the federal government will not proceed with phases 6 and 7 of its Place du Portage building complex in Hull. We also know that current projections of the local building industry are not very promising.
In a talk to the Commercial and Industrial Development Corp. of Ottawa, NCC Chairman Pierre Juneau outlined the role the NCC might play in the future development and diversification of the private economic structure in the area, while coordinating its efforts with all groups in the area.
My colleague from Hull, Dr. Gaston Isabelle, and myself recently made representations to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), to the effect that the possibility should be considered of designating a special area that part of the Quebec side of the Ottawa area not currently included in such an area. In this way, existing companies wishing to expand and new companies wishing to locate here could receive both capital investment grants and make job grants. It will be remembered that when the new development agreement was signed between Canada and the province of Quebec on March 15, 1974, the Montreal-Hull corridor was not included. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I express the hope that everyone will cooperate for a new economic departure for our area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. I now recognize the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this budget debate with a speech that has been ready for some time. I would like to begin by referring to write-ins which I received during December and January from the beef industry in my constituency. This was rather an extraordinary set of letters. The number of individual post offices that mailed to me was surprising for this kind of write-in. It was an indication of the extreme concern felt by that branch of Canadian agriculture. They were protesting the low price of beef produced in Canada. They were protesting the volume of imports from other nations around the world that seemed to have very free access into this country.
The thing that struck me is that I have letters from Armstrong, Enderby, Grindrod, Lumby, Salmon Arm, Sicamous and Vernon on the Okanagan side. I also have letters from Brisco, Cranbrook, Elko, Fairmont Hot Springs, Fernie, Fort Steele, Golden, Grasmere, Harrogate, Invermere, Jaffray, Kimberley, Marysville, Sparwood, Spillimacheen, Ta Ta Creek, Wardner and Wycliffe on the Kootenay side. There are some time honoured names there and some historic names. There are some large communities and some small communities. In each there are individuals who were involved and still are involved in the beef industry.
The point I would like to make tonight is that that is an industry that traditionally should be an employer. It is an industry that is productive. It is an industry that is based on Canadian resources of land, grass and grain. It is an industry that is in desperate trouble at the present time. It is an industry that is, by and large, managed by self-employed. It should be an employer, particularly of young people and young people without too much skill. In the past it has been an employer of young people without too much education. But if you are going to be really successful in that industry now in terms of owning and managing, it requires a high degree of education and of skill. It should still, however, have room for people who like to work for a few years. It should have room for people who like to work outdoors and who may not have much education but who would be willing to work hard in

April 21, 1977

conditions that are sometimes difficult, but certainly exhilarating.
There is not an operation from this list of communities that is not getting along now with as few people as it possibly can. In many cases the operation has probably been reduced to family members and family members only, because of the difficulties of obtaining help, the cost of it, and because of all of the other crises and costs that beset that industry in a time when prices have reached lows that have not been since the depression years.
The budget promises very little to my province. It does allocate another $100 million to the Canada Works Program. That program was started this year, and that leaves me wondering about the competence of the government, about its direction and about the reason the Local Initiatives Program, which started out for local initiatives, was turned into a program for direct incentive job creation and was continued with a new name. It has been dressed up, but it will not be any more significant in attacking the problem of unemployment.
Projects under that program may have been good ideas when they started out, and I suspect they originated from the very successful centennial projects which were embarked upon in 1967. Under that program communities raised funds which were matched by the government, and a good many interesting things were done in that exciting year across Canada. That program was drawn up to meet a set of expectations. It had to be temporary, unplanned, spontaneous and local, and this produced some very interesting projects, particularly in my province, so interesting that in many ways they became a minor scandal. It was felt by a good portion of the population that public funds should not be handed out quite as indiscriminately as they were under that program.
Efforts were made to bring a little more inspection to the program. A scheme was devised by the minister then responsible to have members of parliament check the projects or set up constituency advisory groups to do that. That is a part of the policy with which I did not agree because it forced members of parliament, particularly opposition members, to be a party to the crime. It made hon. members on this side of the House, and I suppose hon. members opposite, part of a selection process, which would not have been necessary if the program had been redesigned.
There was another set of requirements as well because it was not desirable to build up a dependency, to have continuity, or to have too much organization. Certainly the one thing the program lacked most of all was co-ordination with existing agencies in the field, and particularly with government at the municipal, school board, parks board, or hospital board levels.
For two years I examined the projects which came to my constituency. Then in frustration a year ago I set up a constituency advisory group for the first time. I spent many hours last summer in my far flung constituency putting the group together, and eventually ten people met and helped to divide up the allocation.
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
I knew the allocation was going to be far less than the allocation of the previous year, and yet as I drove through the constituency last summer with my car radio on, I heard a flood of expensive advertizing urging people to apply. As I expected, when the first allocation came out we had only $459,000 to spread among almost as many applications as we had had the previous year when there was over $1 million to distribute. The constituency advisory group met, and I felt it did a good job with the limited amount it had. It had to make some rather stern decisions and impose a cut-off line.
In spite of one's co-operation, one never gets the job of sending out good news to the constituency. That is done by the program office. My job is to telephone the bad news to those who do not succeed. The telephone began to ring, and I replied to the callers that I would not overrule my constituency advisory group and that I would abide by its decision because I had set up the group to decide for me what I had been deciding during the previous two years. I more or less rode out that storm. Then to my surprise a second allocation of $683,000 was made, one and one half times the original allocation. We had something like four or five days in which to re-examine the applications which had been considered by the constituency advisory group.
There was no hope of calling that group back together. The people who worked with that group must have wondered why they had bothered in the first place because they eventually learned that the field worker, in consultation with me, divided up one and one half times as much money as they had divided up previously.
As we worked on that we heard that something new was in the works and that we were going to have a Canada Works Program. According to some of the initial advertising, the program in some ways would be an improvement over the Local Initiatives Program because we were told it would have continuity, it would be year round, there would not be drastic cut-off dates, it would be possible to get a project under way and there would not be as much difficulty finishing it within a hopeless deadline. We were told there would be the possibility of working in better weather than the weather we find in the dead of winter. We hoped that something better would come.
I honestly believed that there would be some breathing time and that the department would take about a year to re-think seriously what it was doing when it was turning local initiatives into job creation. I hoped that if it was serious about job creation, it might consider other ways of bringing it about.
It is no wonder that the Canadian Manufacturers Association in a brief just the other day had very little good to say about Canada Works or Local Initiatives. Canadian manufacturers should be the job creators at the present time. In far too many cases they are not because of various government restrictions. I am sure the people from the cattle industry who sent the mail-ins are not too happy about what has come about because although Canada Works is a re-named program, it has not changed.
Again there was a remarkable advertising program being broadcast. Even as manpower resources were strained to the

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Johnston
limit to spread that second LIP allocation around, and even before the application forms were out and before anyone knew what was really happening, there were cheerful voices on the radio. I listened to them again as I drove around my constituency. They were telling people to apply because there was lots of money available. They hinted that the amounts were far larger than they had been under the Local Initiatives Program. Colourful newspaper advertisements told people to call their municipal government and ask for a new firehall. We know how much it would cost to build a new firehall these days; yet it was suggested that the program would pretty well cover the cost.
Not surprisingly, in my constituency alone that advertising campaign drew applications the cost of which totalled $1,963,303. There is one thing about the statistics I am about to give; they are marvellously metric. When the allocation came it was one tenth of that amount, $190,000. A part of that was designated for Indian reservations, so the portion for the rest of the constituency was reduced by $46,000. I was curious, so I checked to find out how much the advertising for that program in my constituency cost. Marvellously metric again, over $19,000 was paid for advertising. That amount certainly would have helped to fund another application, and it would not have needed to be spent at all because I am sure word of mouth would have brought in more than enough applications to use the $190,000 which was allocated.
I suppose it is one form of restraint. But it should be investigated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Abbott) who spoke just prior to my entry into this debate, because if ever there was an example of false or misleading advertising, it is what the $19,000 bought. I doubt whether the minister, in his carefully read statement, announced that he was investigating the Manpower department for misleading advertising, but it might have been a good idea.
I raised some questions at the time on the distribution of allocations in B.C. I raised the question about the failure of the special small program to pay for material costs to touch British Columbia at all. I have one rule of thumb for LIP, that is, that I do not return any money allocated to my constituency. In the end one is forced into the position of agreeing to some rather dubious projects at times, but few programs that emanate from Ottawa reach across the Rockies into B.C. and I would be remiss in my duty as a member from that province if I returned funds to be disbursed somewhere else. But I raised questions about the formula that was used, both for that material cost program and for the allocations themselves, because it was surprising that the larger allocations went entirely to Liberal ridings.
Now we have received a second allocation, and again a letter has just arrived from the minister setting out the complications of his formula and announcing that a new allocation has been found. Would you believe that of the seven largest ones, six are to Liberal constituencies? The surprising thing about that is

that the second allocation in every one of those six constituencies is larger than the first one, whereas when you come down to the other constituencies-which by and large are NDP and Conservative-the second allocation is sometimes only one quarter of what the first one was, The formula which did not work very well before is even more invidious this time and leaves one wondering whether the aim is to do anything about unemployment, or whether the aim is rather to attempt to ensure the return to parliament of a few members on that side of the House in the next election, which cannot come too soon.
So I found myself frustrated again when another set of applications came in. They received unfunded priority of some 200 per cent, but the share for Okanagan-Kootenay in the renewed allocation is only $122,000. My constituency divides neatly into two halves, so it amounts to only $61,000 on each side. It will not begin to cover even the priority applications. There will have to be one or two choices made out of all those that came in through the advertising program, and not too much will be done to accomplish anything to ease the unemployment in the Okanagan Valley, with respect to which the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) joined me in telling you is very high. The mysterious formula that is used has something to do with the cost of houses and with annual incomes back in 1971 as well as with the present rate of unemployment.
I suggest to the minister that he accept the cardinal rule that when his civil servants come to him with a formula that allocates the bulk load of the money to Liberal ridings, he send them back and tell them to remake the formula. Unless of course he is the person who has ordered them to come up with such a formula, and one suspects that is the explanation for anything that happens twice in a row. It is even more scandalous the second time around than it was the first time.
I see my time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but let me say that I am convinced that if the government wants to do something about unemployment, it should do it through policies and through reduced taxation. It should do it as much as possible through the establishment of an economic climate which will allow at least the continuation of private business if not its expansion. If those fail, then surely to goodness there are enough government institutions at the federal level to provide some employment, with the Armed Forces, for example, and in other areas such as in scientific and medical research, which has been starved for too long, and with the Canada Council, because when the federal government eases off-and that seems to be the main area to which restraint is applied-then we know that highly qualified, young, intelligent and able people are forced to move down the employment ladder and bump other people out of jobs, who then move even farther down and compete with those beneath them, so that in the end we have a pool of unemployed at the bottom whom it is very difficult to help. Certainly nothing very constructive can be done for them through programs such as LIP.
Here at least it seems to me that if the government were really interested in doing something about unemployment, it could work at the municipal level of government and dispense
April 21, 1977

money there, as used to be true with the winter works program which tackled the problem of inflation in a far more sensible way than anything we have seen in the last ten years. At least there was a hope in this program for some kind of supervision, some sort of expertise. Now when there are municipalities, cities, towns and regional districts with their engineers and planners, with their five year programs, the efforts that the federal government makes to cure unemployment should be made at that level in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner. You can imagine what it does to a municipal council that is working under the kind of restraint that is imposed upon it and that has a five year plan, when the federal government overrides it and inserts advertisements in local papers saying, "Call up your municipal council and tell them you want a new fire hall".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this budget has been called a Conservative budget.


Mr. Ellis:: Not by a Conservative, it hasn't.


John R. Rodriguez: Members on my right say it is not. I say it is the kind of budget that that darling of the Chatham Chamber of Commerce, D'Arcy McKeough, brought down a few nights ago. Here is how he described the Liberal government's budget, and 1 quote: "Honest medicine that will lead to a safer and fairer economic future for our wage earners and our unemployed". No one can accuse D'Arcy McKeough of not being the darling of the Conservative set.
I am not surprised that the Tories are not puffing out their chests and taking credit for this budget, but if they were to be at least as honest as D'Arcy, they would admit that it is the kind of budget that a federal Tory government would have brought in because it reflects the reality of a tired, unimaginative and helpless government unable to take charge of the economy and give the kind of leadership necessary to set about the task of solving our economic and social problems.
Three particular characteristics about this budget emerge which reinforce the concept of the Liberal ship of state rudderless and awash in a sea of economic uncertainty. The first one of these characteristics is the traditional approach of fighting inflation on the backs of the unemployed.
Let us go back to the year when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. In 1968 the unemployment rate was 4.8 per cent and the inflation rate was 4 per cent. By 1970 unemployment had reached 5 per cent and the inflation rate was 5.6 per cent. It was then that the Prime Minister began his fight with inflation-one would wish that he had not-and he vowed that he would defeat inflation even if the unemployment rate rose above 6 per cent.
Unemployment was not only used ruthlessly against inflation, but also against a trend that the federal Liberals and
The Budget-Mr. Rodriguez
their corporate friends were finding ominous. Between 1964 and 1970, labour's share of the national income had been rising in comparison to the corporate share. As a matter of fact by 1970 labour's share of the national income had reached 72.8 per cent.
The government decided that this trend had to be stopped and one of the most efficient ways of taking income away from labour is to reduce the demand for it, in other words, create unemployment. In effect the government would be killing two birds with one stone-fighting inflation and controlling wages.
The government was successful. Labour's share of the national income fell from 72.8 per cent in 1970 to 67 per cent in the first half of 1974. Unemployment in the same period had risen to 6.8 per cent. There was one fly in the ointment; the inflation rate had reached double digits and labour, which had been locked into two and three-year contracts during this period, was starting to negotiate catch-up agreements and COLA clauses. As a result, by mid 1975 labour's share of the national income had started to rise again and reached 70.8 per cent, still a long way behind the position it had attained in 1970, but in the government's and the private sector's view, too high for profit comfort.
The government again decided that labour was getting too fat at the expense of the business sector which was crying the blues that its profits were lower than the super-profit days of the early 1970's. But how was the government going to put labour in its place this time? It could no longer stand up and deliberately admit setting out to create unemployment-which by this time was pushing 7 per cent. The Canadian public would just not accept the arrogance of a Prime Minister who promised massive unemployment "to fight inflation." Instead the government decided to control wages when it brought in the AIB program after the 1974 federal election in which the Liberal party opposed wage controls.
By the end of last year inflation was 7.5 per cent, but the most recent increase in the cost of living of 1 per cent extrapolates to double digit inflation for this year. The army of unemployed now has 944,000 reluctant volunteers and is growing daily. It is something to think about when the Treasurer of Ontario tells us that Ontario residents have to live with 5 per cent unemployment-that 200,000 people out of work is considered full employment in the province of Ontario. Meanwhile, to date the AIB has rolled back corporate profits by $13 million while wages of Canadian workers have been rolled back $300 million.
It is quite evident from this budget that we should not hold our collective breaths for the "Big Mac Attack" on the most serious problem facing Canada at the moment-unemployment. The AIB program is kept in force and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) has made it clear in his budget speech that the traditional and disastrous approach is still being taken. He said:
Our goals are clear. Our first objective must be to maintain the underlying trend to lower inflation.
The second characteristic of this budget which indicates a bankruptcy of ideas on the part of the government in dealing

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Rodriguez
with the Canadian economy is the clear admission by the Minister of Finance that we do not control our economic destiny.
My colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), put the situation in its proper perspective when he said the other day that the Canadian government decided that it would do nothing about the economic problems facing the country but wait for the American cavalry to come charging over the hill. Well, Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting and waiting, and listening for the trumpet call of approaching cavalry, but there is nothing so far, only a worsening economic plight in Canada.
The Minister of Finance made it clear in his budget speech that we are going to go on waiting. He said:
... with renewed growth in our economic trading partners, we can expect further improvements in our trade balance.
While we are waiting for help to arrive from south of the border we have at least one million people unemployed and inflation running at over 7.5 per cent, factories operating at 80 per cent capacity, a Prime Minister who suggests to our unemployed youth that they should work in other countries and, above all, a pontificating Minister of Finance who in his budget speech said:
What is required is that we accept the inevitable impact of these price increases upon our living standards, turn to substitutes where we can and reduce our demands for the higher priced goods to the extent possible. Above all we must avoid a renewed, self-defeating scramble for higher incomes.
The next time 1 go to Newfoundland, Cape Breton or northern New Brunswick, and when I am in my riding of Nickel Belt speaking with the unemployed, I will tell them that the Minister of Finance has said they must give up their "higher-priced goods".
The fact of the matter is that there is no national economic planning on the part of the government and, as a result, the country continues to be developed as a resource based economy-a situation which any self-respecting industrialized nation would never permit. The major part of our trading relationship with Japan is a microcosm of Canada's relationship with the industrialized nations of the world. For instance, 96 per cent of all our exports to Japan are raw materials, and 95 per cent of all our imports from Japan are finished products-cars, cameras, electronic equipment, etc.
No wonder the Japanese are willing to invest in developing Canadian resources. It is because they know that the jobs are not in the extraction of the resources from the ground but rather in the finishing of these resources to final products.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, what are we up to in Canada? We not only invite foreign investors to exploit our resources but we also pay them to explore for those resources, and pay them again when those resources have been ripped out. We pay them depreciation allowances and we even allow them to defer their taxes to the people of Canada. No, Mr. Speaker, there is no rape in this process because we have consented to the act and, moreover, this government enjoys it.

Contrary to popular corporate belief, the government, selected to lead and make policy in and for the country, must intervene purposefully and deliberately in planning the development of the economy of Canada. There is a need for a natural resources policy with public ownership of the energy and non-renewable sectors. There is definite need for transportation and communications policies, to move not only products but also to keep our citizens in touch, no matter in which end of Canada they live.
This leads me to comment on the third aspect of this budget which clearly indicates to many that the government has neither the necessary comprehension of the seriousness of the problem facing us, nor the creative imagination necessary to attack it.
I think it was appropriate that the Prime Minister spent some of his Easter recess at Disneyland. He seems to have fitted in well with Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, and Pluto. But he missed the point completely. I suppose there was much he could have learned at Disneyland in terms of creative imagination, from Walt Disney.
But the third aspect is the one which places a great deal of trust in the corporate sector to provide the necessary growth in the economy. The government, in order to display its trust, handed over $1.2 billion in tax concessions to corporate and investor groups. One cannot help but wonder out loud at the need for this priming when we note that Canadian industry is already operating at as much as 20 per cent below capacity. Furthermore, the dividend tax credit would permit someone with no other source of income to make up to $23,750 in dividends without paying one cent in tax. Also, the treatment of stock options as a capital gain would certainly allow certain companies to provide their executives with remuneration on which they would pay only half the normal tax. But will this priming of the private sector really help us to solve our unemployment problem? Let us look at the experience of the last decade or so.
From January, 1961, to December, 1963, we had double depreciation rates in the first year for investment in designated surplus manpower areas or for new products. The total amount of depreciation was unchanged. From June, 1961, to March, 1964, we saw a 50 per cent increase in the depreciation rate in the first year for investment in the form of re-equipment and modernization. This was additional to the total amount of depreciation. From June, 1963, to March, 1967, we had a straight line depreciation rate for machinery and equipment expenditures, which had previously been depreciated at 20 per cent on a declining balance, and a 20 per cent straight line depreciation rate for building expenditures, by manufacturing and processing industry. This was subject to Canadian ownership conditions. From June, 1963, to March, 1967, we saw a three-year tax exemption on income from new manufacturing and processing business in designated areas. From April, 1967, to March, 1971, we saw tax free area development program grants, to replace the three-year tax exemption which expired
April 21, 1977

at the end of March, 1967, a 20 per cent straight line depreciation rate for buildings and a 50 per cent rate for machinery and equipment in those designated areas.
Between December, 1970, and March, 1972, the government instituted valuation at 115 per cent of cost, for depreciation purposes, of building, machinery and equipment expenditures by manufacturing and processing industry. Beginning in May, 1972-this program is still in effect-the government instituted 50 per cent straight line depreciation of machinery and equipment expenditures by manufacturing and processing business. In January, 1973-again this program is in force today-the government instituted a reduction in the top tax rate for manufacturing and processing industry, from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. Between May, 1974, and April, 1975, the government allowed an exemption on manufacturing and processing profits from the 10 per cent surtax on corporate tax. That provision applies only to the period mentioned. In June, 1975, the government instituted the investment tax credit, amounting to 5 per cent of the cost of new buildings, machinery, and equipment for use in manufacturing and processing. This can be carried forward for five years.
Billions upon billions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, have been poured into the private sector during the past dozen years. How come, then, that we have an unemployment problem equal to depression year proportions? The answer is that the private sector has failed to satisfy our employment needs in Canada. All the same, the present Minister of Finance is giving that private sector another $1.2 billion. Perhaps the minister and the Prime Minister have been watching too many insurance company advertisements about freeing enterprise and have decided to let the vulture out of the cage.
All this extra money going to the private sector will only fatten profits, because who in his right mind would invest when they are not using the plant and equipment they already have? For example, in the last quarter of 1976 the food and beverage industry was operating at 85 per cent of capacity; the rubber and plastics industry at 70.4 per cent; leather at 62.1 per cent; textiles at 83.6 per cent; wood at 75.5 per cent; furniture and fixtures at 70.3 per cent; paper and allied industries at 79.3 per cent; primary metals at 65.8 per cent; metal fabricating at 80.8 per cent; and electrical products at 79.5 per cent.
The finance minister even admitted in his speech that slack demand in 1976 led to a significant fall in profit margins. If demand is so slight that we have falling profit margins, how will we convince people to invest? It sounds like a good trick, but I don't think it is going to work.
Even Roy Phillips, executive director of the Canadian Manufacturer's Association, admitted recently that "Last year
206,000	workers in manufacturing industries saw their jobs disappear." That is 10 per cent of our manufacturing labour force.
Canadians in various sectors of the economy are light years apart in their reactions to the budget. Mr. Sam Hughes, executive director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce,
The Budget-Mr. Rodriguez
said of the budget, "We're grinning from ear to ear." And well he might be grinning.
On the other hand Paul Lepage of the New Brunswick Federation of Labour said, "This budget is going to grind our people down."
Mr. William Daniel of Shell Canada said, "I have to say that it's a business oriented budget." On the other hand Terry Meagher of the Ontario Federation of Labour said, "I can't believe that the government can be that heartless, that out of touch with reality."
There is a considerable difference between those two positions, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that difference is there because labour leaders are closer to our 1 million unemployed than are corporation presidents. Maybe they notice that a 9 per cent unemployment rate means drastic effects on the lives of real people. They are unlike the writers for the Financial Post who blithely point out that the American economy did not disintegrate when the Americans had a 9 per cent unemployment rate. Is that how far we must go before this government does something for our employed? Must the economy disintegrate before it becomes important that our young people cannot find work and 20 per cent of our population lives in poverty?
There are short-term and long-term approaches to dealing with unemployment. I have tried to hammer my points home for at least six months. I have talked about the long-term approach involving national economic planning and government participation in the economy, and have indicated what ought to be done. I am certainly quick to agree that government spending can cause inflation, but it depends on how the money is spent. How can a government's deficit spending be inflationary when the economy is not operating at full capacity?
It is an indictment of any government that a so-called, responsible minister-in this case the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen)-should rise to his feet in parliament and say that we cannot afford an employment program and that we are better off wasting the money spent on training people for jobs that are not there. We ought to look at some of the other costs of high unemployment. If we could reduce by 100,000 the number of unemployed, we could save $480 million paid out in unemployment insurance alone. And what about savings in welfare expenditures, and other social services expenditures? Has anyone considered the number of tax dollars the country loses because the unemployed are not earning decent wages?
Also, what about the cost of unemployment in human terms? Studies done in other countries where unemployment rates are high show that suicide rates among the unemployed are higher than the national average. The incidence of severe depression among the unemployed is greater. One finds that, owing to depression, the incidence of brutalization of children is greater among the unemployed than among the general population. Therefore please do not say that we cannot afford a decent employment program. The fact is that we cannot afford not to have a decent employment program.

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Miss Begin
It makes me even more sick when I remember that in 1971-72, when the unemployment rate was 6.4 per cent, the federal government announced direct job creation expenditures of $600 million. Yet in 1977-78, when it is forecast that unemployment will rise to over 8 per cent, the government will spend only $350 million in direct job creation programs. But the government says we do not have to worry, because private enterprise is going to pick up the slack.


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


John R. Rodriguez: I have heard that before. I heard that last year, from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but must inform him that his allotted time has expired.


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, I shall not swamp my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), with compliments but I must tell the House how much I admire that man for the courage he showed in refusing to talk rubbish to the people of Canada- and here I refer to the speech we have just heard from the honourable member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-to humbug them, as we say in Quebec, at a time when the treasury cannot afford expenditures for which it has no money.
The Minister of Finance-and at times the truth hurts deeply-the Minister of Finance, after having applied for more than a year the most innovative program in any industrialized country to create jobs, quickly and flexibly, which unfortunately are rather unstable, namely the LIP type of jobs, had to give private industry incentives to give it new stimulation and enable it, in turn, to assume its share of responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is all too easy to address stirring words to the people when one has few real governmental responsibilities, as is the case of the previous speaker. Some of the budgetary measures fall under two divisions of my department, that is customs and excise, under taxation. I would like to say a few words about them. There will be no earthshaking statements. I am not going to quote the Bible, but those measures come very close to the daily life of Canadians and that is what is important to me. This is no time for great undertakings and stirring rhetoric.
For instance, lower tariffs on a wide variety of consumer goods will apply for another year. Those lower rates were passed in 1973 to slow down inflationary pressures. Materials used directly for religious, educational and medical purposes will also be duty-free.
We took protectionist measures-and I am directly concerned because of my responsibility as a minister-by establishing a higher tariff to help sugar refiners, electric fixture producers and heavy machinery and related equipment manufacturers who had some trouble before because of the competition of imported goods.

I am not always sure that we opt for the best long-term solution when we take protectionist measures which keep sick industries artificially alive when surgery alone could work out miracles, namely industries which should be converted into other areas of the manufacturing process. Of course, I am not talking here about the people I have just mentioned who receive tariff help in the March 31 budget. I think it is essential to ensure self-sufficiency at any price, or at least some freedom of action and negotiation for a country like Canada in areas such as food production and energy.
What shocks me is the poor situation of Quebecers. As a matter of fact, the industrial structure of Quebec could be summed up not as "La belle province" but rather as "the province of textile and footwear industry". The dilemma faced by the government is that all of a sudden it has its back against the wall because some plants are going to close down at a time when inflation is combined with unemployment, when we do not have any quick alternative program to transform these non competitive jobs into stable and permanent jobs.
I realize that such a statement is not regarded as "political" but it will b? still less so to conceal the truth and face the political judgment of those who will follow us if we have refused to take up the challenge offered in particular by Quebec, a little by Toronto and, generally, by the eastern half the country.
That might be the very nature of Canada which has no other market than its sparse 22 million population as opposed to the natural and huge market of the country to the south which does not hesitate to overprotect itself when it decides to do so. It might also be that we were short of hands while putting all our hearts and minds to unify this threatened country, in explaining Quebecers to other Canadians, which is relatively easy to do, and in repatriating Canada in Quebecers' minds with a new emotion, which is something more difficult, and trying at the same time to lead the economy through a hard period when unemployment runs ahead of inflation.
I could not help making this digression, Mr. Speaker, because I would like to be sure that Canadians and their leaders on all side of the House are aware of our precarious position as a commercial partner as well as the urgency of taking, I believe, a gradual approach towards the liberalization of exchanges. To return now to the Department of Revenue which administers excise tax legislation, I would like to explain the impact that the amendments to this legislation which were proposed in the budget might have on the taxpayer.
First, let us talk about the exemptions for the disabled. The Excise Tax Act provides for exemptions for some goods and services to ease the movement of the disabled. It is now proposed to add wheel chair lifts to that list and to authorize the governor in council to exempt some other items of assistance to the disabled. This is in reply to many requests by individuals or associations and by members from this side of the House among others; but we had to reject them because the act did not allow us to agree to their requests.
April 21, 1977

The fact that we will now get authorization from the governor in council to do so will allow us to meet the needs of Canadians much more rapidly. Moreover, institutions or public agencies using buses or small vans for the sole purpose of moving the handicapped will no longer have to pay the tax on these vehicles, provided they are equipped to move the handicapped and designed in such a way that they can eventually move 12 passengers or more.
In co-operation with the Metric Commission and to encourage people to go metric by July 1, 1981, the sales tax will apply on only half the value of the new metric scales. The scales, however, must be used to weigh goods of 100 kilos or less in retail sales. Assistance is also provided for those who would like to alter good existing scales and they will not have to pay the tax when purchasing the necessary parts for that alteration.
In 1974, it was decided that a tax exemption would be granted on small buses. Since then, a tax exemption is granted for motor vehicles designed to carry 12 passengers or more. It is now suggested that two conditions will be required to be allowed that exemption. First, the vehicles must be designed and permanently equipped to carry 12 passengers or more, but they must also be used exclusively to carry passengers. For example, the case of a hotel or motel owner providing his customers with a transport service to the airport would come under the definitions of my department. The scope of that new exemption has been extended to include rail-free train systems which are sometimes found in large parks for tourist attractions and so on.
Another proposal with which my department is involved is aimed at small manufacturers. It will no longer be necessary to make sales exclusively to consumers or users.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Miss B6gin:: When I have finished my speech.

As soon as the budget provisions are passed, I intend to raise from $3,000 to $10,000 the ceiling on the sales of small manufacturers. In addition, I propose to designate craftsmen as a separate class of small manufacturers, no matter the volume of their sales. After consulting the people concerned, I suggest that craftsmen be obliged to manufacture or produce personally craftsmanship items as prescribed by regulations, which will reflect a certain aspect of the Canadian culture or heritage. Everyone knows that when a person is designated as small manufacturer, the sales tax does not apply on the sale of items manufactured or produced by him. And I have already reached as many people as I could through some 50 craftsmen organizations which we have been able to locate everywhere in this country.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate briefly that we apply measures to assist average income Canadians, that is to say ordinary people. For instance, taxpayers will be able to claim
The Budget-Miss Begin
an additional credit of $50 for every dependent under 18 who is a Canadian resident. Moreover, the ceiling on the 3 per cent deduction for expenses relating to employment, without receipt, will go up from $150 to $250. I might also tell the House that in 1975 some 200,000 taxpayers forgot to claim that tax exemption! Thanks to the combined effect of these two measures, the household of a married taxpayer with two dependents and earning less than $7,360 a year will be exempt of federal tax.
Mr. Speaker, I will now conclude my remarks by emphasizing how important I consider the future introduction by this government of a guaranteed annual income, whether in the form of a negative tax or otherwise.
I would therefore like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I am well aware that my department is a service department and that it collects the $37 billion which will then be spent by my colleagues for programs aimed at Canadians. As I said earlier, I hope that one of the expenditures for which 1 will one day have the privilege of voting as a member of the Privy Council will be the implementation of a guaranteed annual income in one form or another, probably under a phased-in program. I know that in recent years, we have sometimes been forced to take action similar to that favoured in impassioned speeches, like that of the previous speaker. I hope that such adventures will not force us to abandon that in which the Liberal government believes and of which it reaffirms the importance, that is a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians. As Minister of National Revenue, I will make every effort to ensure that every fraction of every penny collected from Canadian taxpayers for the public treasury will be spent for programs corresponding to their concept of a happy country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Would the hon. lady permit a question from the hon. member for St. John's West?


Monique Bégin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: My question relates to the duties of the Minister of National Revenue. I spoke this afternoon about a certain case of a taxpayer who owes her department $4.5 million. For seven years an appeal has been languishing in the Supreme Court of Canada and the minister's department does nothing to see that the appeal is proceeded with in order to collect the money from one John C. Doyle. I wrote the minister on March 23 bringing this to her attention. Could she advise the House what steps she has taken to rectify this fantastic injustice which has been done to every other taxpayer in Canada?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I consider it quite unappropriate to override the judicial processes of this country and the confidential aspect in an income tax case. The hon. member did not ask me this question in the House. He referred to a letter dated March 31.1 shall find it tomorrow morning.

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Scott


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the competition for time I shall not be very lengthy tonight since I wish to give other members an opportunity to take part in the debate. My colleagues have already brought to light some of the shortcomings in the budget but I should like to bring to the attention of the House areas in which I am particularly interested since they affect my constituency.
The first of these is in respect to small businessmen's loans and assistance to small business people across Canada. For some time I have protested regarding the Small Business Loans Act, pointing out that there are really no teeth in the legislation. Consequently it is difficult if not impossible for a businessman to secure a small business loan at preferred rates. On March 28 I asked the minister what plans he had to upgrade the position of the small businessmen, bearing in mind that their operations are particularly affected by the present slack in our economy. The Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Marchand) replied that the act was coming up for amendment at the end of June and that he would be proposing substantial amendments which would made it a much more effective piece of legislation.
I would like to suggest that action be taken to put teeth into the act or make whatever other changes might be necessary to make it easier for a small businessman to secure these loans. Over the past months several cases have been brought to my attention in which local bankers have approved applications for loans, but when these applications reached the head office they were turned down. The reason they were turned down is that at the present time there is more incentive for a bank to lend money at a higher rate of interest than to make loans which are guaranteed under the provisions of the Small Business Loans Act.
Many business people are wondering what good the Small Business Loans Act is when they find they cannot take advantage of its provisions. I have in hand a case which illustrates this situation. To begin, I would like to read, in part, from a letter received by one of my constituents from the Eastern Ontario Region of the Bank of Montreal. It states:
As you are aware, the intent of the Small Business Loans Act is to make available to small businesses, through provisions of a government guarantee, loans which might otherwise not be available. The bank has granted in the past, and continues to grant, business improvement loans in instances where the applicant qualifies and cannot reasonably be accommodated under one of its own programs.
The current interest rate on loans made under the act is considerably below the current market rate for similar loans without the government guarantee. Since loan rates under the act are not subsidized by the government in any way, we are naturally very selective in granting these loans under present market conditions unless our assessment of the risk indicates that the government guarantee is essential. In your own case, we do not consider it is necessary to call upon the government to support your requirements by provision of its guarantee and we are pleased to consider your needs on the basis of your own credit worthiness.
As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, my constituent was not very encouraged to learn that even though he had a good credit rating, or, indeed, because of it, he could not qualify for a small business loan guaranteed by the government. The

individual in question did write to the minister regarding this and I am sure the matter has been brought to the minister's attention.
Getting down to actual specifics, the individual in question was requiring financing of approximately $50,000. He had no debts against his business and has owned and operated the business since 1950. There were no mortgages on his property and he was initially endorsed for a small business loan at the rate of 9'A per cent interest. The bank, however, determined that it would not give him such a loan and suggested instead a 10-year term loan at a rate of 1094 per cent which would be subject to interest fluctuations.
I am sure it is obvious that something must be done in respect to this matter and I certainly urge the government and the minister to take those steps which are necessary to assist the small business people of our country. Well over half the labour force of Canada is employed in small business, and we certainly need more provisions in the budget which would give direct assistance to the small businessman. Failing this, I urge the minister to bring forth strong amendments to the Small Business Loans Act at the earliest possible date. In all fairness I must state that the minister in charge of the legislation has been co-operative and understanding. He is new in his position and I am sure that as time goes on he will carry out the long overdue measures which are needed to update this act. These loans are not as popular as they used to be. Not many are being taken out.
I believe the banking community of Canada, bearing in mind the success which the banks have enjoyed, ought to give more consideration to the small business community because any weakening of the small business community in Canada will quickly lead to trouble in many quarters. This is a consideration which the government should weigh carefully, because wise decisions here could benefit the economy not only of Ontario but Canada generally.
Another area which I should like to discuss concerns the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. On April 1 I questioned the minister regarding the status of the renewal of the ARDA agreement. I am sure that many other members have received representations from municipalities which are concerned that the ARDA agreement with the province of Ontario expired at the end of last month. I was assured that negotiations were going on and that they should be concluded shortly. In his answer to me the minister indicated that there was really no delay as many projects already had money allocated to them and would be carried on. The problem, however, is that until the agreement is renewed, new projects cannot be initiated. It is my understanding that the province of Ontario signed this agreement and that it has been in Ottawa for almost a month awaiting the minister's signature.
This is the time of year when many new ventures under ARDA should be getting under way. With the approach of spring which our beautiful weather currently indicates is now every day we lose is of serious consequence. As I say,
April 21, 1977

the province of Ontario has signed the agreement and the minister has had it for almost a month. 1 do not understand why some action has not been taken to expedite a matter of great importance to rural communities in Ontario, and 1 urge the minister to make all haste.
I am sure that many individuals have benefited from another department, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. However, I would suggest that the minister consider amending the formula whereby areas qualify for DREE funding. I urge the government to consider extending the area to which DREE applies to take in the counties of Victoria and Haliburton which I represent. In the northern part of my riding particularly the work force is geared to a large extent to tourism, and thus seasonal employment is a major factor. Should DREE assistance be available, I know it would be a great stimulus to the local economy and I trust that my suggestion will be taken into consideration.
In regard to the formula which is used, I have questioned what I thought were the officials in charge of DREE and I can truthfully say that I have never been given the exact formula under which areas are considered for DREE assistance. What the formula is, I do not know, but it should be broadened. 1 think I must say in fairness to our entire economy across Canada that too many areas are being deprived of DREE grants and loans. I think just giving a few chosen areas assistance is neglecting municipalities which, probably by a very fine line, because of the composition of their population, such as having many retired people in the area, or for one reason or another, fail to qualify under the formula.
I should also like to mention that 1 have been receiving a lot of correspondence, not just from my riding but from many places across the province, in connection with a letter circulated by the Canadian government office of tourism here in Ottawa. As I have mentioned, a good part of the economy of my riding is dependent upon the tourist trade, and thus I think one can understand the concern of many individuals in my area about this particular letter which was sent out by the director of marketing of the Canadian office of tourism. This letter was sent to many American fishermen, and it expounded the benefits derived from fishing in Canada. However, it goes on to indicate that the choice of fishing in Canada is almost boundless, and states that Canada offers the fisherman such a vast choice that it is hard to decide where to go. Then at that point the letter takes a specific turn and says:
Let me make a suggestion ...
The letter then goes on for the next page and a half to list the greatness and attraction of fishing in the province of Quebec and suggests that recipients send for a free information kit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not for a moment denigrating the quality or attraction of the province of Quebec for the fishermen of America. I know that our neighbour to the east, as well as other provinces, have great and varied attractions for the American tourist, and I trust that many visitors will make use of those facilities. However, I do protest the fact that one particular province or region was given pre-eminence in a government publication which supposedly promotes tourism
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
for all Canada. I suggest that the action taken by the federal government's office of tourism only further irritates the problems existing between various regions of this great country.
In this connection I have a letter from the Haliburton Highlands Chamber of Commerce, as well as a photostat of the letter sent out by the office of tourism. I know many other members have received complaints about this matter, and I think it only fair to the rest of Canada that some measures be taken to correct what I feel is a bias against a tourist industry which is to be enjoyed and wants to be enjoyed from coast to coast. In closing, I urge the government to give consideration to some of the matters I have raised and to initiate legislation that will permit the economies and labour force of all areas of Canada to grow.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to participate in this debate and perhaps to conclude it, but I must say that I am tired of the negativism displayed by hon. members opposite during this debate, and particularly by members of the Conservative party. I cannot understand this negativism because we in Canada have so many positive things going for us, in sharp contrast to the pronouncements made so far by hon. members opposite.
We have in Canada an immense geography, a land mass several times the size of Europe. We have a climate for every taste. We have people of 100 different origins. We can hear over 30 different languages spoken in our cities. We can speak to the whole world through international agencies in English or in French. After three years in Canada we can see an immigrant become a Canadian citizen. We have immense national resources. We have unity as our national goal, and we have multiculturalism as our dream.
We are known as peacekeepers in the world. We are respected at the United Nations. We are helpful to developing nations through the Canadian International Development Agency and through the International Development Research Centre. We are playing a major role in forging a new Law of the Sea at the United Nations, in concluding north-south negotiations in Paris, and in the disarmament talks and negotiations in New York.
We have in this country the auto pact, the Canada Development Corporation, the enterprise development program, Petro-Canada, Panarctic and the Anti-Inflation Board. We have the new horizons program, Canada Works and Young Canada Works. We have medicare, the family allowance program, hospital insurance, unemployment insurance, old age security, and the Canada Pension Plan.
We have in this country a modern agriculture, high quality production of food, a public transportation system among the best in the world. We have Air Canada, Canadian National, and the Canadian Wheat Board. We have the Maple Leaf. We had Expo. We have Sports Canada. We had the Olympic Games. We have yearly the Calgary Stampede. We have Team Canada. We have the experimental renewable energy project known as "The Arc" in Prince Edward Island. We have in Toronto the harbour front and the very fine city hall.

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
We have the Stratford Festival. We have the Group of Seven. We have the Canadian Brass. We have the Winnipeg Ballet, the Toronto Symphony and Le Theatre du Nouveau-Monde. We have Northrop Frye, Marshall McLuhan, and Margaret Atwood. We have Pauline McGibbon, Claude Ryan, and Keith Spicer. We have Dr. Banting, Dr. Penfield, and Dr. Bethune. We have our fine parliamentary institutions. We have our independent judiciary. We have our democratic accountability to our electors, perhaps the finest system in the world. We have a united cabinet with representation from each province of Canada. We have a responsible government and the best Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the western world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: No wonder, then, that hundreds of thousands of people are asking to be admitted as immigrants into this country each year. No wonder that capital is flowing into Canada from all parts of the world because we are the envy of the whole world.
Against this background we have a negative, destructive, demoralizing, picayune and weak official opposition. We have a weak opposition as exemplified by the official financial critic of the Conservative party. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) was inaccurate, muddled and incompetent. He was off hundreds of millions of dollars in his critique in the budget of last year. Amongst others I did my part in exposing his blunders at that time. This time he stayed away from figures, but he could not resist giving us his old chesnut of indexing capital gains to help Canada's poor people. Needless to say, the proposal by the hon. member for York-Simcoe would be quite unworkable. It would permit someone to purchase an asset in December of one year and sell it in January of the succeeding year and claim a capital loss equal to the year over year change in the deflation factor. For an arch enemy of loopholes, the hon. member for York-Simcoe did pretty well here. Then he came forward with another dandy. That was the corporate tax credit to allow for the effects of inflation. Here you have the great champion in the fight against red tape suggesting that companies keep not just one but two sets of books to simplify matters, I suppose. If he should fail in his efforts in convincing the government to have this technique adopted, he may still look forward to having the satisfaction of becoming the honorary president of the Chartered Accountants Association of Canada.
The Financial Times of April 11 brought bad news for the hon. member for York-Simcoe. It reported just a week ago that $875 million in new investment for projects in Ontario and Alberta will be spent by United States companies this year, compared with $623 million two years ago. The commerce department in the United States reported that United States owned firms in Canada will push up total outlays by 16 per cent in 1977, and spending by manufacturing industries will climb by 27 per cent on their part. This is probably bad news for someone who has been crying about lack of confidence in our economy, as the member for York-Simcoe has

been doing for some time. Well, the Tories were in much better shape when their financial critic was the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies). Give us back the hon. member for Don Valley any time as a financial critic. We will welcome him. At least in 1973 he fought for wage and price controls.
I would be remiss if I did not devote a few moments to our housing records. I shall give the record of this Liberal government in reply to the New Democratic Party amendment which was written, perhaps, after reading an article written in the Toronto Star. The record is as follows: for low income housing for families and senior citizens our total output in 1976 was 20,900 units. In 1977 it is expected to go up to 21,890 units. Public housing in 1977 will substantially exceed the five-year average of 15,000 units per year. Funding for non-profit and co-operative housing went up from $328 million in 1976 to $351 million in 1977. This is quite a dramatic increase from the figure in 1972 when it was $43 million. Increased funds have been allocated to the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. During 1976 there were 15,550 homes for people with incomes averaging between $6,000 and $7,000 a year which benefited. In 1977 federal funds will upgrade some 22,300 dwelling units. These efforts to provide shelter for low income Canadians will mean some $924 million, or 67 per cent of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's capital budget for 1977 alone.
To sum up in reply to the criticism on the part of the NDP, the direct low and middle income assistance provided by Ottawa, with the help of the taxpayers of Canada, was $1,177 million in 1976 and it is expected to be $1,374 million in 1977. 1 ask you whether this is a performance that deserves the criticism that the NDP expressed with respect to our government?
A debate like this would not be complete without speaking about unemployment and employment. We do have today in Canada 9,350,000 people working, and we have 944,000 Canadians out of work. That is a serious situation. It is good to put it into perspective because it is important to know that our economy is not stagnating but is in a position to create new jobs every year. This is what seems to be failing to catch the attention of opposition speakers.
In 1976 between the public and the private sectors in this country we had 209,000 jobs created. In 1975 there were
178.000	jobs created. In 1974 there were 383,000 jobs created. In 1973 there were 439,000 jobs created. In 1972 there were
256.000	jobs created. This indicates that from year to year, while we seem to have difficulties in absorbing the number of people who enter the labour market, we do achieve at the same time the creation of additional new jobs and therefore an increase in the total number of Canadians who have a job and who are employed.
If we look at the unemployment scene which is affecting our young people in a particular way these days, we do have to observe the fact that we have manpower shortages as well in certain occupations for which our educational system does not seem to be able to deliver trained people. In the January edition of the short term forecast of manpower called "For-
April 21, 1977

ward Occupational Imbalance Listing" published by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, we find a certain number of occupations for which there are shortages of people who are qualified and trained to fill these vacancies. These are jobs that do not require higher education. We do not seem to be able to produce, through our educational system, young people willing to do these jobs; but we do have demand for stationary engineers, pipe fitters and plumbers.
In some areas of Canada we need carpenters, diesel mechanics, millwrights, auto mechanics, machinists, upholsterers and the like. It seems that we would have to look at our entire educational system and our entire set of values in the late seventies to determine whether we will be able, through our educational system, to meet the demands of our labour market in the years to come.
However, let us look at the record for a moment because in my riding people have stopped me and asked why the government is putting only $100 million into job creation this year. We know that the figure of $100 million for job creation is the figure announced in the budget, but it has to be added to the $358 million which is going to be invested throughout the country to create jobs through the various programs sponsored under Canada Manpower, and that brings us to the figure of $458 million.
Let us look for a moment at manpower training in 1977. This government will be making available, through Manpower training services to unemployed Canadians, something like $583 million which, added to the amount made available for job creation, brings us pretty close to $1 billion. That is the real figure which ought to be emphasized when discussing the government's policy on job creation and job training.
With regard to youth unemployment and employment I would like to put on the record some figures which I think are quite worth while to meditate upon. These figures are not seasonally adjusted. In March of this year there were 2.256 million employed young Canadians below the age of 25, and
419,000	unemployed. In 1975 we were able to employ some 2.41 million young Canadians below the age of 25, while during that period there were 331,000 unemployed. In 1976 the situation was that 2.429 million Canadians below the age of 25 were employed and 355,000 were unemployed.
There has been an increase in the number of young Canadians unemployed over the past number of years. This is a matter of deep concern to all hon. members on all sides of the House and, of course, to the government. The question we have to ask is where the jobs are to come from? If we were to believe the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr Rodriguez), we would have the impression that 90 per cent of the jobs in Canada come from the public sector. We all know that that is not a fact. Actually the reverse is true, and 90 per cent of the jobs in Canada come from the private sector. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves how to generate the jobs that are needed to absorb the people entering the labour force and the unemployed.
The Budget-Mr. Caccia
In this budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) was not seeking publicity or cheap popularity but was saying that we should provide the incentives which are needed for the private sector to produce jobs in the long run, even though it might take several months before the machines get going again, while in the meantime the private sector in this country and around the world is still slowly trying to recover from the shock of inflation and the expenditures which have been generated through that wave of inflation we have experienced. However, that is too subtle and too difficult for the hon. member to understand, because if we were to do what he is proposing, we would have to buy up the entire private sector. We would have to generate jobs through job creation schemes in the public sector, and let the private sector just wait and see and fend for itself.
It is true that this may be an opportunity that this government is offering to the private sector in the hope that it will be a challenge which will be taken. Perhaps it is the most important one this government has ever offered to the private sector in the history of this country. In the months and years to come we will see whether this challenge will be accepted.
Another feature of this budget I find extremely encouraging is that for the first time we see regional incentives offered to help areas with high unemployment and with lagging economies. This is a great refining of budget making and of fiscal policies which should also be expanded to other measures in the future, perhaps like special tax rates and other fiscal incentives at the provincial level as well so that these will be joint federal and provincial policies to get the economies of the DREE designated areas in Canada going once and for all. The refinement of regional incentives is a very encouraging and welcome feature of this budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles L. Caccia: I am not a great believer in tax cuts because I do not know how such money is spent, and if it is not spent, which I suspect is the case, I do not know how it is saved and with whom it is saved. Instead of tax cuts-because the government needs revenues-I would rather see tax credits in areas of national concern; for instance in areas where we should be saving energy. Perhaps there should be tax credits for Canadians who carry out insulation projects on their own homes, and tax credits for the installation of solar and wind devices in Canadian homes. However, we will probably have to wait for these measures in our next budget.
In conclusion I would like to express a few words of support for the Anti-Inflation Board. I know it has been the object of criticism on many sides of the House for different reasons, but it seems to me that in Canada we have a good thing going for us, particularly for those who are not organized in strong unions and for those who are of retirement age, who are pensioners, and who are most affected by inflation. The AntiInflation Board has introduced an element of stability which is badly needed. The Anti-Inflation Board-

April 21, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Elzinga


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Webster dictionary defines "budget" as "a plan for the co-ordination of resources and expenditures," I suggest that what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) tabled in the House on March 31 could in no way be considered a budget. It might be called economic roulette, but in roulette there are remote odds that you can win. In this so-called budget nobody is going to win.
To realize what a guessing game this budget presentation has become and to see how wide of the mark the minister can be, one has only to look back to the budget which was tabled on May 25, 1976, a mere 11 months ago. His guess then was that the cash needs of the government in 1978 would show a significant decline, but in actual fact they have grown. The magnitude of error in the minister's estimates raises grave doubts about the competence of the forecaster and the government which gave him this responsibility.
Rarely, if ever, has the forecasting of the fiscal position of the federal government been as inaccurate as it was in that May budget, so it is understandable that this newest of prophecies has been received with utmost skepticism by the Canadian people. This co-ordination of resources and expenditures recommends that Canada be drawn even more heavily into debt.
The deficit planned for fiscal 1978 has reached an all-time high. In the six years ending last October federal spending jumped by 151 per cent There has been so much over-spending by the government in recent years that perpetually increasing deficits are required just to maintain a neutral fiscal policy stance.
No doubt the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had time to reconsider, and to regret his ill-conceived opinion of the reason for the unfavourable economic climate which we are enduring today. In his questionable judgment the main reason for our expanding inflation is that Canadians are living beyond their means. It would be more accurate to assume that the government is living beyond the means of the Canadian people. With every level of the government taking large bites out of the incomes of Canadians, people are wondering if they can afford the present government.
During the past 15 years the 32 different kinds of Canadian taxes, direct and indirect, have risen 40 per cent. However, when the increases in incomes and prices over that period are calculated, the average family actually paid 239 per cent more tax in 1975 than in 1961. More of a family's income has had to go for taxes than was spent on food, clothing and shelter combined.
Increased taxation means expanding government control at all levels, and especially at the federal level. It is well on the way to controlling us out of an independent way of life. With these extra millions and millions of dollars going into the government coffers, there needs to be some explanation of our ever-accelerating rate of national debt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but it being 9.45 o'clock, it is my duty at this time pursuant to section 8 of Standing Order 60 to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House. All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The government has been so preoccupied with the redistribution of wealth in Canada that it has forgotten how to produce that wealth competitively, and we can no longer pretend that we are a prosperous nation.
We have become the country with the highest cost production. Canadian manufacturers are now at a competitive disadvantage, and this in a country where it is essential to remain competitive and to hold our position as a trading nation.
During the 1960's there was an annual trade deficit in manufactured products of about $3 billion. This deficit has been growing ever larger and last year it topped the $10 billion mark.
Until a few years ago we were content to let our exports of natural resources offset the growing deficit in manufactured products. Now we must face up to the fact that those natural resources are not infinite and that our deterioration of efficiency in the marketplace has to be stemmed and reversed. There must be an environment created which will allow the manufacturing sector to realize its potential and make a meaningful contribution to the economic future of all Canadians.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock.
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Allard
Messrs.
Andre
(Calgary Centre)
Baker
(Grenville-Carleton)
Balfour
At 10.21 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
4895

Friday, April 22, 1977