1977-10-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that some 1,500 persons employed at Labrador Liner-board Limited in Newfoundland and by Woods Contractors have lost their employment in Newfoundland and in the Goose Bay area of Labrador, and in view of the fact that some three months ago the government of Newfoundland submitted to the government of Canada a proposal for a work project that would employ some 400 loggers for a period of four years in clear cutting the proposed reservoir along the lower Churchill River to be part of the Gull Island power project at a cost of $5 million to $8 million per year, and which clear cutting is insisted upon by environmental studies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) respond to the request of the government of Newfoundland immediately and advise them that the proposal is accepted and that the necessary funds will be provided from additional funding for works projects announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in the House of Commons last Thursday, and that there will be no further attempts by the government of Canada to delay an answer with respect to this work project which will result in a lasting benefit as well as employment where it is most needed.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of any such motion for discussion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous agreement of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of
serious and pressing necessity to seek the unanimous consent of the House to the following motion. In view of the fact that INCO and Falconbridge have acted neither in an accountable nor responsible manner in laying off some 3,400 workers in Thompson, Port Colborne and Sudbury, and in view of the fact that time is required for both the companies and the unions representing their workers to negotiate mutually agreeable solutions to avoid the layoffs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House instructs the government to immediately introduce legislation that would instruct INCO and Falconbridge to rescind the layoff orders to permit the search for solutions between the workers and their employers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John R. Rodriguez: The Liberals said, "no".


INDUSTRY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, as there seems to be a conference between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), I am under the impression that I will obtain unanimous consent to present my motion.
Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of eventual lay-offs expected in the Quebec mining industry, especially in the case of Noranda Mines which is contemplating the reduction of its activities in Murdochville; considering the state of panic existing in the mining sector as a result of massive dismissals announced by the International Nickel Company of Canada in Ontario; considering also the wish often expressed to the government by Canadian mining producers to establish long-term planning for the mining

October 28, 1977
Oral Questions
industry, especially as far as nickel, copper, zinc and iron ore is concerned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That the government immediately convene a summit meeting on the condition of the mining industry, to anticipate with the provinces, companies and unions the steps to be taken during the next few months to avoid a deterioration of the mining sector and make it more competitive on international markets.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of any such motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It concerns the fact that the central Bank of Canada has gone to the commercial banks to borrow a new line of credit of $1.5 billion to help support the Canadian dollar. Probably this is the first time in history that the bank of last resort has gone to commercial banks for support. At what price does the government intend to stabilize the Canadian dollar?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, as 1 have said before, the Canadian dollar is a floating dollar and we intend to carry on that policy.


Some hon. Members:: A sinking dollar.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Can he tell the House why, if the dollar is going to float, it was essential for the central Bank of Canada to get a $1.5 billion line of credit from commercial banks? Is it the position of the government that our exchange reserves have sunk to such a level that they have to go to other sources for lines of credit in order to maintain the policies they are now following?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as everybody knows, our exchange reserves have substantially decreased since the beginning of this year. That is why the government thought advisable to show that the Canadian dollar was backed by considerable resources. We did not have trouble getting this line of credit of $1.5 billion from the Canadian banking community, which proves that the Canadian dollar is in good

position and that we have sufficient reserves to avoid unwarranted speculation on the Canadian dollar.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. The Minister of Finance has a most inexplicable change of logic to try to suggest that the Canadian dollar is in good condition, when it is necessary to have a line of credit of $1.5 billion from the private banking community to support it.
Are other negotiations going on with central banks in other countries, as allowable under International Monetary Fund agreements, for a line of credit for the Canadian dollar? Associated with that, what did the Canadian government have to pay the commercial banks for the line of credit?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, these conditions will be specified as soon as the contract will be determined. I will give more information to the House at that time. Meanwhile, I think that the rates which have been negotiated are very satisfactory.


DIRECT CANADIAN INVESTMENT IN UNITED STATES- GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REVERSE TREND
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The president of the Toronto-Dominion Bank pointed out yesterday that the Canadian dollar has had the effect of a 25 per cent devaluation as against the West German mark and Japanese yen. The figures indicate that in 1976, for the first year since 1939, there was a net outflow of direct investment funds from Canada and that last year the direct Canadian investment in the United States increased by $510 million. What steps is the minister taking to try to reverse this trend?
D


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not have anything to add to what I said in the House of Commons in my statement Thursday night.


John Carnell Crosbie: Canada is now joining Italy, the United Kingdom and even Zambia as a weak currency nation. Would the minister indicate to the House whether he is seeking advice from the United Kingdom or from the government of Zambia on how to act in this situation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One thing is sure, I am not about to ask advice from the former minister of finance for the province of Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: There go three of your Newfoundland seats.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 28, 1977


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: My question is for the
Prime Minister. In view of the fact that International Nickel of Canada announced the layoff of some 3,000 workers at Sudbury, Thompson and Port Colborne and that since that time the workers have made specific proposals to the company which the company is studying-the proposals are to alleviate the hardship of a 3,000 man layoff in 16 weeks-and in view of the fact that time is needed for the company and for the workers to sit down and negotiate these points without the gun of 16 weeks being held to their temples, will the Prime Minister get in touch with the president of the International Nickel Company and the chairman of the board and ask them to rescind the layoff order to allow time for these negotiations to come to fruition?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I understand that the union is meeting with management on Tuesday to make these proposals about which we do not have any detailed knowledge. I suggest that the two parties should attempt to reach an agreement on the basis of those proposals or others, and I see no need at this time to ask the company to rescind an order which will only take effect in 16 weeks.


REASON FOR IMPORTATION OF NICKEL CARBONATE IN VIEW OF CANADIAN SUPPLY SITUATION
John R. Rodriguez: It is fairly obvious that the Prime Minister does not understand the effect of a layoff in an area such as Sudbury which is dependent on one industry, so I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance because he has had 48 hours to report to me and to the House with respect to the importation of nickel carbonate. Can the minister tell the House why it is that Canada imports nickel carbonate from the Philippines destined for a Canadian refinery when we have the stuff coming right out of our ears?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I would like to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I have made inquiries to find out what the situation is. This nickel carbonate is related to a special kind of process associated with the Sherritt Gordon Mines. The kind of feed stock which is produced by other nickel mines in Canada is unlikely to be suitable for this. The other point which needs to be made is that the other nickel mines have their own refineries in any event. I think the most important part of the answer is that the briquettes which are made from both foreign and Canadian sources are exported so that the added value of the reprocessing in 94 per cent of the output of the Sherritt Gordon mine is exported.
Oral Questions


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister told people in London that Canadians must work harder, must tighten their belts, must spend less and must live within their means, is he prepared to come to the Sudbury Basin and tell the people there that they do not work hard enough, that they need to live within their means and that they need to spend the money they do not have?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct my question to the Postmaster General and to remind him that there have only been six days of negotiations since October 5 and that negotiations have broken off and, according to the latest reports, the talks are "going badly". Does the Postmaster General agree with that position which was taken by a member of the union and, if so, why?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, first of all, there has not been a breakdown in negotiations. The hon. gentleman has indicated that the negotiations are going badly. That might be a more accurate statement. An impasse has been reached. It is an impasse which we will undoubtedly resolve. I point out to the hon. gentleman that we have been negotiating since October 5, and although he indicates that there have been only five days, those five days have been very productive. I have indicated in the past that there has been a change of attitude in the union, and the meetings have been congenial. However, undoubtedly when we are dealing with unions such as CUPW, which has always been very militant, there are bound to be impasses. I only regret that the union saw fit, instead of waiting until Monday to hear what position we are going to take in terms of their demands, to call a press conference and create this disquietude in terms of continued mail service within the country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I do not think the minister's rhetoric will help the collective bargaining process. There is no doubt about that when the minister continually talks about the union being militant. Has the union or has the minister decided whether there is a need for a conciliator to be brought into this picture?


Mr. Blais:: Far from my being inflammatory by calling the union militant, I am sure the union appreciates my calling it militant because it prides itself in being one of the most militant in Canada. I am sure there is nothing wrong with my saying that.
With reference to the question of a conciliation officer or a conciliation board, again the hon. member refers to the fact
382

October 28, 1977
Oral Questions
that the negotiations are ongoing, and there is no consideration at this time of appointing a conciliator.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, obviously negotiations will be hard. When I indicated on October 5 that we were resuming negotiations, I said they would be long and difficult, but that I am not losing spirit. I see that necessarily we will have a collective agreement in the near future because this confrontation has to come to an end, since it has disturbed the postal services and basically reduced our volume levels in the past.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: As I understand it, the policy of the minister is assured mail delivery. Would the minister advise whether it is the position of the government that the delivery of mail is an essential service?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman came to the Finkelman committee on a number of occasions, and he is familiar with the Public Service Staff Relations Act. I ask him to check the definition within that act.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You have evaded my question.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 think the hon. member will realize that the Chair would have some grave reservations as to whether such a general policy statement would be proper in the question period in any case.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The managing director of Quebec Metal Mining Association Inc., Mr. Langlois, made a statement in Quebec City yesterday to the effect that the mining industry is trapped and helpless without government assistance. A moment ago I moved a motion that my friends opposite rejected. Now, I would like to direct my question to the minister. Could he give the House the assurance that this government is prepared to call a summit meeting inviting of course all his provincial counterparts, industry leaders and union representatives, to set up a long term policy to provide security for these people who, as the minister is certainly aware, are very much concerned about the future of the mining sector throughout Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have been giving consideration to a federal-provincial conference of energy ministers. Perhaps such a conference should include the finance ministers of the various provinces. There have been some soundings, but it would be too early at this time for me to say that a conference will take place. There might well be merit in such a conference

but I would want to make sure that the provincial ministers would support it.
One point that has been made from time to time is that the tax rates across the country vary considerably from province to province. The point has also been made that some provinces have higher tax rates than the federal government whose tax rate is the same all across the country. There might well be an opportunity to meet and discuss an over-all view with respect to the future of the mining industry and the relative positions of the two governments, the contributions that the provinces on the one hand and federal government policies on the other, might be able to make to stabilize this very important industry in the country.
[ Translation]


Roch La Salle: I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I find the minister's answer more encouraging than the one he gave us last week. The minister mentioned a possible meeting with his provincial counterparts, but I think he will not underrate the importance of gathering around the same table representatives of companies and unions which are primarily concerned. Since these company leaders might contribute their advice for a future policy, could the minister give us assurance that there will be participation of employer and union representatives so that this policy be made with the cooperation of the interested sectors?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of a conference of this kind is, of course, a highly complicated one and requires a good deal of discussion with provincial ministers. It would seem to me that as preparation for such a federal-provincial conference, the provincial ministers should invite management representatives of the industry and representatives of the labour segment of that industry for discussions with respect to their particular provincial points of view. I can assure the hon. member that I would be very pleased to do the same thing, but I think when talking about a federal-provincial conference one would have to limit that to a conference of ministers after ministers had prepared the groundwork through consultation with members of the industry, that is to say labour representatives and management representatives.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Before he made his most important speech some weeks ago relating to the possible cutbacks in welfare payments to Canadians, notably family allowances and pensions, had he
October 28, 1977

consulted in general with his counterparts in the Cabinet? More particularly, had he consulted with the Minister of National Health and Welfare before he announced the possibility of cutbacks in pensions and family allowance payments?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I did not announce that this would be done. I was discussing this in the context of the budgetary deficit that this government faces and the problems we have.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Scaring our senior citizens.


J. Judd Buchanan: Basically the point that was made was that the federal government will have to look at all its programs and those were simply programs that were mentioned in the broader picture.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You made a mistake. Admit it.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the unfortunate statement made by the President of the Treasury Board some weeks ago which has created a great deal of uncertainty especially amongst low income Canadians, pensioners and family allowance recipients, can the minister assure the Canadian people that this government in no way, at any time, will cut back pension and family allowance payments?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, there is no intention to cut back those programs.


GULL ISLAND HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTUDY
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment or his parliamentary secretary? In view of the high unemployment rate in the province of Newfoundland, in view of the need to develop alternative sources of energy, in view of the high hydroelectric potential in Labrador and the proposal of the government of Newfoundland to cut timber in the proposed reservoir area, can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether his department is studying an environmental impact assessment at this time and when we might have some news on that assessment so that we can proceed with a positive response to the government of Newfoundland with regard to the cutting in that project?


Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Environment)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An assessment panel has been established. Guidelines have been prepared. These guidelines will be submitted to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and to the province of Newfoundland.
Oral Questions
An environmental impact statement will be presented very shortly.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General concerning the post office on Vale Island in Hay River. Is the Postmaster General aware that this department seems determined to close the post office there? They seem to be taking the attitude that instead of trying to solve the problem, closing the post office will end the problem. That is not a very satisfactory answer. Is the Postmaster General willing to reconsider the decision to close the Vale Island post office or is he considering any alternative arrangements?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, on October 20, I wrote to him and I indicated that I would be looking into the matter. 1 am advised that notwithstanding my statement there may have been a decision that is imminent. I directed my officials to hold off on that decision until such time as I have had a full opportunity to review the situation.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I have been led to understand that the decision to close the Vale Island post office is to be made today. The people of Hay River, Vale Island in particular, would like to know about this. Will the Postmaster General indicate what alternatives are being considered and when he will be able to give an answer in the House?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the decision was made to close it today. As I indicated to the hon. member, I am looking into the situation. I directed my officials to hold off on that decision until I have had an opportunity to make a complete analysis of the situation and to consider if there is a necessity to close down the post office or what alternative mode there might be.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Can the minister inform the House on what date the Special Joint Parliamentary Committee on the National Capital will be reconvened as a standing committee to provide a coordinated approach to development of the national capital region?
soozs-zs'A

October 28, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to congratulate the hon. member on her appointment as opposition critic of relevant matters in my department. I wish her luck in her new duties.
1 also want to assure her that, like her, several hon. members on this side of the House are eager for that committee to be reconstituted without delay; 1 hope it can be convened next week.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: In light of the announced austerity in government spending, can the minister explain why tenders are being called on October 31 by the National Capital Commission for construction of the eastern driveway recreational road, changing the historic pattern that recreational land is for people, not cars? What measures are being initiated to improve accountability and consultative planning in the NCC?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall have to check on the matter with the National Capital Commission after which I shall give an answer to the hon. member as soon as possible.


FINANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to put my question to the Minister of Finance. As New York bankers have already amassed an industrial fund of over $500 million to attract Canadian industries interested in moving to the United States, and more specifically to the New England states, can the Minister of Finance tell the House what measures his department intends to take to counteract that initiative on the part of American banks which are now courting Canadian industries, in particular in our area which Canadian industries have been leaving recently to move to the New England states? Does his department intend to do something to prevent an exodus of Canadian industries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 fail to see how the government could intervene when people decide to invest money in Canada as well as in the United States. Every day we try to talk American entrepreneurs into making investments in Canada. It is also very normal for the Americans to do the same with Canadians occasionally. I therefore do not see how we could intervene. However, if the hon. member has suggestions to make, I am willing to consider them.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in the United States Canadian industrialists are being offered some of our money to finance the manufacturing of machinery, does his department intend to use the same methods or to propose equally attractive solutions for the Canadian industry?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Well, at the present time many Quebec businessmen are worried by the situation in Quebec and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it. I think that many times their projects of diversifying their investments and maybe transferring some of their assets to the U.S. can be explained by the fact that there is political instability in Quebec. The best way to solve that problem would probably be for the hon. member to give his unqualified support to the Quebec federalists who want to get rid of the separatists.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Supply and Services who has reportedly just returned from Africa with a recommendation to form a French Commonwealth. With the Prime Minister not particularly supportive of the existing Commonwealth, does the government intend to seriously consider a permanent Commonwealth of this nature?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I believe on the contrary that the right hon. Prime Minister has become the senior politician of the Commonwealth and that he is highly respected by heads of governments. It is precisely because Canada is fortunate to have a politician of such high caliber as its leader that we would like to profit from his experience and his competence so that this country may project abroad the image of what it actually is, namely a bilingual and multicultural country.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, obviously age does not really predicate involvement or interest. However, in this question, obviously the cooperation of France will be required, a country that has welcomed Mr. Rene Levesque. Has the government made any overtures in this regard?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that Canada must assume its own responsibilities and first protect its own best interests. France is certainly a very important partner in the Frenchspeaking world and we will obviously have to hold negotiations with the French government.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-MEASURES TO AID AUTO PARTS INDUSTRY
Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Com-
October 28, 1977

merce, I will direct my question to the acting minister. In view of the fact that Canada is not participating to the extent it should in the automotive industry and in particular is not getting its fair share of auto parts production, will the minister, in addition to his talks with the auto makers, seriously consider accepting the proposal of the Auto Parts Association of Canada for a $250 million fund of fully repayable loans to help modernize and expand auto parts capacity in Canada and to begin creating the 25,000 jobs that represent the unemployment impact of the unfair share of auto parts production in Canada? Also, will he consider a special automotive parts industry program within the Enterprise Development Program in his department?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone could say so categorically that Canada does not get its fair share in the auto pact, but I can assure the hon. member that our whole participation and all our agreements on the subject are currently under review and that the minister will make a specific statement on the subject in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED MARITIME ENERGY CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Halifax):: I thank members of the House. I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources how he is getting along in connection with the proposed maritime energy corporation as time passes. I notice that the maritime premiers intend to ask the minister what part the federal government will play in this concept. Will the minister bring us up to date?


Alastair William Gillespie: 1 discussed this matter as recently as last evening with two very important members of the Nova Scotia government. I have taken part in other discussions with the premier of New Brunswick and I can say with some confidence that we are making substantial progress toward the formation of a maritime energy corporation. There are still some items which need to be settled and which are being discussed among the premiers themselves and between the government of Canada and the provincial premiers, but 1 am encouraged by the progress we are making and hope it will be possible to make a substantive announcement before the end of this year with respect to the creation of this corporation and its funding.
Oral Questions


LOWER CHURCHILL POWER PROJECT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I would hope so too, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure the minister will agree with me that there have been long discussions but little in the way of concrete development.
May I ask the minister how he is getting along with respect to developments on the Lower Churchill? I understand he was seeking certain information from the government of Newfoundland, information which I believe has now been made available. Can the minister tell us when some announcement in this regard might be forthcoming?


Alastair William Gillespie: Again, I hope it will be possible to make an announcement with respect to this very substantial project in the near future. Discussions with the Newfoundland government are not yet completed. Additional discussions will take place very shortly with respect to a number of matters, including one of the items which was raised by a member during the question period today with respect to the Gull Island site. I should point out, though, that such an announcement might be hindered by the fact that the Province of Newfoundland and the Province of Quebec are themselves engaged in discussions in connection with the development of certain hydro resources in Labrador. Those discussions could complicate a federal-provincial understanding with respect to the Gull Island project or its priority as far as Newfoundland is concerned.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Some time ago the hon. gentleman's predecessor announced that no changes would be made in the application of tax laws to Indian bands in the sense that at the present time the bands are exempted on the same basis as Canadian municipalities. The hon. lady went on to say, however, that the department felt that this exemption should not continue but that no change would be made in the absence of consultation with the Indian bands affected. May I ask the minister whether any such consultation has been taking place and if not, why not?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: I would be very pleased to consult with the bands. I believe representations have been made to that end and I will gladly accept them, if and when they would like to meet with me.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the minister for that undertaking and I can assure him that a meeting can be arranged very shortly. Since this is a vital matter which affects the planning of industrial and commercial developments on the part of these Indian bands, may I ask the minister what arrangements for

October 28, 1977
Oral Questions
liaison exist between his department and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Ministers have always cooperated in the past and they will do so in the future.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since she is absent and my question dates back to October 19, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Since the Speech from the Throne clearly indicates that the government wants to look into the economic problems of families and individuals and in view of the hardships faced by disadvantaged people who receive meagre welfare allowances and older citizens who live in slums where maintenance costs for their homes are eroding their pensions, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare-


Some hon. Members:: Question, question!


Jacques Lavoie: Couldn't you let me speak?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question, he should put it immediately.


Jacques Lavoie: Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare has informed him that she intends eventually to appoint a parliamentary committee to study the implications of guaranteed annual minimum income programs? If so, when will she do so, and if not, for what reasons will she not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is expressing a major concern shared by the government. As for the parliamentary committee he is enquiring about, I do not recall the minister informing me of that project, but I will make sure to ask her and give an answer to the hon. member.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Revenue. It has to do with the recurring problem of long line-ups at the Douglas border crossing point due to erratic and inadequate staffing there. Line-ups are sometimes two or three miles long and the problem is so acute that some Canadians find them-

selves obliged to stay in the United States overnight, which is a whale of a way to help the balance of payments situation. When does the minister intend to take this question seriously and provide adequate staffing at the Douglas border crossing point?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I shall be pleased to consider the hon. member's representation, Mr. Speaker. I should like also to tell him that he does not need to come into the House to make representations because he can be in full communication with me on a daily basis. But I shall be glad to look into this matter and I shall be in contact with him further.


Benno Friesen: The same problem exists for small businessmen who want to do business with entrepreneurs in the United States. They have to wait in the long room beside the Pacific Highway for two or three hours before they can get their business done. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce say there is nothing wrong with doing business across the border. Will he look into that aspect of the matter to make sure that the small businessman can transact his business at the border within a reasonable amount of time?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: This is an important matter and one which I am looking into at present. But people have to realize that there can be delays from time to time when they are crossing international boundaries.


DATE OF TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT OF DEPARTMENT-POSSIBLE REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. In view of the apparent enthusiasm which the minister brings to her portfolio-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Halliday: -and the fact that she indicated outside the House last night that she was disappointed that no questions had been directed to her so far this session-


An hon. Member:: Does she have any answers?


Bruce Halliday: -may I refer the minister to section 13 of the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act which requires the minister, within three months of the end of the fiscal year, to bring an annual report before parliament indicating the work which has been done and the moneys which have been spent as well as the commitments which have been made during the year. May I ask the minister whether she has complied with the requirements of the act and if not, why not, and when we can expect to receive the report?
October 28, 1977


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to congratulate my new critic on his position. I regret that there are only some 16 or 17 of his colleagues in the House to hear his first question to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the branch of government which I have the honour to administer fulfils all the requirements of the act. It has, furthermore, made known all the facts the hon. member has requested.


Bruce Halliday: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would not want to accuse the minister of being at all pretentious, but in view of the fact that this week she has submitted to the House a green paper on amateur sport before submitting her annual report, and in view of the fact that in this green paper there is reference to her earnest desire to seek opinions and consultations from other governments, individuals and sporting associations across the country regarding amateur sport, but there is only passing reference to the fact that she would like to have comments from members of parliament, may I ask the minister whether she would consider establishing a parliamentary committee which could then look into the problem of amateur sport and fitness across this country?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I think the green paper itself is an excellent way for members of parliament to have their say. In fact, at this time I am preparing a letter to all members of parliament, as I did with the hockey inquiry just recently, as well as to Senators in the other place. All hon. members will be aware of the hearings when they go to their own part of the country and will be able to participate in that manner. Following the input from the country at large, it may then be necessary to have further discussions in the regular committee process of the green paper results.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD TIME PERIOD REQUIRED FOR REVIEW OF SALARY CONTRACTS- NUMBER OF REVIEWS PENDING
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that applications to the AIB for review of negotiated salary contracts have been made as early as January of this year but have still not been taken care of to date, and in view of the insecurity that this delay causes Canadians, what is the time frame for people expecting a reply from the AIB, and how many applications are in fact pending at this time?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give exact data in reply to this question. I agree with the hon. member that there is no special reason why it should take more than six or seven months for a reply
Oral Questions
and that that is not satisfactory. I will look into the matter and try to give a specific answer to the point he has raised.


FISHERIES
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for fisheries. It has been the policy of the department during the past two or three years to try to enhance the Atlantic salmon population on the Atlantic coast of Canada and in its rivers. During this time there has been an inadequate surveillance crew along these streams and poaching has been prevalent. In his recommendation for the budget for the coming year, would the minister responsible for fisheries be able to submit a budget which will contain adequate money and provision of man years for the proper enforcement of the laws as they relate to salmon fishing?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member looks at the record he will find that the number of fisheries officers assigned to protecting our salmon rivers, especially since the ban has been in effect, has been very, considerably increased. In fact, this is one area of the department which has increased the most in the last six years.
1 recognize that the ban means added pressures. Many people who have fished traditionally for Atlantic salmon-and I do not blame them for wanting to eat more-find they do not have access to it. The hon. member knows very well that we will never be able to eliminate all acts of vandalism-because that is what poaching is, an act of vandalism against society.
Because of the new legislation which he and many others, both on this side of the House and on the other side, helped to put through last June, very severe penalties will now be imposed. In fact, I am now looking at some recommendations regarding seizure and forfeiture of vehicles used in acts of poaching or for the transporting of illegally caught fish. I will be making a decision having given consideration to all of the problems that they represent.
I might say to the hon. member that citizens who want to protect their resource-because it does belong to citizens of this country-should also co-operate with us. We will never be able to solve all the problems, but we certainly have no intention of giving up against poachers.


Fred Alward McCain: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the various fish and game associations, and particularly the Atlantic salmon association in the province of New Brunswick, have been making strong recommendations to the minister, would he please reconsider his statement and reinforce those people who are responsible for surveillance? I ask this in view of the fact that the poaching situation has really reached commercial proportions in very

October 28, 1977
Oral Questions
many parts of the province of New Brunswick and quantities of fish up to 1,000 pounds have been taken by poachers or merchants who had no business having salmon in their possession at all. Would the minister provide additional surveillance to prevent netting, poaching and merchandising of fish in an illegal way?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if I were to listen to the representations of some of the interests in the area of the sports fishery, I would only concentrate on their particular problems. I am not at all associating the hon. member with this sort of claim because I know he has many commercial fishermen in his riding and he defends their interests too, but the reality is that we will never be able to meet the expectation of the sports fishery lobby. I use that word advisedly because in many cases, by being such a vociferous lobby, they have turned a lot of people against the very aims that they are trying to attain.


FINANCE
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance but first may I thank the hon. member for Nickel Belt for looking after Port Colborne so assiduously.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you.


Samuel Victor Railton: I am quite certain that the cabinet is looking after the INCO situation quite well. My question concerns Atlas Steels in Welland, which objects to Canadian government funds providing a stainless steel mill in Cuba with a capacity of 50,000 tons when the domestic demand there is only 4,000 tons annually and a new Cuban mill would add to the already serious selling difficulties of stainless steel in Canada. They would like to know whether such assistance programs could be made less immediately competitive to Canadian industry.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised on several occasions this week. Are we really working against the interests of Canadian industry when we are helping other countries? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker, because without the use of Canadian technology we would not be selling our products to build these facilities which otherwise would be built by German, French or British technicians and the profits would go to other countries. That is why I think it is a good thing for us to export our technology. This may sometimes bring competition, but international growth should normally serve Canadian national growth.


POSSIBLE RELEASE OF FOOTHILLS FROM COMMITMENT TO BUY ALL PIPE IN CANADA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it arises out of the answer which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce gave yesterday to the hon. member for Hamilton West regarding the purchase of steel for the proposed Alcan pipeline. At that time the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated that the policy of the National Energy Board would be to permit Canadians to have the opportunity of competing for this steel pipe and that they would be given every preference.
In view of the fact that Foothills (Yukon), in their background paper issued in July after the National Energy Board report had been published stated, and I quote, "Line pipe represents the greatest single expenditure by any of the applicants. Foothills (Yukon) proposes to purchase all its pipe in Canada", and in view of the fact that this was one of the factors that favoured Alcan as against Arctic Gas, which proposed to buy 30 per cent of its requirements from foreign suppliers, I want to ask the minister whether or not the government proposes to release Foothills (Yukon) from its commitment to buy all its pipe in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce put it very well yesterday when he said that preference would be given to Canadian suppliers. Indeed, we have every reason to expect that the bulk, if not 100 per cent, of the pipe will be supplied by Canadian companies.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is nonsense.


Alastair William Gillespie: Also I should like to point out that it might not be in the interests of Canadians if we were to create the impression that Canadian suppliers can supply that pipe regardless of the price.


Walter David Baker: That is not what he said. You are misleading the House.


An hon. Member:: Read it again, Walter.


Walter David Baker: I have no intention of doing that.


Alastair William Gillespie: It is important for Canadian suppliers to keep themselves competitive. They should sharpen their pencils when they are bidding on this great project.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the National Energy Board and
October 28, 1977

Foothills (Yukon) have stressed the fact that the Alcan pipeline was advantageous to the people of Canada, because all of the pipe will be purchased in this country, can the minister assure the House that there has been no pressure in the process of negotiations with the United States to allow American companies to bid with the assistance of the American government by various forms of subsidy, so as to push the Canadian suppliers out of the market?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is the point.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is this part of the quid pro quo by which we got an agreement with the United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no, it is a lot of speculative nonsense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVILEGE
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege with respect to the Minister of Finance. I am aware of the fact that Your Honour has ruled over and over again that one cannot comment on the quality of answers given by ministers; I realize that is a well understood principle. But I should like to raise a question with Your Honour which I think is pertinent. It flows from the fact that information put forth in parliament is instantaneously transmitted across the nation and has an enormous effect on people throughout the country and, indeed, on our capital markets.
For a long time we have had the tradition in parliament that before a budget there is no disclosure which could affect any financial transactions or operations. We now find that statements made during the question period can have the same impact. All during last week the Minister of Finance implied that the Bank of Canada was not involved in any actions whatsoever which might be construed as moving toward support of the Canadian dollar. Because of those implications, there were transactions made on the Canadian dollar which probably influenced the downward movement of our dollar.
1 am not suggesting the Minister of Finance misled the House purposely, or even if he knew what he was doing. I doubt if he knew what he was doing. The fact is that it happened. Regardless of the rule, which is well established, regarding commenting upon the answers of ministers, I think we need to examine once again the question of answers given in the House which relate directly to trading, speculation or other action on capital markets. There must be some way for ministers to realize that they must be accountable in this respect and must give answers which relay what is going on in an accurate fashion.
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker);
That the question of accountability of ministers' questions which may affect direct action and exchanges in the capital markets of this country be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the question of privilege. If the hon. member wants to deal with that question in a very rational way, he will have to realize that sometimes the crazy statements of members of the opposition are listened to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The opposition party has two or three critics on financial matters, and I have heard them make wild statements which create an impression that they know everything about the Canadian dollar, when it is not true. The other day a critic from the other side was referring to figures based on speculation and was trying to create the impression that he knew what he was talking about. If hon. members opposite do not want us to reply to such questions, the first thing they should do, if they know what they are talking about, is not to ask questions which disturb the market.
I indicated last week that we were not in discussion with anyone. The negotiations started on Monday of this week. When the question was asked last week, I was stating the truth, because I gave authority to people to start those negotiations on Monday of this week.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Don Valley raises, by way of a question of privilege, that which he acknowledged at the start has not traditionally been recognized as a question of privilege. If it relates to the quality of answers given in some general way, it would not constitute a question of privilege. Even if it relates in a specific way to the quality of answers, it would not be a question of privilege.
Unless and until I am persuaded that it falls within the classic lines of definition of questions of privilege, and in addition has a specificity to it which would attach it to one particular incident that could be examined by a committee, it would be very difficult to turn around the traditional definition of questions of privilege. Therefore, I regret I cannot accept the hon. member's suggestion as a question of privilege.


MR. BROADBENT-ALLEGED INACCURACIES IN PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT CONCERNING INCO
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a question of privilege was raised by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, in my absence. I believe the Minister of Finance reserved my right to answer it when I returned. I wonder if I might have that permission.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister, on a question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is not a very lengthy matter. The hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party said that I
390

October 28, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
misinformed, deliberately or inadvertently, the House. He referred to three items, the first of which is a statement by me. 1 should like to refer to page 322 of Hansard dated October 27, 1977, where the Leader of the New Democratic Party is reported as quoting me. It reads as follows:
I have clear information to the effect that Guatemalan production will not reach the market until 1979.
I stand by that. Our officials and our ministers have clear information to that effect. The Leader of the New Democratic Party attempts to contradict that by quoting from INCO, as reported at page 322 of Hansard, the following:
Commercial level production is expected to be achieved in the second quarter of 1978.
There are two operative words here. This is an expectation of production. On the expectation, we know there is a difficult start-up position in these overseas operations. There are bugs to be ironed out in Guatemala, as there have been in Indonesia. Our information is that the expectation of even production will not be fulfilled. One must note that I did not talk about production; I talked about reaching the market. It is important to know that in the case of Guatemala the production does not reach the market even as it is produced, because it still has to be processed. It is produced in a semi-processed form, and then it requires further treatment in the refineries of the company abroad before it can be marketed.
That is all I have to say in regard to the first point about not reaching the market. I stand by my statement. Obviously, either deliberately or inadvertently, the Leader of the New Democratic Party was misleading the House by playing on the word "production" as opposed to "reach the market".
My second point is with respect to the comments of the Leader of the New Democratic Party who was quoting me as reported at page 322 of Hansard, which reads as follows:
-INCO plans a reduction in Canada of 15 per cent of its operations, whereas it plans reductions abroad of some 30 per cent.
In order to contradict that, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said the following:
-no jobs are being lost in INCO's overseas developments.
I never said that. I never said that they are not continuing to develop the mines or to develop the operation in order to come into production and export at some point. Therefore, once again, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is either playing on words or trying to mislead the House-hopefully, inadvertently-by talking about development, whereas I talked about its operations. Referring to that same point, I should like to quote from the INCO press release dated October 20, 1977-that is, the very press release the Leader of the New Democratic Party quoted from-which reads as follows:
Production rates at the company's overseas nickel operations will be at levels substantially below those previously planned for 1978; consequently, employment levels will also be lower.
So, that is INCO saying the very thing I said, that the employment levels abroad will be lower. On the basis of discussions with INCO, our officials feel a reasonable estimate

of 30 per cent would be the amount by which the production of the mines abroad will fail to reach their original target.
The third point was interrupted by Your Honour's ruling on the order of it, but it was put on the record that in terms of inventory I had misled the House. Here, again, the record speaks for itself. I said quite clearly, and I am quoting from page 217 of Hansard:
INCO has stockpiled for a period of 12 to 14 months.
I have here an article from the first page of the Globe and Mail-I hope that I will make the first page-quoting the leader of the NDP as follows:
Mr. Broadbent said ... it has been stockpiling nickel for "about a year".
The two statements say practically the same thing. So, really, I think the leader of the NDP is just trying to get attention with a spurious question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby was recognized on a question of privilege. As is customary when any member begins with an allegation that the House may have been misled either advertently or inadvertently by any comment, I heard him out. He put his comments on the record, and the Prime Minister refuted those points. It is obviously a matter of disagreement, not a question of privilege.


SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a matter concerning which Your Honour made a ruling in the early part of 1977 after it had been raised in the House. It is my view that the same issue is arising again, and that it should be drawn to your attention so that you can make a ruling which, I assume, will be similar to the one you made for the year 1977.
I refer to the fact that in the Senate and the House of Commons Act there is provision for a 7 per cent automatic increase in the indemnities and allowances of members of parliament and senators. But a year ago Your Honour reached the decision, after the matter had been raised in the House, that the Anti-Inflation Board's guidelines had to apply, and therefore the amount that was granted in the statute was reduced to stay within those guidelines. The Minister of Finance has announced that the limit for 1978 will be 6 per cent on any salary or income increase. Because the Senate and House of Commons Act provides for a 7 per cent increase, it seems to me that the issue arises again.
I think most of us felt that the matter was handled properly last year by Your Honour making a decision on it after consulting the representatives of the various parties. I raise it now so that Your Honour can deal with it again. I think hon.
October 28, 1977

members are aware of the fact that I would be happier if the whole increase were cancelled, as it ought to be, but of course that is up to the government. In any case, I trust that the issue of increases for members of parliament having to be kept within the law will be dealt with by Your Honour.
I would remind Your Honour, of course, that last year you felt that consideration had to be given not only to the actual dollar increases but to certain other benefits as well, to make sure that the figure that was arrived at was within last year's guidelines. Surely the same would apply for 1978, and that is why I present this as a point of order for Your Honour's consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is well taken. The hon. member has recited accurately the events of last year. Fortunately, the matter has been raised in sufficient time to give us an opportunity to examine whether there is, first, a consensus to proceed in the same way and, second, if there is such a consensus, to consider the best mechanics of doing it. I undertake, as a result of the point of order raised by the hon. member, to consult with his counterparts in the other parties in the House to see whether there is a desire to proceed in the same way as last year, and to have those consultations as expeditiously as possible.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I see the Solicitor General has just come into the House, and I understand, after consulting the deputy whip of the opposition, that he is going to make a speech in the course of the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I wonder if he would be prepared to tell us whether there is anything in his speech in the way of an announcement with respect to the activities of the RCMP that were not heretofore known, and which ought to be made by way of a statement on motions so we can question him with respect to such an announcement.
If he could tell us that, I would withdraw my point of order; but I think it is extremely important that the House should know that, because of the importance of preserving the efficacy of our rules with respect to announcements that should be made by way of statements on motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The putting of such a question at this time is rather extraordinary. There is nothing that can be done to prevent a minister participating in the throne speech debate and saying what he wants to say. However, if the minister wishes to give that indication, I take it it is the sense of the House to receive it. But there is nothing obligatory about it in respect of the minister's actions. He is not required to do so, nor is it within the practices of the House for him to do so.


An hon. Member:: Are you afraid to be questioned?
The Address-Mr. Whittaker



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, entitled "An Act respecting the national anthem of Canada".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dawson for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to the speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in the last day of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It was a pleasure for me to hear Her Majesty the Queen, that gracious lady, read the Speech from the Throne, and, it was certainly a pleasure to meet her afterwards. However, the Speech from the Throne, which was written in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) office, was very dull and did not contain much for the people of Canada. It is probably more famous for what it did not say than for what it said. Many areas of concern, such as our economy, were not mentioned in that speech, nor was much said about such issues as the environment, transportation, and agriculture.
The environment is an area of concern in Canada to which we must pay more attention. Canada is on the northern fringes of the world, and its environment is very delicate. There is the danger of pollution in our lakes and rivers. Some of that pollution can never be stopped or reversed. We must learn from the experience of other countries and we must treat our environment with more respect than we have. Over the past few years the Prime Minister has not seen to it that there has been continuity in the Department of the Environment. In the five years I have been here, there have been many ministers in charge of that department. It is important that the department becomes better orientated to what is going on, and that it uses more force than it has been using. Instead of playing musical chairs, the department should become a priority department in Canada.
The question of energy is now very closely related to the environment. As our fossil fuels become depleted, we are
80025-2 6 Vi

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Whittaker
spending more and more money on the exploration of fossil fuels and on distribution systems such as pipelines, tankers or whatever is used to transport fossil fuels. More and more exploration is taking place in remote and delicate parts of Canada, such as the north, the Beaufort Sea and Baffin Island. What we are really doing is buying time. Much energy is being used in the world, especially in the United States and in highly industrialized parts of this country. Petroleum is a depleting form of energy and it is running out. We are spending more and more money in the delicate areas of our country in order to find an energy resource which will be depleted in any event, and the more we do this, the more there is need to worry about the environment.
I do not think enough emphasis is being put on the importance of alternative forms of energy. There is not enough research carried out; not nearly as much money is being spent on research as there is on the search for more fossil fuels. Other sources of energy are solar, nuclear and electricity. It is becoming more and more evident that, especially in Canada and the United States, we will have to rely on these other sources of energy. We must put more and more of our money and resources into research, so that we will be ready when fossil fuels are depleted, and so we can use fossil fuels for a longer period than is now predicted. Granted, a person of my age may never see the end of fossil fuels, but we must start planning for our children, our grandchildren and their children. Much more emphasis will have to be placed on this area.
In the Speech from the Throne very little was said about agriculture. There was a passing reference to the effect that something is going to be done about a food strategy. I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has said he is going to reorganize and restructure his department, but in my opinion that is just window-dressing. That is the type of thing that is done when the government is in trouble and really has no answers or solutions. It has been done many times, not only in government but also in industry. It does not really solve anything.
Just before I came to Ottawa as a member of parliament, there was a period when the federal government had a task force on agriculture, called the agricultural congress. It was reputed to be the answer to the problems of Canadian agriculture in the 1970s. The federal government spent a lot of money on it. It employed all the best agricultural people and people from consumer groups to discuss the great task of doing something for agriculture in the 1970s. The government set up a trends in food prices committee. That was replaced by the Food Prices Review Board.
These initiatives really have not accomplished anything different from what was accomplished after the first congress. The solutions which were put forward by the agricultural congress have never really been used. If this government wants to save money, I suggest it should dust off the old books, read them and start following some of their recommendations, instead of just starting other programs with different names and trying to convince farmers and consumers that the government is really doing something about agriculture. The problem

with agriculture in Canada is that there is no agricultural policy; the federal government has never really spelled out guidelines for an agriculture policy.
Farmers in the United States have many difficulties. They are getting to the point where they are ready to become militant. One of the reasons for this is that the reduction of inflation in the last year or two has really been brought about on the backs of farmers. This has been because of cheaper food. However, that will not keep the farmer of Canada or the United States in business. If and when they go out of business, the chickens will come home to roost and the trouble will really begin. It has already started in the United States.
We do not need a lot of studies and bringing of people together in order to have a food strategy in Canada. We need to dust off some of the old studies and put them into use. We need policies which will do something as far as farm communities and food production in Canada are concerned. We always hear from this government that we need to become self-sufficient in food production. That will never happen with the type of policies the government has. It is time they brought in a policy that will accomplish that.
I wish to speak for a few moments on problems in my constituency with regard to CBC television. I refer in particular to that portion of my riding which extends 250 miles along the United States border. It receives very little, if any, help from CBC television. An accelerated program has been announced. As far as I am concerned, it means the CBC should be going into that area to ensure that the 15,000 people living there receive CBC television without having to pay for it.
There was an application for a French television station in another part of my constituency. It was approved on the basis that there were 500 people who should get this type of reception. This was done under the accelerated program, totally ignoring the obligation to ensure that people in the other areas to which I have referred receive television reception free of charge, like everyone else in Canada. I agree that the people in the area do get television reception; however, it has been necessary to form co-ops-private individuals who put repeater stations in the mountains. It is a costly process and it does not always work. It is not the government who pays for that; it is the people of that area. It is not like in my home town of Kelowna, Toronto or Montreal, where it does not cost anything to see CBC television.
I made an intervention in the CRTC hearing in Vancouver against having a French television station in the Okanagan before providing service to those in the Boundary country. I was not too popular as a result of that intervention. However, I felt the CRTC should know about it and understand what has to be done. In committee hearings here in Ottawa I talked with the president of the CBC about this matter. I told him they had an obligation to the people of that area, and not just on a piecemeal basis in order to soothe somebody's complaint.
October 28, 1977

While being questioned by the chairman of the CRTC, he read the Broadcasting Act to me. At that time he seemed to begin to understand what it really meant. When he had finished he asked what I thought it meant. I said that as far as I was concerned, it meant providing service to these people. The decision they handed down was to put in French television. I fully expected that would happen. However, they also said:
In this regard, the commission notes that the corporation's discussions with the government with a view to taking positive action to deal with this matter are now well under way.
However, very little has been done. Every once in a while they send in technicians to talk to people there. They really are not doing the job that should be done under the accelerated program. I have a letter here from the people of Rock Creek, British Columbia. Nothing is being done for them. The letter lists the names of 571 people living within a five-mile radius of that community. Instead of looking after these people, the government rushes in to supply costly French television service for a far smaller group of people in another part of my constituency.
Another area about which very little has been said is transportation. Very little has been done by this government in that area. 1 am very concerned about railway line abandonment. The CPR has abandoned the old Kettle Valley rail line. They have applied to the CTC to have it abandoned in its entirety. I went through the motions of finding out what happens to rights of way when rail lines are abandoned. 1 found that they revert back to the railway.


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


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne, as we all know, included a commitment to principles which I, as Solicitor General, strongly share. Of more interest to me is the goal of enhancing the rights and freedoms of Canadians through adherence to the principle of open government. This objective has, of course, very direct relevance to all of the agencies for which I report to parliament, but in particular to the RCMP security service.
Since the establishment of the royal commission of inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice McDonald, a high degree of public interest has been evidenced concerning the role of the security service. 1 want to avail myself of the opportunity provided by the debate in response to the Speech from the Throne to review some developments that have occurred since the establishment of the royal commission earlier this year. But first I would like to review the mandate of the security service and its role in Canada today. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, since the Great War, the RCMP, in its capacity as federal police corps, has been the main body responsible for security investigations and operations. Under section 18 of the act enacted in 1959, it is the duty of RCMP officers to carry out all responsibilities entrusted to crime prevention officers as far as violations of the Canadian law and
The Address-Mr. Fox
of the law of any province where they may be employed are concerned. Indeed, in addition to the functions and responsibilities defined in the RCMP Act, the force has a duty under its governing regulations to create and operate the intelligence and security services that may be required by the minister.
So the mandate of the RCMP's security service must be put back in the context not only of the duties of every police officer, but and mainly of those described in the various instructions and directives issued from time to time by the minister or the government concerning the investigations to be held in matters of national security. So the security service deals with security as a whole, as well as intelligence matters and relevant police operations. Furthermore, it maintains and scrutinizes files, performs personnel investigations, advises the various departments on security matters, stores files and performs certain other functions related to the management and planning of national security operations.
This has been clearly and publicly stated in the report published in 1969 by the MacKenzie, Coldwell and Pratte Commission. It should be remembered that the first and almost sole threat to international and national security, after World War II, during the cold war through the following period has been perceived and described in ideological terms. At that time the opponent was easy to identify. For that reason, there has been a consensus among government circles and the majority of Canadians on the desirability of and need for internal security operations. The Gouzenko case also brought forward in the public's minds the requirements of security with our own country. My predecessor and myself have reviewed from time to time the operations of the security service.
These revisions were suggested by a changing Canadian and world environment that lead government authorities to bring security operations into line with current realities, with inside and outside influences that had an impact on Canada's security and national integrity.
To illustrate the process we have gone through, Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that only 20 years ago terrorism, sabotage, kidnappings and political murders were not a current occurrence in the world. In 1963 we went through our first wave of terrorist activities in contemporary Canadian history, marked with bombing incidents, hold-ups, thefts, property damage, bodily injuries and murders that culminated in the sombre hours of the October 1970 crisis.
Terrorism, be it national or international, as hon. members are well aware, has become one of the most critical problems of this decade. The toll it has exacted, both in human suffering and destruction of public and private property, has been enormous. These, however, are not the only costs. This phenomenon of politically motivated violence has forced almost all governments to adopt measures, be they security measures at airports or domestic security surveillance programs, which lessen the over-all freedom of us all. It would be both irrespon-

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Fox
sible and unrealistic to assume that Canada is immune from such threats.
As early as 1966 it was recognized by the government that greater attention would have to be given by the security service to ascertaining and assessing the nature and the extent of the separatist threat in Canada, with a view to identifying those individuals, groups and organizations whose real or apparent purpose and objective was to subvert or destroy, by force, by violence or by threats of force or violence, Canada as a united country under confederation.
Nonetheless, when the October crisis of 1970 struck, there was an immediate realization that information on groups responsible for the crisis had been wholly inadequate. It was not clear which specific groups involved in the separatist movement were advocating or resorting to the use of violence or the commission of criminal acts, including murder, to accomplish the changes they sought. It was difficult to determine at that time precisely which groups were conducting themselves in accordance with the law and the principles of democratic action. In response to the gaps that were recognized as existing in October, 1970, the security service realigned its operational activity to obtain intelligence on groups and organizations that had been identified as supporting the separatist cause.
Set against this change in focus was a recognition that very careful consideration would have to be given to the mandate of the security service. The protection of political and legal rights of individuals and groups was of prime concern to the government and to the security service itself, especially when its attention started to focus on a national problem.

One of the first steps in the formulation of new guidelines for the security service of the RCMP has been the adoption by Parliament in 1974 of a new definition of the expression "subversive activities" that is to be found today in the Protection of Privacy Act which amended certain aspects of the Official Secrets Act. It was then decided that this definition constituted a solid starting ground from which the role of a good security service could be defined more precisely.
On March 27, 1975, the cabinet defined the mandate of the security service of the RCMP and authorized it to maintain internal security, namely to discover, monitor, discourage, prevent and thwart the activities of certain individuals or certain groups in Canada and carry out investigations about them when there are reasonable or likely grounds to believe that they are carrying out or do intend to carry out spying or sabotage action, activities aiming at gathering information on Canada for the benefit of a foreign power, activities aiming at a change of government in Canada or elsewhere through the use of force, violence or any other criminal action, activities undertaken by a foreign power and related to a real or possible attack against Canada or other hostile actions against our country, activities of a foreign or national group trying to perpetrate acts of terrorism in Canada or directed against this country, the use and encouragement of the use of force or violence or any other criminal means, the provocation or the

exploitation of civil disturbances in order to take part in any of the above-mentioned activities. This mandate still continues to exist.
The government is constantly preoccupied by the issue of individual rights and liberties and by the balance that must be preserved between these imperatives and the interests of the state. As far as political adherence is concerned, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated the position of the government in the Commons in 1976 when he indicated clearly that a legally constituted political party should not be systematically monitored by the RCMP. On May 27, 1976, the cabinet studied which procedures should be followed to come to a decision regarding the employment of individuals likely to occupy vital positions in the civil service. The cabinet concluded that if information on the occupant of a strategic position or a candidate for that position in the civil service was available and that they gave reason to believe that the said individual was a separatist or a sympathizer of the Parti Quebecois, this information was deemed to be pertinent as far as national security was concerned and it should be brought up to the attention of the authorities concerned. The cabinet also concluded that those authorities would determine the significance of such information, taking into consideration all the relevant data such as the source, the prima facie authenticity of the information and the strategic nature of the position involved. That decision is also still being applied.
Also in the spring of 1976, the government was informed for the first time of the facts surrounding the illegal break-in and theft of documents on the premises of L'Agence de Presse Libre du Quebec in Montreal. Since it was believed then that it was an isolated incident, no inquiry commission was appointed. In the summer of 1977, however, new allegations of illegal acts were made.
After having made inquiries into these allegations at the insistence of the government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Benno Friesen: Blush, Francis, blush.


Francis Fox: -the commissioner of the RCMP advised that he believed that, in the circumstances, it would be in the best interests of the RCMP that a commission of inquiry be set up to look into the operations and policies of the security service on a national basis. The government agreed that public support of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to protect the security of Canada is dependent on trust in the policies and procedures governing its activities, and that the maintenance of that trust required that a full investigation be made into the extent and prevalence of investigative practices that are not authorized or provided for by law. Commissioners, under part I of the Inquiries Act, were appointed with very wide terms of reference and very extensive powers of inquiry.
October 28, 1977



In spite of the initiative taken by the government, we are committed, as we have repeatedly stated in this House, to inform the commissioners, as well as any person entrusted with the administration of justice in Canada, of any facts or evidence related to the alleged breach of Canadian laws. Under that commitment, I have already referred two incidents to the federal inquiry commission and to the attorney general of the province of Quebec.
Today also I have reported to the authorities the alleged offences committed in 1973 and involving property belonging to the Parti Quebecois. It appears that those allegations deal with the break-in into premises in Montreal, on January 9, 1973, where computer tapes listing members of the Parti Quebecois as well as financial information were being kept. That operation was apparently authorized by senior officers of the security service. The information obtained in the course of that break-in were destroyed in the spring of 1975, after a new policy was implemented following the cabinet decision to which I referred.
The action taken in 1973 actually raises the very serious problem into which Parliament should be called to look. It is the dilemma, Mr. Speaker, facing any government or security service in the performance of their respective duties related to the security of our country under the present circumstances. The Royal Commission on Security identified that dilemma in its report published in 1969. The commissioners then stated: A security service is unavoidably involved in activities which run counter to the spirit, if not to the letter of the law, and in illegal or other activities which may seem to infringe upon individual rights.

It will be noted that the royal commission did not say that a security service must never be involved in any actions "that may contravene the spirit if not the letter of the law'. It would have been easy for the royal commission to say that. The commissioners did not say it because they recognized the reality of the dilemma. We want effective protection of our national security. We also want respect for the law and respect for individual rights. But these desires-both legitimate-may be in conflict at times. At precisely what point should a security service refrain from taking action that it thinks important to meet its responsibility for national security in order to avoid any possibility of contravention of even the letter of the law? It is of very little help to transpose the dilemma to the level of ministers or government; the basic question remains the same.
It is because of this dilemma that I ask the House and the people of Canada not to be overly hasty in judgment of this case. The action was taken on the authority of officers whose motives were of the highest order and beyond any doubt. It was authorized and carried out in the absolute conviction that its sole object was to promote the security of Canada given the political and social climate prevailing in 1973.
None the less, it is a matter that I felt I must bring to the attention of parliament and of the appropriate authorities as
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
soon as information was received concerning it. But I do so in the hope that it will be considered in the context of the circumstances of five years ago and in the light of the dilemma to which I have referred. It is my profound hope, Mr. Speaker, that the royal commission of inquiry under Mr. Justice McDonald will, in its report, be able to assist the government and parliament in deciding, as precisely as possible, the type of legislative framework that must be given in future to those who are charged with maintaining our national security.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago I asked the minister, prior to his rising to his feet, whether there was anything in what he was about to say, knowing that he was on the speakers' list, that ought to have been included in a statement on motions, so that members of this House would today have the opportunity to question him in accordance with our Standing Orders. But he said nothing. He sat there and said nothing. This, sir, is the second violation of the spirit and intent of the Standing Orders of this House. We laboured long and hard in the procedure and organization committee to bring to fruition some procedure for dealing with statements on motions, so that matters such as this, matters which the government says have just come to its attention but which occurred in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I should like to ask the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), whether this is a point of order or a speech.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was recognized by the Chair to make a speech and I am now entering into the debate. 1 was saying, matters which had just come to its attention-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is rising on a point of order.


Yvon Pinard: I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to know if the hon. member has had the opportunity to take part in this debate and if he spoke for 30 minutes.


Walter David Baker: It is a legitimate question. I did take part in the debate on the amendment. We are now on the main motion, so I do have the right to speak.


Benno Friesen: I hope you are as careful about the rules with the RCMP.


Mr. Lefebvre:: He is using his position to speak twice.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Thomas Lefebvre: Then why didn't you say so?


Walter David Baker: Why didn't you ask? You have been here long enough.

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. W. Baker


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.
Under Standing Order 32(7), no member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, shall speak for more than 30 minutes at a time in the said debate; provided that 40 minutes shall be allowed to the mover of either an amendment or of a subamendment. My understanding of this provision of the Standing Orders is that, be it an amendment, a subamendment or a motion, a member is not entitled to speak for more than 30 minutes in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Since the hon. member admitted, as a reply to my question, that he had actually spoken for 30 minutes, I respectfully submit that his time has expired, that what he actually intends to do today is only to raise a question of procedure, that he can do so on a point of order and that we will have the opportunity to discuss and possibly to disprove his arguments; and, finally, he is not entitled to take part twice in this debate, to the prejudice of others members' rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. According to our records, all the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton did was to second the motion of the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) on Monday. So according to our records he has not spoken. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has the floor.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the minute remaining to me, the very important point to make, aside from hon. members opposite making a travesty of the rules, is the concerted attempt by this government, as it has before, to pass off on to the RCMP what is basically its responsibility to know. I am in no way defending any illegal act, neither am I defending the impropriety of this minister.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, just before the luncheon adjournment, when your colleague was in the chair, I was indicating my displeasure about the method the government chose to make the startling and astounding announcement that we have yet another break-in, apparently illegal, by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The announcement he would make was well known to the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox). In fact, it was so well known that he was not present today during the question period so that no questions could be asked of him, and he chose not to rise at the first

opportunity he had, namely, during motions, before orders of the day were called. Instead, he made the announcement in the course of his speech in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is quite legal, of course-slick politics, but quite legal-to smuggle in such an announcement during a speech in a debate, and thus deny members of parliament the right to deal with economic matters or other matters, rather than on motions when we would have the right and the power to question the minister.
What really concerns me, aside from what the minister said in the House today, is what he said when he went downstairs to the television room. What he asked us to believe is that certain high officials somewhere-there is some question as to where they were-took the view that it was the law of this country, that it was quite appropriate and legal, for a police force or a group of policemen to break into premises, remove the incriminating evidence or whatever they were looking for, make photocopies of it, and then put the original material back in place. This is supposed to be the law of the country.


James McPhail Gillies: Watergate!


Walter David Baker: Richard Nixon believed the same thing and defended it until it caught up with him. I suspect that if this is the kind of conduct that is being defended by the Solicitor General, then he is not fit to occupy that post.
The other side of the question that is beginning to worry me even more is how much this government really knows, how true it is that they can honestly slough off this responsibility completely on to the RCMP. Is there a responsibility somewhere in the parliamentary law in this country, and indeed in any parliamentary jurisdiction, for a minister to have some responsibility for those who come under his jurisdiction? Can he honestly say that so-and-so acted illegally, but that the minister is not responsible? In that sense he has forfeited, I think, the credibility that he has as the Solicitor General, but, more important, as a minister of the Crown. Is there any Canadian anywhere, except perhaps in the House where we are bound to accept the statements by ministers, who believes that in a city like Ottawa, where the public service, national agencies such as the RCMP, cabinet ministers and the business community are always intercommunicating, there was no knowledge in the upper levels of government? I do not believe that there was no knowledge, although I must accept the minister's statement because that is our parliamentary practice.
There is a suspicion abroad that the government of Canada, by limiting the jurisdiction of the McDonald inquiry into the RCMP in such a way that it can only be directed to the RCMP and not into the question of the responsibility and the knowledge that government ministers had, was effecting the first steps of the cover-up of what is now coming out in dribs and drabs before the Canadian people, because this is the third instance. When will we hear about the fourth, the fifth and the
October 28, 1977

sixth instance, and what kind of mentality is there in this government that they should believe the people of Canada would call that kind of conduct defensible? I suggest that they misread the people of this country in terms of civil rights and the operation of law.
Who else is being investigated and has been investigated by the RCMP under the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada? Is it the NDP that they have investigated; is it the Progressive Conservative Party that they have investigated; is it some other agency that their paranoia has caused them to investigate?
The other question I have is how much knowledge, in this case, did the security and analysis group, which is right in the Solicitor General's office, have with respect to the matter that the RCMP was involved in; and if they did not have any knowledge, they had better come forward and say so, because there is no one here who will accept that?
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is no one anywhere who will believe the tripe that we have heard coming from the mouth of the former solicitor general, now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer), the solicitor general previous to him, now Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), and the present Solicitor General who had to stand up and make that abject speech in the House today. There is no one who would believe that they could be so incompetent as not to know; and even if they were so incompetent, then they should not hold that office. We have just removed the lid on Pandora's box of security, snooping, bugging and illegality in this country, and we serve notice on the government right now that we do not intend to let this matter rest until it is all hung out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a brief question? In view of what he is now saying, would he not agree that the McDonald inquiry should now be out in the open?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: 1 thank the hon. member, because he has anticipated what I was going to say with respect to the McDonald inquiry. I have just had put in my hands a copy of Hansard of June 22, 1977, when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) asked that the Chief Justice of Canada be empowered to appoint a judicial inquiry, and that the judicial inquiry be empowered not only to act within the terms of reference of the present McDonald inquiry, but to investigate the question of the legal and moral responsibility and the liability of this government in terms of the operations of the Department of the Solicitor General and the RCMP. What was asked? We asked the simple question. It is not known. The preamble to that question was the same preamble that was used for the Dorion inquiry which the force of public
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
opinion finally drove into a public, open inquiry although the supporters of the government that day said no.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said, that inquiry should be public. There is no way it can be kept secret now, and no justification for it. When it comes about that a federal government agency investigates a political party, then surely if we are a democracy and if we preach and practise openness in government, then openness in investigation in those circumstances is the only proper, honourable and moral course to take. The self-serving statement of the Solicitor General, on page 8 of the text, says:
After having made inquiries into these allegations at the insistence of the government the commissioner of the RCMP advised-
Does the Solicitor General not recall the questions which were put to him in the House of Commons day after day by the opposition parties? Does he not recall being asked and pushed by the opposition in this House for the kind of inquiry we wanted and called for on June 22-a full, open, public and broad inquiry-not only into the RCMP but also into the responsibility of the minister and his colleagues? Does he not recall that?
I am sure the Canadian public recalls it. I am sure it occupied enough of the front pages of the metropolitan newspapers in this country that the Canadian public is not so selectively amnesiatic as the Solicitor General. Nobody believes the Solicitor General when he says it was at the insistence of the government. It was at the insistence of the members of this House who occupy the opposition benches.


Francis Fox: It refers to the allegations that came in after the first statement.


Walter David Baker: The minister had his chance to make a speech. He made his speech and he is now hung with it. When the history of this time is written-


Francis Fox: You don't know what you are talking about, again.


Walter David Baker: -and the minister reads Hansard, he will find that the only reason we got this paltry investigation was that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and other parties in the House of Commons insisted that it come about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once again the hon. member is distorting the facts because he has no knowledge of the facts. Perhaps that is not his fault, but if he is really interested in the truth and in what happened after my initial statement in the House in the month of June, a number of allegations were brought to my attention, and I asked-and the government asked-the Commissioner of the RCMP to investigate those allegations. That is what the statement the hon. member just quoted refers to. Once again the hon. member is trying to distort the facts, which he cannot do because he does not know the facts.

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. W. Baker


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that this is a point of disagreement and the Chair cannot intervene.


Walter David Baker: It is hardly a point of order, Mr. Speaker; there is no way in which it could be construed as a point of order. The class of 1972 will have been here five years on October 30, 1977, and one thing I have learned since coming to this House is that when you are getting very close to the mark, some minister or some hon. member opposite always rises on a point of order. That is what we have just seen. They try to interrupt the proceedings.
The facts of this case are becoming horribly open now. The questions are now becoming open because this minister-


Francis Fox: Has told the truth.


Walter David Baker: -for the third time has been forced to tell the truth. I would wager that if the first two incidents were not about to be uncovered next week at the McDonald inquiry, the minister would not have come forward on this occasion, because he did not come forward on other occasions until he was pressed by members of this House to do so.


Francis Fox: You know that is not true.


Walter David Baker: There are very few Canadians, except the most abject apologists for this government, who will not say that the hallmark of the Trudeau government is secrecy; the hallmark of the Trudeau government is to obscure the facts.


An hon. Member:: That is one of their proudest achievements.


Walter David Baker: If anyone wants proof of that, he should take a look at the green paper on freedom of information. I thought the government had opened a new door, and I was about to put my foot in it just before it was slammed shut in terms of information. How many orders in council do we have now? That is the hallmark of this government. The practice has now come into effect, as far as legislation is concerned, to do things which used to be done legislatively by order in council behind closed doors.
The practice has been to deal with cartels. The uranium cartel is an excellent example. The practice of the government is not to tell anybody what it is doing. The government knows it can do things publicly if it wants to be honest with parliament and come to parliament and tell us what is happening, but it does not do that. As far as the government is concerned, parliament and the people of this country do not matter any more. The government feels it need come clean only when pushed, and on every occasion when this Solicitor General came clean he had to be pushed day after day in the question period. Those are the facts. The record will prove that, and the Solicitor General knows it.
There is some action this government can take, and I challenge it to take it. I challenge the government to broaden the terms of reference of the inquiry to the extent suggested in

the motion under Standing Order 43 proposed by the Leader of the Opposition on June 22, 1977. That will get at the question of ministerial responsibility. That will get at the truth of who in Ottawa knew. We will find out then what part the security analysis group played. We will get beyond the investigation of the security service of the RCMP and into the criminal investigation branch and the part that the Solicitor General and his colleagues played.


Francis Fox: Read the terms of reference.


Walter David Baker: The minister says I should look at the terms of reference. I have looked at them, and that is precisely why I raise the question I do. We will also find out who among the minister's cabinet colleagues knew. We have to accept what they say here on the floor of the House of Commons-


James McPhail Gillies: We don't have to believe it.


Walter David Baker: -but the Canadian people are not bound by our archaic rules; they can make up their own minds.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: They will.


Walter David Baker: The acting government whip says they will make up their own minds. He is absolutely right; they will. They are going to say, just as I have said, that never in the history of this country has there been a government more prone to cover up. Never in the history of this country has there been a government more ridden with scandal than this government. Never in the history of this country has there been a greater attempt to do indirectly what the government could not do directly under the law of this country. Never has there been a government in Canada which has tried to make more paltry excuses for the improper acts of its officials than has this government. And never has a government been more prone, when finally caught with its hand in the cookie jar, to blame its public servants.
That is what the people of this country are going to say. They are going to think of Larry Stopforth, Walter Rudnicki, and many other public servants who have been bound, gagged and forced to bear the burden of the ineptitude of this government by being fired from their jobs when they were just trying to do their jobs. This government has always tried to place the blame somewhere else. Well, it is not going to succeed. The RCMP, any police force, any member of parliament, public servant or member of the bench in this country is no different before the law than anyone else. No one can condone illegal behaviour, but neither is a government allowed to hide behind ministerial responsibility to cover its tracks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Mr. Oberle:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) allowed himself to participate in the speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to a large extent, 1 wonder if he would accept a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This can only be allowed with the unanimous consent of the House. Besides, the minister does not have the floor so there is no way he can answer a question. The question should have been put when he was speaking. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the minister was intervening throughout the speech of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, so perhaps he would not mind answering a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can speak to the minister outside the House. The minister is not entitled to speak twice in the debate, and he has used up his time. The hon. member for Timiskaming.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to pursue the matter under discussion, because I think it will be with us for many days and it is not going to bring any great repute to the people involved. I have been interested in the subject for a long time, because I think our police force has been used in ways it should not be used. I remember the RCMP sitting in front of my house for days, so I am interested in the problem.
There is a more practical and much broader problem that affects the people in my part of the country today, however, than whether they are under surveillance by the RCMP. Most people would let them in the house if they asked, but that would take all the fun out of snooping so they probably would not accept the invitation. In Canada today we are faced with unemployment and an economic situation very similar to that of the depression in the 1930s. 1 hope that we of this generation have more guts than our fathers had.


An hon. Member:: 1 doubt it.


William Arnold Peters: Maybe we do not, but I hope we have and 1 hope the young people of today will have more guts than their fathers. It seems to me we have a very intelligent, highly educated, highly sophisticated society. If we can allow D/2 million people, out of a labour force of 6V2 million, to be unemployed and not do something about it, I think we have failed that society and it will drift into the Ten Lost Years as our parents drifted into the decade of the thirties. Surely that will not happen; surely something will be done about it.
The government talks about buying armaments and sophisticated weapons. The minister mentioned a weapon commonly known as the neutron bomb that apparently does not destroy property but only kills people. It seems to me we are more barbaric than our ancestors away back in the time of the cavemen. We have to do something about it, rather than wait for the obvious solution that is already on the horizon: I mean war. There will be another Hitler or the equivalent, whether in
The Address-Mr. Peters
Israel, Rhodesia or South Africa, and that will bring an end to unemployment for Canadians and most of the people of the world. Of course, most people will be dead anyway and civilization will be set right back.
Unless governments, industry and all people co-operate to see that employment is provided, there will be a serious rending of the fabric of the nation, and very rapidly too. INCO has indicated that 3,000 people will be laid off in Sudbury, 700 at Thompson and 1,200 at Port Colborne. One of the mines in my area, the Langmuir joint venture-a joint venture of INCO and Noranda-has announced that operations will cease early next spring and 115 to 120 employees will be laid off. Mr. Speaker, it may be all very well to lay off 2,000 or
5.000	people in Montreal, and it may be all right to lay off
5.000	or 10,000 in Toronto or some other city, but any lay-off is a disaster in a small community that is based on one industry.
While I was home during the recess I received four telephone calls. One was from Timmins, inquiring if I could provide any assistance in bringing a nanny out from England. Apparently the wife had left home and the husband was finding it very difficult to cope with two small children. The same day I had three calls from my own area, and in each case the husband had walked out on the wife. These were all young couples with two or three children. I made the facetious remark to the people who handle social and family services that we should look over the files and try to match the deserted husband with one of the deserted wives and somehow put them all together and thus solve the problem for both parties. I was told that could not be done as they were all young people and the neighbours might talk. Maybe that is true, and I certainly do not want to act as an Ann Landers in matching them up. Mr. Speaker, this just indicates the disasters that take place immediately upon unemployment.
It has been suggested that some of the people being laid off might find work in Timmins. The Texasgulf operation there has already dispensed with most of its contract workers, however, and has announced on a number of occasions that it will not lay off workers. That is true so far, but recently statements from the company are to the effect that they hope they will not have to lay off people in Timmins. Mr. Speaker, there will obviously be lay-offs because the price of zinc is down. There will be lay-offs, too, in the Noranda area where there is a branch of the McIntyre mine whose main production is copper. The price of gold fell, so there is little exploration in that field, and until that happens they will have to depend on the copper operation alone. That will mean lay-offs.
Being laid off today is not like it was years ago when you may have had a father or grandfather, or even an uncle who lived on the farm. If you were laid off, you could go home and stay on the farm. That is no longer possible. In this country we are very proud that people own their dwellings-they and the finance company, and mostly the finance company. They have an interest in the house they live in and bought from their savings. Even if 10 per cent of their pay cheque were put into savings, clear of the mortgage payment on the car, on the

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Peters
house, furniture and everything else, it would only last one or two months. They may be fairly highly paid-they are certainly highly paid in Sudbury-but that is a very high cost area in which to live. If these people are laid off there will be a disaster within two or three months.
A husband looks for jobs that do not exist. He takes a trip to the city, but finds that because of a disability or lack of education he is not entitled to a job in the secondary industry. He finds he does not have a saleable commodity in the other mining communities because there are no job openings there. When this man returns home, obviously there is great difficulty. It often results in someone walking out, and a broken home. In the end, the municipality and the country have to make the contribution that should be made by the company or the industry in which he was employed. Instead, he is supported mainly by those who are still employed.
Northern communities such as Sudbury, Timmins, Noranda and Kirkland Lake are one-industry communities, whether the mining industry or the forest industry. They have been built by the workers in the industry, not the companies. It is interesting to note than when McIntyre mines left the mining field in Timmins, they gave to the city, for $1 or a small amount, the McIntyre arena. That was all they gave to the community after having taken out millions and millions of dollars. Hollin-ger left a ballpark that is now mostly a private golf course. They left Timmins with 800 or 900 houses which soon had to be replaced. The workers built the towns. They carried the tax load and were responsible for the community. A worker spends his lifetime developing a community for an industry. These are the kinds of industries we are allowing to go by the board.
The government can do something about this. Gold, for example, is a useless commodity. We have been told this over the years. For 25 years we subsidized the gold mines because the communities were totally dependent on them. They were maintained in the poorest possible condition. As little as possible was paid for the gold. The government subsidized the difference between the cost of production and the value of the gold. If the government had had enough sense to put it into our treasury instead of the United States treasury, we would have got our investment back tenfold. Gold went from $35 an ounce to close to $200. If we stockpile it today, it will probably go to $200 or more.
With regard to uranium, there was a cartel and the price was raised. However, that is not the answer. There is a world shortage of uranium. Only four countries have any sizeable amounts of uranium. We only stockpiled it against the day when there would be a need for it in the energy field. The same is true of nickel. Everyone says you can get all the nickel you want from the ocean. That has not been proven. The price will have to go considerably higher before it will be mined efficiently from the sea-bed, from salt water. If we stockpile nickel, it will only be against the day we sell it. That is also true of silver, zinc and other commodities. Everyone knows there is a world shortage of natural resources. We have used as

much in the past ten years as in the history of the world. It will be the same story in the next ten years. Use of these raw materials is rapidly escalating.
We have not paid enough attention to what will be the result of unemployment. Possibly we will have a war. By killing off all the young people and throwing away our inventory of resources, the problem will be solved. However, a certain number of people in Canada, and I hope it is a larger number than the government seems to think, believe we can solve this problem without much difficulty. In trying to solve our problems we should look to other countries, such as Japan. On many occasions I listened to the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin. For a long time he tried to interest the government in setting up a government trading agency to gather together Canadian production and sell it in an organized fashion. Rather than being sold for money, it could have been sold for goods and services from other countries under a similar type of arrangement.
1 do not know what type of blackmail the government used on Mr. Pepin. He left this place by the same process by which most of us leave. In my opinion, he was well on his way to becoming a multimillionaire. He was starting to put into effect ideas which he had been recommending to the government. I am not sure how they ever got him into the two silly positions he has since occupied. He may have done more for Canada if he had established a trading industry which could have been extended nationally because we are not able to trade with other countries. This country is bankrupt. We are borrowing from banks to which we had always loaned money, so that our currency does not collapse. This is true throughout the world. We will not be able to sell for cash; we will have to sell on the basis of getting the most we can in return for what we sell.
There are other solutions. I was interested in one of them. Today, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) cried about being misquoted and somebody picking on him. He has very highly paid civil servants who advise him. I suggest that hon. members read Doug Fisher's column "Mandarins prosper under Trudeau". Ten years ago there were three people earning over $30,000 a year, and he named the three. In the last return, which was made over two years ago, there were 4,522 people earning in excess of $30,000. I am sure there are now well over
5,000	in that category. The original three jobs are now paying $50,000, $60,000 and $70,000 a year.
There is no hardship here. The only hardship here in Ottawa is whether you speak French or English. If you are bilingual, you are fortunate and can be hired. If you are unilingual, you will not be hired. This is a wealthy community because of the wages that are paid. According to advice we receive, the program is not working.
I mentioned the Solicitor General. Whoever gave him information previously, lied. He had to come to the House and correct that information two or three times. He should fire the head of the RCMP. In my opinion, if we fired the top three echelons in the civil service, everyone would get out and scratch. It seems to me there is not enough scratching. In Sudbury, people realize the difficulties we are in. They know
October 28, 1977

the difficulties because they are part of them. The mandarins in Ottawa are not part of anything except of rug-ranking arrangements-who has the biggest rug, the largest number of secretaries, and so on.
I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) telling us we have to quit living so high off the hog. If he believes that, I will expect to see the automatic retirement of the three top levels of the civil service. It does not mean that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) must have the social equivalent of any other minister when he goes to a cocktail party. That is not important. He got on very well before with one deputy minister, Mr. Williams. You could ask that deputy minister anything and there was nothing he did not know. Now he is to be replaced by-how many people? Is it 25? I its 30? They are all getting roughly in the range of what Mr. Williams was getting.
Unemployment is a disaster for the government, for the individual and for the community. It is particularly disastrous for the mining industry and the forest-oriented industries where every decline in the market is immediately reflected at every level in the community concerned. The community lives or dies on the strength of the market for the products produced in the area. It is absolutely essential that if it is really interested in the future of these communities, the government diversify their economy.
I was shocked to hear the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) say today that the commodity which was being used in the Sherritt Gordon Mines could not be produced in Canada and that it was, therefore, all right to bring it in. In the end, what are we interested in? We are interested in ingots of nickel, and it seems to me that these can be produced here, with any additive which is necessary. The government will not be able to collect taxes from unemployed people. It does not seem to me that the government is much interested in taking an initiative by way of innovative steps designed to get people back to work, particularly in the resource-based industries.


Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and say a few words in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, given the fact that the opening of the session this year was most interesting and followed by all Canadians as it was done by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
Like many of my colleagues, I would like to congratulate the movers of the Address in reply and emphasize again the excellency of the speeches made by these two members, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). It is hard to believe that the hon. member for Malpeque, a young member who has joined us following a by-election, has been elected as a member of the Liberal party which I also represent. The constituents of tne riding of Malpeque, as you know, traditionally used to choose Conservative members as their representa-
The Address-Mr. Guilbault
tives in Ottawa but when you see what ability the new member for Malpeque has shown in delivering his speech to this House, it is easy to understand why his constituents have made such a choice.
I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about the television and broadcasting of our debates. I am very pleased to see that we have finally begun recording our proceedings on tape, which will provide a kind of electronic Hansard which can be used by generations to come. Since we are able to produce those programs, I really wish we would take as soon as possible some steps to broadcast in a more comprehensive way those programs which are recorded here in this House and make them available to all Canadians.
In Canada, we are lucky enough to have a very extensive communication network, high quality facilities such as our communication satellite which is flying over us and which would enable us to broadcast our proceedings in every Canadian household. Several methods including the use of cablevision are available to us.
We know that more than half of Canadians now have cablevision which would provide an easy and cheap way of bringing the debates of the House of the Commons into the homes of the taxpayers. I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the rather sharp attacks that were made on the government by the opposition during the debate on the address in reply and more particularly on two points. The opposition savagely attacked the government on the economic situation and also blamed it for its way of dealing with the problems of national unity.
First of all on the economic aspect, 1 find that a bit too often the opposition tries to build political capital on the economic situation. We all know it and the opposition is fully aware of the world economic situation. Opposition parties made up of members with an intelligence that is at least average, I hope, are in a position to understand fully and know that Canada is still one of the countries doing the best among all industrialized countries of the world in face of the international economic difficulties.
A recent report released by the OECD indicated that Canada still ranks second or third, depending on the sector that was being considered, with the best economic performance.
Obviously, the rate of unemployment has gone up in Canada. However it is certainly not by taking refuge behind irresponsibility and blaming the government for everything that opposition parties in this House will help us solve the problems we face. I, for one, say that the government has always refused to take the easy way out. On the contrary, for years we have been telling people that what we need in this country is more efficient work by everyone, that every citizen must do his share and increase his productivity.
We say and repeat that Canadians, and a great number of them, are living beyond their means and this is causing difficulties in the economy. It is not easy for a government to

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Guilbault
tell the people such naked truths, and yet we have done just that on several occasions. Not only do we talk, we also act.
We know-and the Minister of Finance said so during the debate on the Speech from the Throne-that over one billion dollars will be spent this year on projects aimed at reducing unemployment in Canada. In particular $450 million will be allocated to direct job creation programs, and almost $590 million on manpower retraining and mobility programs to help jobless workers solve their personal unemployment problems.
Moreover, the Minister of Finance has announced that an additional $150 million will be spent on labour intensive projects in those areas in Canada where the unemployment rate is the highest. As I said earlier, we are acting and we are not afraid to face any problem no matter what.
I would like to raise another point which I think is worthy of mention. During this debate, we have been blamed for our attitude to national unity. Several hon. members stated over and over again that this federal government would become the champion of centralization and near dictatorship. I think this is a lot of hogwash. On the contrary, we are now in a situation where government expenses are more decentralized than ever before.
As we all know, the constitution has never been amended in great depth So that the areas of provincial and federal jurisdictions have not been clearly set out over the years. But in one respect those areas of jurisdiction have been changed insofar as there has been a decentralization of the power to spend money. I would just like to read from the speech Senator Lamontagne delivered at a meeting held at the University of Montreal on April 6 last, and I quote:
In 1870, direct federal expenditures for goods and services amounted to 52 per cent of total government expenditures-
-in Canada. That is of federal, provincial and municipal governments.
-in 1926, this figure was only 26 per cent. In 1950, it went back to 48 per cent and went down again to 25 per cent in 1975. We have therefore returned to practically the same situation as in 1926, which was the period of highest decentralization in Canada.
I am still quoting Senator Lamontagne:
However, in 1926, federal government subsidies to provinces and municipalities represented only around 3 per cent of their total expenditures. This proportion rose to 5 per cent in 1950 and to near 30 per cent in 1975. This trend has strengthened the movement of decentralization.
It can easily be understood from those figures that the federal government, we know, is increasingly yielding funds and spending powers to the provinces. I repeat, today's federal government spends only 25 per cent of all expenditures in Canada by the various governments put together. This tendency is becoming more marked.
Regarding the national unity issue, I would particularly like to answer a bitter attack made by the member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) against the government in which she tried to ridicule, in an untimely manner in my opinion, the suggestion of a national referendum made by the

head of this government. Hansard for October 25, page 245, reports the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands as saying, and I quote:
It would appear that the government may hold a referendun on national unity, and I stress the word "may" because, true to form, the Prime Minister declines to give any details of his proposed referendum. He equivocates. The referendum may or may not be held; it may or may not be held nationally; it may or may not be held only in Quebec.
And I now skip some parts of her address to arrive at a point when she mentioned:
One has to ask oneself if this referendum-cum-plebiscite, or plebiscite-cum-referendum, is no more than a diversionary tactic designed to take the attention of the people of this country away from the government's inept handling of economic problems.
What I would like to have heard from the opposition regarding this projet of a referendum is what they really think about it. No, sir, once again they will be very careful not to tell us where they stand. However, it seems to me that it is by now clear that the government of Canada and Parliament should have at their disposal an instrument which would enable us to consult Canadians on an issue as important as national unity if the need arose. Otherwise, we leave it to the Parti Quebecois to decide on everything, and to hold its own referendum, which means we are waiving our right to do the same and ask Canadians for their opinions on this matter. Certainly Canadians, especially in English speaking provinces would be quite anxious to express their views when the Parti Quebecois offers them not only sovereignty out also economic association. I think hon. members will all agree that if they want an economic association with the rest of Canada, they had better consult them beforehand. So I sincerely hope that instead of sneering at such a serious proposal as this members of the opposition parties will support this measure when it comes up for discussion in this House, as it may give this Parliament an essential bargaining power.
What basically irks the opposition parties most is that they cannot make up a responsible team behind a responsible leader. There are frequent feuds in that party. Our cabinet is proud to have within its ranks the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), a highly competent member who left his party and joined us as he felt he would have a better opportunity to serve the Canadian people more efficiently.
Reference should also be made to the arrival of the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) who left the other side for obvious reasons and joined the Liberals. It is also interesting, as an example of the disagreements among hon. members on the other side, to mention the trouble the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) has been experiencing after being defeated in what appears to be a manipulated convention of his party. We should soon know more about this, because I am told the hon. member wants to expound his views and present his case at the forthcoming Progressive Conservative convention in the province of Quebec. It will be interesting to see the development of that matter which is nothing short of mysterious.
October 28, 1977

On the other hand, I submit that Canada is lucky to have a vigorous leader and strong leadership. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is one of our most respected leaders by the international community. The unfortunate thing is that no man is a prophet in his own country and when he returns here all kinds of charges are made against him.
Allow me now to deal with a more interesting matter, the development of the central area of Montreal. I would like to say first that the federal government should increasingly intervene in development and rationalization, especially in the development of the Montreal central area. Why do I say that the federal government should intervene when we know quite well that the development of a city comes under the jurisdiction of the city council and the provincial government which created the municipality? Because when we consider the situation, we easily realize that between 15 and 20 per cent of the urban land in the central area of Montreal belongs to or is under the control of the federal government.
It is therefore impossible to consider the restoration of the urban fabric of Montreal without recognizing the part the federal government must inevitably play in the process. In addition, it is as striking as it is regrettable, when one looks at a map of the downtown area of Montreal, to notice that about 40 per cent of the area is now vacant because the buildings which were there have been demolished or that space is being used as parking lots. I hope that there will be as soon as possible greater intervention by the federal government through its Urban Affairs department, in an effort to remedy that absolutely inconceivable situation where almost half the space in downtown Montreal is standing bare in an area where there is such an urgent and increasing need for housing.
To my mind, one of the things the federal government should watch closely is to limit the commercial zone to the core of Montreal. I feel that highrise buildings, in that part of Montreal, should not extend beyond the quadrilateral bound on the east side by St. Laurent and on the west side by Peel. That district is already studded with skyscrapers surrounded by numerous vacant lots. 1 am pleased to see more skyscrapers go up in that area, but I would regret it if the business district in the financial centre of Montreal were to extend way beyond that area and if apartment buildings which though old, could be restored, continued to be demolished. In short, why demolish when funds are available, to both promoters and owners in downtown Montreal, for the renovation of those units?
If I were asked what are my priorities, my main objectives for the development of the core of Montreal, I would summarize them in indicating the three following objectives which to my mind are pressing: First the Ville-Marie expressway which extends for almost one quarter of a mile, going downhill, in the vicinity of Vitre street has created a gap which must be filled and that incredible wound must be healed. That gaping void constitutes an almost impassable barrier between the residential part of Montreal and historic Old Montreal; that should be patched up without delay.
On the other hand, it seems essential to me that we continue to reinforce the cultural, economic and historical axis which is
The Address-Mr. Halliday
being developed, starting at Place des Arts, descending toward Place d'Armes. Those who know downtown Montreal are aware that south of Place des Arts is Place du Complexe Desjardins; further south, the federal government has undertaken to erect a number of buildings-Place Guy Favreau- scheduled to begin this fall and further south again is our famous sear, the Ville-Marie highway; right next to it is Old Montreal. Therefore it is essential that this axis be reinforced. In a minute I shall outline the various projects that would enable us to complete this axis which is extremely important for the development of downtown Montreal.
The other important and urgent objective is the vista on the river. We all know that the federal government owns the harbour facilities. As such, it can easily decide to move some harbour activities to Montreal's east end and tear down some grain elevators and thus open a vista on the river which would give Montrealers a very nice view. Those are projects, Mr. Speaker, which I will make every effort to "plug" in the coming months.
I would like to go back to the Place des Arts-Place d'Armes axis I mentioned earlier and it seems to me that in addition to the Guy Favreau Complex which will soon be built there and which will contribute to give back to downtown Montreal its residential look, the key to the development of that Montreal district will be the construction of the Convention Centre. And that Centre could not in my view be in a better location than just above the Ville-Marie expressway, in the very Place des Arts-Place d'Armes axis I referred to earlier. That would enable conventioners and tourists to have a ready access to Old Montreal and also to the federal government services nearby in the Guy Favreau Complex.
Since my time is almost up, I would simply like to add that the ideas I put forward can be translated into reality. The subject has been discussed for several years, but if I put these ideas to the House, even though they are of rather local interest, it is because I think it is urgent that we act now. And I urge my fellow Montrealers not to worry because even though I am suggesting to the federal government that they become more involved in the development of Montreal, I am not suggesting that they do so unilaterally without consulting the municipal authorities. On the contrary, the recently announced Place Guy Favreau is one of the finest examples of the consultation process which will result in a project satisfactory to all parties, and that is the light in which I see federal participation in downtown Montreal.


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the mover, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson), and the seconder, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both hon. members did an admirable job in a difficult situation. Their situations were all the more difficult because they were attempting to speak

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Halliday
following the presentation of the Speech from the Throne, such as it was, with virtually nothing but tripe in it.
At the same time I recognize the gracious manner in which Her Majesty read the Speech from the Throne, because it must have been equally difficult for her to read that kind of speech, and if the news media are correct, Her Majesty was inconvenienced for some reason beyond my knowledge and had to wear glasses, which she does not normally do. It is typical for this government to make matters awkward and difficult for people whenever it can.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is difficult to believe.


Bruce Halliday: In reviewing and commenting upon the Speech from the Throne, there are a number of things one could discuss. There are items related to the economy, unemployment, inflation, national unity, and the language issue. Hon. members from both sides of the House have dealt very adequately with those subjects; therefore it is not my intention to do so. However, 1 should like to make one comment with respect to the Speech from the Throne.
I have read the Speech from the Throne a number of times and, as I did so, it became obvious to me that approximately 75 per cent of that speech dealt with the problems of our country with which we are familiar. As well, it dealt with methods the government tried, over the last year or two, in an attempt to correct those problems. For some strange reason, it could only find enough to talk about by way of a remedy for this situation to occupy approximately 25 per cent of the Speech from the Throne.
Traditionally the Speech from the Throne deals with the government's plans for bettering our economy and our national situation. In this instance the government completely failed to do that. The speech contained nothing innovative, and there was nothing new in order to confront our present national problems. Therefore the Speech from the Throne is more notable for what it did not contain, rather than for what it contained.
One particular item it did not contain was a reference to the matters of fitness and amateur sport. Why was there no reference to the matters of fitness and amateur sport in the Speech from the Throne? Is this an insignificant problem in Canada? If that was the case, there would be no minister in charge of that particular portfolio. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his advisers felt the affairs of that minister and that department were not significant and did not merit any reference in the Speech from the Throne. That could be one answer to the question. Another answer-I really doubt if this is the correct one-could be that the minister has no clout in the cabinet. When one observes her inside and outside the House, there is no doubt that she is enthusiastic about her portfolio. I am wondering if she has no clout in the cabinet, just as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has no clout. That is something of which the people of my constituency are aware.
As the debate on the Speech from the Throne progressed, I was surprised the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur
[Mr. Halliday.)
Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) rose to speak in it. Being a member of this House, she was entitled to speak on any topic at all in this type of debate. I wondered why she spoke as the minister and devoted approximately 60 per cent of her speech to her own portfolio and the problems associated with it. I should like to compliment her on her speech. She is a very good orator in her own right and presents her case very well, albeit there were some discrepancies, non sequiturs and flip-flops in her arguments. As a new minister, being only three years in this House, she is probably suffering from some of that contagion which she caught from the Liberals in this government. The contagion I am referring to predisposes them to develop and offer these non sequiturs, flip-flops and so on, which are so characteristic of the present government.
What did the minister have to say in her address? I should preface my remarks by saying that prior to her speaking in this debate she tabled in the House a green paper entitled: "Toward a National Policy on National Sport-A Working Document". To a great extent her speech was an elaboration of her comments contained in this working paper. I should like to refer to the first sentence of her speech, as reported at page 177 of Hansard dated October 24, 1977, which reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is not seven years since the last public statement on sport.
I hope the minister was not bragging when she said that. To begin her speech by saying no one in the government has seen fit to make a significant statement on amateur sport in the last three years is a rather reprehensible thing to say about your own government.
In her second sentence she indicated that the green discussion paper had been tabled. She said that it was presented "toward a new national policy on amateur sport". If I asked any Canadian what the present national policy is, I am sure he or she would draw a blank. Somehow she suggested that this was a new policy; but it may well lead to the first government policy of any significance.
One then has to look at some of the comments she made with reference to fitness and amateur sports. She began by saying that there were certain priorities that had to be considered. First she spoke about the spending of the government with regard to health care, and she made much of the fact that in Canada now we are spending roughly $7 billion a year on health care. Then she said that about 40 per cent of all that money being spent on those aspects of health care related to lifestyle diseases, and she went on to name them:
... such as smoking, use of liquor, the licit and illicit use of drugs, nutritional imbalance and physical exercise that is abandoned, to name only a few.
First of all I want to look at it from different perspectives, the more broad perspective of the total government, and the perspective of the minister, how she perceives the components of her department, namely, fitness on one side and amateur sport on the other, relate to one another in terms of priority. First let us look at it from the perspective of the total government's view of sport and physical fitness. Obviously the
October 28, 1977

throne speech gives a clue to the government's priorities in this field. The throne speech, not having mentioned the subject once, indicates how much interest the government truly has in fitness and amateur sport.
Then let us look at the budget which the government allows because, after all, the minister is not able to determine what our over-all budget will be for fitness and amateur sport. If we look at the current fiscal year 1977-78, we find that the budget for fitness and amateur sport comes very close to $27 million. That sounds like quite a bit to most of us, but when you put it in the context of a budget for health care of about $7 billion in the total budget of the country of over $40 billion, it looks to be rather small. Perhaps we might analyse how small it really is.
The concept of fitness and amateur sport first became a valid concept in Canada back in 1961 when the Fitness and Amateur Sport Act was passed. At that time embodied in the act was the statement that the government would be allowed to spend up to $5 million a year on anything to do with promotion and assistance of fitness and amateur sport. Let us look at what the gross national product was at the time. In 1961 the gross national product was $39 billion. Now in 1977 it is about $190 billion, almost $200 billion. So we see that the GNP has gone up five-fold. The expenditure on physical fitness and amateur sport this year was $27 million, just a little bit more than five times what was allowable in 1961.
The minister told us the other day in the House that we will be spending about $30 million or $31 million this coming year on fitness and amateur sport, and she may well be right. Let us assume that we spend, say, $31 million on fitness and amateur sport. If one works that out over a 17 year period from 1961 when the act was passed, to give you an idea of how much concern the government has for fitness and amateur sport, the real increase in dollar terms comes to about 1.5 cents to 2 cents per Canadian per year. So if the government chose to increase its contribution to fitness and amateur sport on a yearly basis, taking inflation into account, the actual increase in dollar value is 1.5 cents per person, per year, since 1961. That gives you an idea of the priority which the government gives to fitness and amateur sport.
If we assume the minister is spending this year $27 million on fitness and amateur sport and we assume that $10 million of that will go for fitness out of the $27 million-after all, fitness is pretty basic to sports and one has to look at that priority too-which priority comes first, fitness or amateur sport? Let us assume fitness is worth $10 million a year. This means that for every dollar the minister spends on fitness, the government spends $700 on health care. What does that tell us about the concern of the government for fitness? Or let us take the total expenditure on fitness and amateur sport of $27 million to $30 million. If you multiply it by three you find that they spend $3 on fitness and about $700 on total health care. That shows you the value which the government places on fitness and amateur sport.
What about the minister's priorities within her own department? I asked her a question this morning in the House,
The Address-Mr. Halliday
having looked at the act which sets up her department. Section 13 of the act states that the minister shall, within three months of the end of the current fiscal year, present to parliament an annual report on the expenditures, activities and commitments of her department. To the best of my knowledge there has been no such report as yet. It should have been received by parliament at the end of June this year. We are almost at the end of October and we have not yet seen that report.
The irony of the whole thing is: where are the priorities? It seems to me that here we have the minister presenting to us this green paper, which is great, because we like to know what the government's plans are for the future, but surely she has an obligation to present to us what has transpired in the last year, and this she has completely failed to do.
Let us go on now to the objectives of the minister's department. It is always interesting to take a look at the estimates in the great Blue Book we get each year. If you look up the estimates under the Department of National Health and Welfare for the program on fitness and amateur sport, we see written out in plain print the objective of her department, which is to raise the fitness level of Canadians and to improve their participation in physical recreation and amateur sport. That is subdivided into sub-objectives, which are, to increase appreciation for and understanding of fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport-note the order-to improve the Canadian delivery systems of fitness, physical recreation and amateur sport.
There is no doubt in my mind that if you read the official objectives of her department, the emphasis is laid on fitness. I submit that the priorities of the minister do not seem to show that. She has come before us with a working document, a green paper, on sport only, with a very passing reference to fitness. I do not think it takes somebody with much more than elementary education to realize that if you are going to be any good in a sports program, you have to have some fitness. The minister herself has admitted to us in her speech made earlier this week that the big problem with the health of Canadians is that we spend 40 per cent of our dollars on lifestyles that do not lead to fitness. Obviously, in order to get excellence in sport we will have to do something to improve the general fitness of the nation. What can we do?
Over the last two years the minister's first priority has been to produce a working document on sport. The minister told us in a passing reference earlier this week that we are going to get something on fitness later on. But what are the minister's priorities? They seem to be all mixed up.
The minister said in her speech the other day, "The commitment of this government to sport access is complete". I take that to mean that the minister wants all Canadians to have access to sport. Indeed, the minister says that somewhere in the green paper. We cannot fault her for that. It is an admirable desire on her part. However, it is interesting to see the stress laid on anything but availability of sport to the average Canadian in the green paper.

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Lavoie
The Ottawa Journal of Tuesday, October 25, summarizes the green paper well. Some of the words in the Ottawa Journal article which I have in my hand were taken right from the minister's green paper, so I am not exaggerating or trying to misrepresent what the minister says in her green paper. Here are some of the proposals in the green paper, according to this article in the Ottawa Journal'.
-A national coaching apprenticeship program to develop world class coaches in Canada.
-More assistance to increase the number of world-class officials and referees.
-A talent identification program to give the basis for identifying promising young athletes.
No reference is made to ordinary athletes or young athletes, just promising young athletes. Those are the athletes who are going to be helped.
-A club assistance program to help sports clubs "willing to and capable of producing top athletes for our national and international teams."
Look where the emphasis is.
The paper also says that if universities are willing "to commit themselves to excellence in their sports programs, co-ordinating them with those of the community, and expand training and competitive opportunities," the government will subsidize ...
I wonder if the minister took the trouble to check with the universities of Canada to see whether in fact they really believe that the prime responsibility, or even a major responsibility, of a university is to develop excellence in sport. That traditionally is not the history of universities, and I predict that the minister is going to get a lot of flack if she tries to sell to the reputable and high class universities of this country the idea that they should become involved and commit themselves to excellence in their sport programs.
The minister goes on to say, and this is another quotation from the green paper:
"We want universities to take over the development of the high-performance athlete,"...
We can see where the minister is putting the stress. The stress is on high performance athletes, national teams, international teams, world class coaches, world class referees and so on. This is deplorable.
I see that my time is running short. I want to refer to some of the minister's comments regarding sport policy. After an introduction by the hon. member for-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I notice that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the House how pleased I am to take part in the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like the people of Hochelaga, a constituency which I represent, to share this pleasure with me, all the more so since it will be remembered that on June 14 last I had the

courage to take a difficult step in the interests of my fellow-citizens, my Quebec constituency and all Canadians. I crossed the floor of the House, because the people of Hochelaga elected me in the first place to represent them and to work, not to remain in a party where disorder comes before the interests of Canadians.
Since then, considering the needs of my riding and of all Canadians and through my sincere contribution to the Liberal party caucus, I proposed some ideas which are today part of the Speech from the Throne, of the government's objectives and the policy it intends to adopt during the present session.
Mr. Speaker, I must thank all my colleagues and the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada for accepting me in that great team of the Liberal Party of Canada. I am pleased to work at their side because I soon came to realize that their first preoccupation, like mine, is to serve all Canadians without exception. After two years here in this House as the representative of the Hochelaga riding, I wish to thank also all my colleagues who gave me the help and support that I needed, including some colleagues of my former party and I wish to mention the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) and particularly the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who is presently convalescent, and I wish to take that opportunity, and I hope that my colleagues will join me, to wish him a fast recovery.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for their excellent job. And I wish to congratulate them especially as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) declared in his speech yesterday and I quote, and it is important, Mr. Speaker:
Unfortunately, I cannot offer congratulations to the two members who moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, as that would be hypocritical of me.
At least he is sincere about that.
I cannot congratulate anybody who is supporting and congratulating this government with its record. I look at these two members with disdain. It amazes me that they could get on their feet to support and praise this government.
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate them and I know other members from all sides have congratulated the hon. member for Louis-Hebert and the hon. member for Malpeque. Are those two members contemptuous? Has any member of parliament the right to scorn or to hold another member in contempt? It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre should eventually withdraw at least his contemptuous remarks. I think it is unacceptable in our institution; it is democratic. Each of us has the right to give his views but to be contemptuous of one of his colleagues, Mr. Speaker, that is too much! If he holds one of his colleagues in contempt, he feels the same for himself and the public, which is pitiful.
Mr. Speaker, you will understand why I have crossed the floor of this House. I had said before that should the government take positive steps, should they introduce very positive measures for the benefit of all Canadians, I should do it, which I did, and rightly so. You will recall, for instance, that I asked the government, that if they wanted to remove price and
October 28, 1977

income controls, they should do it gradually, but that they should be wise enough, however, to establish a monitoring body so that the situation does not get worse than before. This step had been proposed by the government well before the Speech from the Throne and unfortunately, some union representatives have rejected it because they wanted controls to be removed once and for all. Who will be the first to pay the cost? The Canadian taxpayers, as usual. 1 suggest the government's intent to remove those controls gradually in the next session and to establish a monitoring body is a very commendable one. And I hope that the opposition which also advocated decontrol will cooperate with the government to that effect. There are also other measures for which I am glad I have crossed the floor. I had also requested that the Montreal area become a designated area with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in order to assist small businesses. This was done.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an excerpt from the Speech from the Throne which will enable me to elaborate on my comments. I quote:
The government has recently made new funding proposals to the provinces which will improve the efficiency and flexibility of social services such as the rehabilitation of disabled persons, day care and community development services. The delivery of these services will thereby better reflect varying conditions and priorities across the country. It is hoped that the response of provincial governments will lead to the introduction of a revised social services act during this session.
In the present situation, we should really try to solve our problems. Let us consider for instance, the case of older citizens. Certainly they do not receive a very high pension and if they had a little more money, it seems to me that they would have a better chance to make both ends meet. Welfare recipients do not have enough money either, even if the federal government pays 50 per cent of welfare payments.
The problem does not necessarily derive from the fact that the amounts are not adequate. It is rather a problem of housing, Mr. Speaker. Why? Because in their present home, everything is more expensive: hydro, gas, fuel oil. An old age pensioner lives in a slum and has to pay for some drugs which are not included in the free drugs program and if that person has to pay more for the energy he or she consumes because of the lack of insulation and because the cold air comes in through all the windows, he or she is very unhappy.
Mr. Speaker, these persons are in a difficult situation and this is why I am saying that the government expects to be able within a year or two to help them and I am one of those who will work hard for the establishment of a guaranteed minimum annual income, which will at the same time eliminate a good many of these problems. That is where we are, Mr. Speaker, and we have no other choice. This is why as members of this House we must keep on working to improve the living conditions of Canadians, be they young or old, rich or poor.
Another point which I would like to raise, Mr. Speaker, concerns young people. Today when young people graduate from CEGEPS or universities-and God knows how numerous they are, a fact that not I alone have noticed, for my col-
77) e Address-Mr. Lavoie
leagues must have too-they want to work, they are ready to take courses and eventually get themselves recycled, they do not want to be unemployed as some people seem to believe. People ask: what do young people want today? Perhaps to stay idle and draw social assistance or unemployment benefits?
Mr. Speaker, maybe there are some who think that way, but I believe they are a minority. We know that these young people are the future of our nation, that they will form tomorrow's citizenry and that we must give them the education they need. I will also take the opportunity of the presence in this House of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to tell him that it will be necessary to create more training courses for the young who are unemployed in order to give them a fighting chance on the job market. We will also have to provide them with jobs.
There are several ways of creating jobs in this country, Mr. Speaker. If the provinces are willing to go along with the federal government, it may be possible to create more manufacturing or processing plants in Canada, which will result not only in new jobs being created but also in cost reductions. For example, we import steel from the United States and it costs us very dearly while we could have it processed in Canada. So why not do it at home? Mr. Speaker, these are questions which I am asking myself. I know from reading the Speech from the Throne that the government has indicated really good intentions in all these fields. 1 am convinced that if all hon. members were willing to work together hand in hand, and put before all else the interests of Canadians as a whole instead of spending their time playing politics, we would get somewhere.
I would like to make another point. For years, and long before being elected to this House and also when I was sitting in the opposition, frequently sending memoirs to the government on the subject, 1 was promoting the establishement of the office of ombudsman. I feel it is high time for this country to have its ombudsman. How many people have to face big government machinery? I am thinking about unemployment insurance and immigration. Too many small bureaucrats have too much discretionary power while ministerial staff have their hands tied. Let us imagine a situation where a junior civil servant takes it upon his lonesome self to send back home someone for some ridiculous motives. He simply does it. I realize there are procedures. There are appeals, but very often, Mr. Speaker, the civil servant's decision prevails. I am wondering how many people win their case in such appeals.
I am convinced that an ombudsman would not only be a useful tool, as the protector of ordinary citizens and taxpayers, but that he would also be of service, at least I hope so, to civil servants who are very often kept in the dark through no fault of theirs. This is why civil servants should also be entitled to the services of this ombudsman.
Mr. Speaker, I would have many other things to say about this, but since my time is limited, I shall go on to other issues. One thing that I wish is that Parliament can soon do more to prevent delinquency among young people. Having been a member of the sub-committee on penitentiaries and having seen all sorts of things, I believe that the time has come to do

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Lavoie
something else than building prisons. Of course, we have no choice in this matter at the present time, but, in the near future, we should also invest in our young people to prevent delinquency. On the long term, we could avoid having today's young people turn into the prisoners and the inmates of a strange type of university tomorrow and turn them instead into responsible adults, which would be cheaper for the people, more productive and more advantageous for the taxpayer.
In my riding, through the Canada Works Program, for which, by the way, I would like to thank the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) for the sum of $819,000 granted to my constituency which has been used to create 21 projects and I do not know how many jobs as I did not take the time to count them, we have succeeded in developing two projects for the prevention of delinquency among young people. I hope that following these two pilot projects developed under Canada Works, the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Fox) will be able to do more to develop additional projects of this type which would benefit our young people.
Mr. Speaker, I want to raise another point. I will try to be brief because the other one that I want to mention is also very important. I am very pleased with the television broadcasting of the debates of the House of Commons. However, I deplore the fact that I cannot be recognized by the Chair more often. When I was sitting on the other side of the House, I was recognized at least once a week. Since the debates have started to be broadcast, and even before, there were always four or five members on this side of the House to be recognized.
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that our proceedings are televised and that the people may watch what is going on in the House, but they should not see the opposition members only. In my opinion, any member, whether in opposition or in government, has the same rights and privileges, and I think that someone in the House will eventually have to correct that situation, because it is inconceivable, otherwise democracy will suffer in Parliament. Every member has been democratically elected by the people to Parliament, so everyone has the right to speak. Not all at the same time, of course.
I realize the Chair does not have an easy task, but at any rate it is important to reach an agreement at some time in order that my colleagues as well as I, who have questions of public interest to discuss, may raise them in the House. Before television came to the House, we used to put questions. Otherwise, opposition members will likely lie shamelessly to Quebecers and tell them: You know, in Ottawa, there are 60 Liberal members and they never rise or speak up. That is what they will say as they always have, but now that 1 am on this side, I understand the situation. And I understand it so well, Mr. Speaker, that I feel that this electronic medium is too powerful to be used improperly. It must be used to inform people and to give every member an opportunity to be heard.

[English)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is with reluctance that I intervene to ask the hon. member that if he has any remarks or propositions to make to the Speaker, with all due respect to the Speaker, perhaps he should do it privately with the Speaker.


Jacques Lavoie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Finally, I want to talk about national unity. I will be brief because I know my colleagues have already covered that subject. But there is one important thing concerning national unity that I want to talk about.
1 want to blame the government of Quebec for depriving Quebecers of amounts of money that will be provided by the federal government, and let me explain. I will talk of the Canada Assistance Plan and old people. I have a file here. I am not telling you lies. An elderly person whose home burned down-which comes under provincial jurisdiction-is not entitled to assistance because there is a word in the act called "assistance". I want to give you another example: in the area of housing, section 44 (l)(b) of the National Housing Act allows the provinces to sign agreements with the profit corporations and cooperatives. The government of Quebec does not sign agreements. It is already independent now.
Mr. Speaker, it is unthinkable that a government should deprive Quebecers of amounts of money belonging and available to them. I find that unthinkable and that is why I blame the government of Quebec for that. I think I do not have much time left, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude by saying quite simply that this country was built by our forefathers and we are here to replace them and hand it down to our children. I think that we do not have the right to let it be divided, and I am one of those, Mr. Speaker, who will fight right to the end to keep this country united, as my father stood in the battlefield for our country, Canada. Mr. Speaker, I will conclude on the following note. The Prime Minister said, and I agree with him: The time to make a choice and decide has come, we cannot afford the luxury of another decade of indecision.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I enter the throne speech debate. At the outset, I congratulate the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I may not agree with the policies or principles about which they spoke, but I admire the way they approached the subject.
I congratulate both members on their first speeches in this House. I thought they were exceptionally well delivered. They deserve to be congratulated. I am not at all happy that a colleague of mine saw fit to do otherwise.
However, when the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) started to alibi his actions by blaming someone else, I found this very distasteful. As a matter of fact the hon.
October 28, 1977

member seemed to be alibiing his acceptance of the party opposite.
We had a revelation today by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) of more and more dishonest acts being condoned by the government. By alibiing himself, he accepts the fact that we have fantastically high unemployment in this country. We have an unemployment insurance program that is costing us ten times that of the United States.
1 take a great deal of delight in speaking of the personal pleasure 1 had listening to Her Majesty deliver the Speech from the Throne. I, and I am sure a number of others, made a silent apology to Her Majesty for having to deliver the drivel that she did. As always, however, she was most gracious. It was a distinct pleasure for all in this House to have her here to lend her dignity to the opening of the House. We all enjoyed a few moments with her later.
There is a range of subjects covered in the Speech from the Throne. I will be either the last or second last speaker from this side in this debate. The range of subjects is very broad. One could spend a good deal of time on any one of them. My colleagues spent a good deal of time on these subjects.
For the first time we have had a budget speech thrown in with the throne speech. Whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is prepared to call it a budget speech or not, that is what it was, complete with ways and means motions to back it up.
From time to time we on this side have been accused of preaching gloom and doom. I know of no member of the opposition who is preaching gloom and doom. There is a problem, and we have to tell it like it is. We have to tell Canadians the facts because they certainly are not getting them from the propaganda of the ministers of the Crown.
Canadians support governments with their hard-earned taxes. Canadians fought, suffered, and died in the wars. As we come closer to November 11, we remember them more fully than we sometimes do. Those who sacrificed for their country deserve to know the truth. Should only a select group of Canadians, chosen arbitrarily, have the kind of knowledge necessary to protect their future and that of their families? Actions of some of these are some of the things 1 want to comment on last in my portion of this Speech.
I draw Your Honour's attention, and this has been mentioned before, to the words of the Auditor General in 1975 when he said, and I quote:
The present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
In 1976 he said:
1 am deeply concerned that parliament-and indeed the government-has lost, or is close to losing, effective control of the public purse.
On the way by in one of his reports he said, and I quote:
In the majority of the Crown corporations audited by the Auditor Genera], financial management and control is weak and ineffective. Moreover, co-ordination and guidance by central government agencies of financial management and control practices in these Crown corporations are virtually non-existent.
The Address-Mr. Ellis
These two reports by the Auditor General contain page after page of evidence of this lack of management control. None of these decisions were made by members of this parliament. They were made, by and large, by a bureaucracy. My hon. friend from Battle River (Mr. Malone), my hon. friend from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and others have drawn attention to the fact that the total budget when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power amounted to something like $9 billion and that today the deficit alone is about $9 billion. My hon. friend from Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) made a particularly telling contribution on the subject of foreign affairs, and my hon. friend from Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) made an excellent speech on behalf of disabled people. All these things are important, but the point 1 want to make is that we face a financial problem. It is not preaching doom and gloom to say we shall inevitably reach a point in time at which the taxpayers' ability to sustain the load of unlimited government largesse finally gives way. We are moving toward that point in time at breakneck speed. There is a danger of democracy smothering to death under a mountain of government debt, regulation, and red tape.
Once in a while I hear a voice raised in the House of Commons, other than from the opposition side, agreeing that there is a problem. He may not appreciate my drawing attention to it, but a colleague on the other side, the hon. member for Ottawa-West (Mr. Francis), frequently draws attention to some of the government's deficiencies though I suspect he is not heeded. Columnists make these points, too. One of them in an article I read recently says:
Relationships which were simple are made complex. Rules which everyone could understand are multiplied into abstractions and interpretations and footnotes to sub-sub-paragraphs until they are incomprehensible to everybody.
He goes on to say:
When the growth of a bureaucracy passes beyond control, it becomes a law unto itself. The process is self-fulfilling. The failure of each new intrusion compels it to intrude again. More people are hired, more programs devised to occupy them.
This particular columnist writes for the Business Journal and is preaching to the converted.
My leader made the point recently that when elected-I do not use the word "if'-he will implement what he has termed a sunset law to make Crown corporations justify their existence. I agree with that approach and I hope he will do the same with respect to projects in all departments. As a sitting member of parliament I experience a feeling of impotence from time to time in the face of some of these tremendous problems, but I know that through our efforts as a party these things can be changed. And, as my hon. friend from St. John's West said the other day in his eloquent speech, when we take over, they will be changed.
A few words, now, on the subject of the need for an ombudsman. The hon. member for Hochelaga took pains to tell us how necessary an ombudsman is. I say, not at all. There should be no need for an ombudsman. It may be that under the present government one is needed, but he should not be

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Ellis
needed. Many members of parliament, including myself, handle complaints which we receive from individuals in our constituencies who run into bureaucratic red tape. My staff and I handle multitudes of these cases. But we do not need an ombudsman. We need fewer programs, simpler programs. I go along with the venerable gentleman from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Venerable?


John Raymond Ellis: -in saying there is a need to help those in our society who are in need of help. But, if we do not learn soon to get off the backs of the private businessman, we shall find ourselves in terrible trouble.
I have spent time as a private businessman. I recall sitting down with a partner of mine some years ago and finding out how serious it was that he and I, who had contributed tremendous amounts to a company, had a third partner who took more of the profits than either one of us. If there was a profit, I got 25 per cent, my partner got 25 per cent, and the government got 50 per cent. However, in years when there was a loss, I was responsible for 50 per cent of it, my partner was responsible for 50 per cent, and our silent partner did not contribute one confounded cent.
Our lives are almost totally ruled by bureaucratic decisions and opinions, all too often arbitrary, capricious, and uninformed. The bureaucracy which dominates the federal government today has actually become a measure of man's ability to govern himself in a time of tremendous technological change and population growth. It is so massive that it feeds on itself, so intricate that it lends itself to a wide range of abuses, some criminal and deliberate, others unwitting and inept. I mention, for example, the reactor deal with Argentina and the loss of many millions of dollars; we were never able to get to the bottom of that, despite the gallant efforts of my hon. friend from Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence). Then there is the affair of the uranium cartel. Eventually we may get to the bottom of that-we are being stonewalled constantly but we may eventually unravel what happened there.
Let me give the House one example of the kind of problem we encounter. It is not a very big thing, but there are many in this House who like to use private aircraft from time to time. A few years ago, as a private pilot-I am not one now-I was obliged to install an electronic locator transmitter on my aircraft. I recall arguing the matter with the transport minister of the day, asking him how safe these devices were and whether safeguards had been built into them. But they were forced upon us, and every private aircraft owner had to install an ELT in his plane at a cost of some $200. It was the Department of National Defence which put pressure on the Department of Transport to make them compulsory. It was the Department of Communications which tested the ELTs and gave them a stamp of approval. It was the Department of Transport which provided legislation making the carrying of ELTs mandatory.
Owners had no choice but to obey the law. But now we find out that the ELT has not been performing as expected. Some
[Mr. Ellis.)
of them are potentially hazardous, and a bulletin has been put out telling owners they must be very careful of them. Incidentally, one of them exploded with tremendous force, damaging an aircraft.
I want to spend a few minutes now sharing with the minister and my colleagues some reading I came across recently, showing where some of our hard-earned tax dollars have been spent. From time to time we hear complaints that too much time and money are being spent on studies and that too many experts are being hired to take part in these exercises.
The book to which I have referred lists a number of the studies which are in progress. I quote, first, for $1,920, an analysis of mixed office waste paper from government establishments in the Toronto area. Further down the page I find that for $6,990 another analysis has been done of waste paper from government establishments in the Toronto area. Shortly after that I find yet another study on waste paper recycling opportunities for government action. This is to cost the taxpayers $139,455.
Another one which I find quite amusing is described as an analysis of price elasticity of transportation fuels. Someone is spending $29,800 to tell us that the price of transportation fuels is going to go up. Then for $4,975 you can have research conducted into the psychological and motivational factors affecting new car purchase. I guess for that amount of money you cannot buy a new car any more so you might as well study the matter. For $3,000 you can have design and analysis of data collection techniques for ascertaining social impacts related to variability of fishing seasons. Any fisherman will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that you cannot catch a pickerel with ice on the lakes which is too thick, and you should not catch them at other times of the year. For $3,000 our government is looking into that matter.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is going to spend $53,976 on a study to develop and assess the cost effectiveness of practical implementable counter measures for pedestrian and bicycle safety in a realistic urban environment. For $37,203 you can have a study and report on the inter-relationships between three elements of transit revenue collection, namely, fare policies, fare structure, and fare collection systems.
Here is one which is particularly delightful: for $57,396 there is to be a survey of preferred bus stop spacing. I suppose they would recommend that the bus stops should be 40 feet apart if the buses were 50 feet long.
There are pages of these projects, Mr. Speaker, and this shows the way some of our money is being spent.
The size of the federal bureaucracy keeps on increasing year after year despite the unfair and growing burden it places on the taxpayer. It compounds confusion for the average citizen. If it continues, not only will business choke to death on red tape, but individual wage earners and property owners will suffocate under this centralized power. We ride monopolized and government regulated city transit, commuter railroads,
October 28, 1977

taxis, airlines and buses. Raw materials are delivered and products shipped by regulated trucks, trains, ships and pipelines. We drink government regulated water. Our food is inspected and regulated, by government agencies which cannot agree. Some would ban cyclamates and saccharin because they might be harmful; others would legalize marijuana because it might not be.
Business knows that government decrees where it may build and how, whom it may hire and promote, how much it must pay, what standards its products must meet, how it can advertise, its selling price, and so on and so on. The businesses regulated include just about everything which humans do for a living. The big ones do what they must; they hire accountants, lawyers and paper work experts to do the job. The little guy puts up a fight but eventually goes out of business. For failure to comply with federal regulations, both risk fines and jail. In both cases it is the consumer who finally pays the bill.
In these few moments, Mr. Speaker, I have outlined only one of the concerns of the people from whom I hear. There are many more. Time does not permit me to refer to them, but my colleagues have well and truly elaborated on many of the other areas covered in the throne speech. The government seems to be totally insensitive and unwilling to listen or to change. Its time will come, Mr. Speaker, for I have complete faith that Canadians will not accept for much longer the type of governing that we have had, the kind of bureaucracy which has made their lives unbearable. I think that before much longer we will see a change.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I add my congratulations to those of so many others to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). They have indeed done themselves, their constituencies, and their constituents great honour by the manner in which they conducted themselves at the outset of this debate.
May I add also a personal note in memory of the former member for the riding of Louis-Hebert who was elected at the same time as I in 1973. I think all who knew her or got to know her will always have a place in their hearts for Madam Morin, as one of the most distinguished and able people they ever met.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: I think her family is following along in the tradition that she so well established.
The Speech from the Throne delivered by Her Majesty just so very recently here in this building was delivered in a manner I will never forget. I was pleased to be here, as were the people in the community I have such an honour to represent. Most of the functions which Her Majesty attended were held in the core and heart of her capital here in Ottawa. Her Majesty was at a football game in addition to being here in parliament. First Avenue Public School is within my riding. She attended a regatta within my riding, where my wife Maureen and I were so pleased to be in attendance with her. Her graciousness, and
The Address-Mr. Poulin
her intelligence and interest in Canada, indicate to all of us that the Crown still forms a very important part indeed of the government process in Canada.
This debate on the Speech from the Throne gives me an opportunity to refer to my riding and to some of the problems we have. Ordinarily, of course, we are reluctant to stray from the issue which is before the House at any given time but are confined to dealing only with the items contained in a bill under discussion. In the past year we have had some serious and difficult problems within my community relating to the relocation of thousands of public servants from Ottawa across the river to Hull. There has also been the decentralization of other public servants from Ottawa to other places in Canada.
By way of introduction to these comments may I say that in the past year I have been the parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry, trade and commerce. In that capacity, and in my other capacity as a member of parliament, I have had an opportunity to visit seven or eight capitals of the world on parliamentary business fulfilling one or other of my functions. I have visited Tokyo, Paris, Stockholm, London, and Canberra during the course of my duties as a member of this parliament and as parliamentary secretary concerned with matters of trade. Not one of those capitals of the world has anything which we do not have here in the capital of Canada. We have in Ottawa a capital blessed by the confluence of three rivers, with a magnificent geographic pattern and with a great and wonderful future.
Being very bullish, therefore, with regard to our capital in the long run, may I now make some comments about my real concern about this community in the short run. If we who can all see the buildings on the skyline of Hull could put wheels under those buildings and roll them across the Portage bridge and put them in the centre of the city of Ottawa, I for one would not want them there. For there would be nobody living within the heart of the capital between Laurier Avenue and the Queensway. I believe our capital should be a vital place with people engaged in their daily activities, living and indeed working there.
Ottawa has had planning which took place in the late 1960's and early 1970's and I think it was valid planning. It was planning which saw that the centre of the city of Ottawa did not consist just of towers of glass, steel and concrete, for that is really not a place where people can live. Therefore the planning which has put buildings and public servants across the river and into Hull has been right and proper planning.
I emphasize that that planning was done in the late 1960's and early 1970's, at which time the economy of the nation was buoyant. It was also a time when the increase in the public service of this country amounted to 4, 5 or 6 per cent per annum. This was adding to the work force of the public service in the national capital area sufficient people to fill two of Mr. Campeau's Places de Ville every three years. Clearly that is not desirable, most especially in these times of economic restraint. The circumstances have fundamentally changed.

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. Poulin
We are now in a period of a flat economy. We are now in a period where there is an additional economic factor, albeit an artificial economic factor. It seriously affects the viability of the heart of the nation's capital. The artificial factor I am referring to is the freeze placed by the government on the growth of the public service. If there were no artificial impediment to the growth of the public service, and if it were growing at a more normal rate of 1V2 per cent, 2 per cent or 3 per cent annually, then we would not have any vacant space in the city of Ottawa. If that were the case, the growth rate would be equal to the gross national product. Also, we would not have the prediction of four million square feet of office space being vacated. In fact we would be constructing other buildings in Ottawa and Hull.
The planning of the government was based upon economic factors which existed at that time. Indeed the same type of planning was done by the private sector. I have implored ministers of the Crown to take these factors into consideration as they exist today. The moves to Hull and the decentralization across the rest of Canada should not be stopped. But they should be slowed down in order to give our economy and our public service a chance to grow in a more normal way, at which time we will spread the harm and the difficulty being occasioned to the people who live in the centre of my city. This is not an unreasonable request. The private sector should bear some of the burden. There should be some empty space in Ottawa owned by the private sector, as well as some empty space owned by the federal or public sector in Hull.
There are benefits to the economy of Ottawa because the public service is located here. Likewise, there should be benefits to the private sector in Hull because of the federal government being located there. We should share the benefits. In the short run we should share also the hardships which will be curtailed because of economic factors since the planning of the late sixties and early seventies.
A slowdown will not cost the Treasury a great amount of money. A slowdown such as that will show the good will of the government toward this community. Ottawa has benefited greatly by having the public service and a dedicated group of public servants who are highly trained specialists. This ought to be acknowledged. A slowdown in these moves must take place in order for the economy to catch up. In that event the harm will not be so great.
Another matter of great concern to the community at large, the chairmen of regional governments, the mayors of the region and the reeves of the region, is the grants which are being paid in lieu of taxes. The vacancies which will take place in the private sector in terms of office space are a very serious matter at this time. Notwithstanding the fact that the office space is empty, the municipal expenditures continue at the same rate. I am referring to expenditures for police service, garbage collection, and education. Those expenditures are present whether or not the government occupies these buildings.

There are some buildings in Ottawa owned by the federal government which are exempted properties. These properties are of a cultural nature or are monuments, such as the National War Memorial in the centre of Ottawa. It is recognized that those properties are properly exempt. They are there for the people of Canada, and indeed the people of Ottawa enjoy them as well. Two examples of exempt properties are the National Museum and the National Arts Centre. But there are other properties which are exempt from the payment of any or all taxes and I wonder whether they should continue to have that status in this day and age.
Generally the government pays a full commercial tax rate on realty owned or occupied by it. That must be understood in order to eliminate some of the confusion surrounding this area. In addition the government pays full police rates, water rates and taxes, except for the exempt properties. The few buildings which are exempt might be brought into the ambit of full taxation in order for this municipality to have more funds to meet its day to day commitments. I am referring to such buildings as the National Library, the National Archives, and the National Science Library. As I said before, the National Museum will be exempt because it is a cultural establishment. These other buildings are repositories of information and knowledge. They provide knowledge and information in the same manner as similar organizations in the private sector. Their operations are closely related, and therefore these buildings should no longer be exempt from the payment of municipal taxes. The government should make moves in that direction. It is capable of doing so.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in correspondence with the mayor of the city of Ottawa, has indicated that the Grants in Lieu of Taxes Act will be amended during the life of this parliament. I urge the government to move as quickly as it can in order for the benefits of those amendments to be felt by the city of Ottawa, of which I represent a part, and the surrounding municipalities.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Hear, hear!


Fabian Hugh Poulin: This cannot be over-emphasized because of the great exodus plan which will be implemented in the future. That involves the move of public servants from this community to other parts of Canada. This community will have to tighten its belt, but it should not have to do so because the federal government is not paying its fair share.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: That is right-justice.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The most serious part of the controversy regarding taxes is the area known as business tax. I am sure there is room for compromise in this area. There is room for members on all sides of this House to strive for equity and justice. Taxes should be paid where operations that are being conducted are akin to, similar, or like work which is carried on in the private sector. As I have mentioned, grants are being paid on realty by the federal government at the full commercial rate on all real estate which it owns and occupies. It does not pay grants in lieu of business tax.
October 28, 1977

In order to summarize the argument of this government, and in fact of all past governments, I should like to indicate that the operations of government are not a business. We are not engaged in making a profit, nor are we trying to make a profit. So far as most of the government's operations are concerned, such as, for example, the distribution of old age pensions and the family allowances, the government is not conducting a business and it is not endeavouring to make a profit. The problem here is in the legislation regarding a business tax which goes up as high as 140 per cent with regard to breweries, and down to 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the tax paid on the realty.
Although government operations are not a business, equally government officials do not conduct themselves in these offices as if they were in a residence, in a home. It is obvious that they should be paying commercial rates, and somewhere along the line we should find some common ground. Although the government is not conducting its business in the same manner as companies are in the private sector, it must be recognized that the government should pay some tax or grants in order to assist the municipality in defraying the cost of its annual expenses.
I am very pleased that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is in the House this afternoon. He is becoming more and more influential with his cabinet colleagues. He has a very special interest in the Ottawa ridings and in the other ridings in eastern Ontario and so I ask him to take my message to his colleagues that there should be a slow-down in the movement of public servants to Hull, to permit our economy to catch up and to permit the public service to grow and fill these buildings. Also, through you, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Minister of Employment and Immigration that an accommodation be made by the government with respect to grants in lieu of taxes. I know that all members of parliament representing the Ottawa area concur in my appeal to the minister.
I should like to make some comments now on the matters raised by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) in his speech earlier today. I make these comments because if there is anything important in this land it must be adherence to our laws. I had a very interesting year as parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor General and during that time I got to know the present Commissioner of the RCMP, as well as the former one. I also got to know very well the chief of security of the RCMP, and indeed many other officers of all ranks with whom 1 have worked as a lawyer and as a prosecutor. I have nothing but the highest regard for these men, and I have some understanding of the great difficulty of the work which they do. But the solicitor general indicated that on January 9, 1973, an entry was made into the offices of the Parti Quebecois-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Address-Mr. C. Smith


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Louis-Heb-ert (Mr. Dawson), and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). I was really pleased to hear the speech made by the hon. member for Malpeque because I believe it was made by a very sincere new member of parliament, and it came from the heart.
The only highlight that 1 can find in the Speech from the Throne was the fact that Her Majesty the Queen delivered it, because I cannot see any other highlights in it that would bring Canadians out of the malaise in which they find themselves at the present.
I will have to cut my remarks short because I have only ten minutes in which to speak before the bells ring.
In any newspaper one might have picked up since October 20 one could find a headline or an article concerning the mining industry in Canada. Of course they concern the massive lay-offs of employees at Sudbury, Ontario, and Thompson, Manitoba.
Whether it be the lay-offs in Thompson, Manitoba, or the impending closing of the Alcan fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, the mining industry is finding itself in a real crunch.
The government is known for pointing its finger at industry and saying to industry "It is time you cleaned up your act. Give us some forecasts of what the mining industry is going to do. Get your act together," as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would put it, and tell the government what action you are taking and what the long range forecast is. However, I would like to refer to an article which will be appearing in the Financial Post tomorrow, October 29. The heading reads: "Mining's Tax Crunch". It reads:
Ever since Ottawa's white paper on tax reform in 1969, the mining industry has faced the prospect and the fact of substantially higher taxes.
Mining companies have been caught in the middle of the heated disputes between the federal and provincial governments about which jurisdiction should receive the revenue. In some cases, the conflicting rules have meant a potential tax of more than 100 per cent.
I have a timetable before me pointing out the major tax changes that have taken place since 1969 after the Trudeau administration came into power. I would like to refer to a few of those in the short time I have. Here we have the government telling the mining industry to get its act in place, and here are federal and provincial governments coming in with 13 major tax amendments in less than ten years.
The timetable reads as follows:
November, 1969. The white paper on tax reform proposes withdrawal of the three-year tax-exempt period for new mines, effective, January 1, 1974.
August, 1970. Ottawa announces that, after 1976, provincial mining levies will no longer be deductible.
January, 1972. New federal Income Tax Act comes into effect. It contains new measures relating to mining tax.
February, 1974. British Columbia introduces mineral royalties act and amends the mineral land tax act. Both changes apply to two tiers of royalties-a basic royalty and a royalty on so-called super profits.
414

October 28, 1977
The Address-Mr. C. Smith
April, 1974. Ontario and Manitoba announce higher mining taxes on mining companies' operations, to begin in 1974.
April, 1974. Quebec says it will assess the mining tax situation. In December, 1975, it enacts new and higher rates effective retroactively to April 1,1974.
May, 1974. Saskatchewan introduces a reserve tax on potash mines, in effect a royalty.
May, 1974. Federal budget announces end of deductibility of provincial mining taxes and introduction of the 15 per cent abatement, effective immediately.
November, 1974, Mining measures from May federal budget reintroduced intact except that exploration expenses can be written off at 100 per cent instead of 30 per cent.
January, 1975. Newfoundland's Mining and Mineral Rights Tax Act comes into effect, imposing tax on profits and royalties.
June, 1975. Federal budget scraps the 15% abatement (which reduces tax payable) and replaces it with a 25% resource allowance (which reduces taxable income). This is more favourable than the abatement for a company with substantial expenses for exploration, development or interest. At the same time, the federal rate is reduced to 46% from 50% to match rate applicable to other companies.
January, 1977. British Columbia's two-tier royalty system cancelled and replaced with a more normal mining tax on profits.
Mining companies now face a squeeze. There is a rush for tax dollars because the spending of the federal government is rampant. The federal government has to put the squeeze on to get more tax dollars to help offset its anticipated $9.5 billion deficit in this coming year.
To show how unwisely this government spends I would like to cite the example of the Otineka shopping mall in The Pas, Manitoba. This was an expenditure of $8.4 million. This is an example of the government spending money to help people in different parts of Canada! This shopping mall was supposed to create a massive number of new jobs in northern Manitoba. I understand that there is an order before the Treasury Board at this time to write off $4.2 million of the debt. This shopping centre was just opened a little over a year ago.
There was an expenditure of $11 million in the townsite of Churchill, Manitoba. The government closed Fort Churchill, which used to be operated at an annual cost of $7 million. The recreational complex in Churchill is beautiful. It cost $11 million. It was a gift to the people of the town of Churchill. The population of Churchill is only 1,500, and those people are faced with a 70 mill increase in their taxes. They refused to accept the keys for the complex. The keys were then turned over to the provincial government, and this albatross now hangs around the neck of the provincial government. It is saddled with operating costs in the neighbourhood of $700,000 a year. This was a great gift from the federal government. I know that the previous government in Manitoba was led down a snowshoe trail with little deals like this with the federal government, but I can assure hon. members that the new administration in Manitoba will not be led down that snowshoe trail quite so easily.
I would also like to mention the AHOP program under CMHC. There is not one single home under construction in the Churchill constituency under the AHOP program, for the simple reason that construction costs in the constituency are 20 per cent higher than they are in Winnipeg, and the CMHC
allows only $38,500 per unit. It does not matter if it is in the north or in Winnipeg. Considering the lack of housing we have in certain areas of northern Manitoba, that is a program which should be looked at immediately so that we can get some housing there.
I see that my time is drawing close to an end. As I said before, here we are under the bell again. It gives me great pleasure to close off this debate.
I feel that there was a mini budget slipped in through the keyhole, and that is about the extent of the Speech from the Throne.
The only highlight of the Speech from the Throne was that it was delivered by Her Majesty the Queen, and I would like to close on that note.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 4.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the main motion?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Dawson) agreed to.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved:: That the Address be engrossed and forwarded to Her Majesty the Queen.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That an Address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General praying that His Excellency will be pleased to transmit to Her Majesty the Queen an engrossed Address, which the Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, adopted in reply to Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: That the Address to His Excellency the Governor General, adopted this day, be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I move in accordance with Standing Order
58:
That this House at its next sitting consider the business of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 4.48 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.48 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 31, 1977