1977-04-01

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the light of reports carried on the CBC "World at Six" program last night that the Argentine government intends to seize the assets of Italim-pianti Company in Argentina and to issue an official order forbidding that firm from doing any further business in their country unless it immediately provides the name of the agent in the sale of the CAN DU reactor to Argentina, and since Italimpianti is AECL's partner in the sale, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That the minister make a statement on motions outlining the Canadian government's position in the light of this latest development in an increasingly bizarre transaction since AECL may now Find that it is left in the position of having no partner to complete the CANDU reactor deal, or suddenly having a new partner imposed on it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can only be made by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the unbelievable "stagnation" budget brought down last night by the Minister of Finance, a budget which consciously assumes, and plans for, the continuation of unemployment among one million Canadians throughout 1977, a level which is the highest since the depression of the 1930's, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call upon the Minister of Finance to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Paproski:: Don Macdonald said no!


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the continuing interference of senior territorial government officials in programs relating to the community development of Inuit settlements, and in view of the fact that the department of local government has a clear mandate to assist in the training of native peoples in community development and in view of the Inuit Tapirisat's strong protests to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development over the cancellation of the most recent training event at Baker Lake, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the minister initiate an immediate, and full scale, inquiry into this matter so that the House can be assured that responsible and responsive local government will be allowed to develop according to the needs and wishes of the native communities.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the light of the full page advertisements sponsored by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources encouraging Canadians to buy foreign imported cars and ranking more than 250 1977-model cars for their miles per gallon performance with six foreign made automobiles as the top performers, which could hurt the Canadian
4550

April 1, 1977
Abortion
automobile industry and create further unemployment, and since this advertisement is sponsored by the government I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That the Prime Minister and his cabinet members take immediate action in promoting gasoline conservation by turning in their larger model cars in exchange for a Canadian-made Chevette, or other similar Canadian made car, which gives 33 miles per gallon or better and that this policy take effect at the next cabinet car turnover.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


FINANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity arising from the stupid and grossly unfair budget-


Some hon. Members:: No!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: -presented to the House last evening. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
[DOT] (mo)
That this House condemn the government for its inconsistent program which continues to control the wages of workers on one hand while, on the other, playing Santa Claus to the corporations by giving them a $1 billion taxation gift.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize that it would be stretching to the limit the concept of an emergency order such as Standing Order 43 to debate a subject which under other Standing Orders is going to be the very subject of debate during six days.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious Standing Order 43 motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of obviously urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Badgley report clearly shows that the definition of health in the Criminal Code, referring to abortion, is grossly misused and applied virtually as abortion on demand, and in light of the fact that today 178 Canadian

children will be killed before birth, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare bring in legislation immediately that would remove danger to health as a condition for abortion from the Criminal Code.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of great urgency to a great many Canadians. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House regrets that in last night's budget presentation there was no mention whatsoever of old age pensioners, and this House calls on the government to bring in forthwith a substantial increase in the basic old age pension.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I have some serious misgivings as to how I can regard a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity requiring urgent consideration today when it has been arranged that the matter is going to be considered Tuesday. I think it would be an abuse of the rule to do so.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it relates to a budget brought down last night which lacks reassurance, leadership or compassion and which amounts almost to a master plan to keep Canadians out of work. Since the minister's own figures indicate that the result of his employment strategy is to guarantee a net increase of at least 75,000 unemployed Canadians-and I am speaking here of man years and not man hours, man minutes or man-miniseconds, as the budget did of-will the minister introduce further measures to generate jobs for the more than one million Canadians now out of work and for the added numbers of Canadians who he proposes to put out of work by last night's budget?
April 1, 1977


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take the opportunity to correct the hon. gentleman's reference to the man-months being created by the additions to the Canada Works program. The Canada Works program and the Young Canada Works, as the hon. gentleman should know, are short-term programs with respect either to summer employment or employment during the winter months when people are otherwise laid off from employment. In that sense we are not talking of a year round creation of employment but of a less than annual basis. Therefore, it obviously makes sense to present it within the context of the number of single months being worked, rather than on an annual basis. We anticipate, with regard to employment in Canada, that it would be very difficult during the year 1977 to make any very substantial reduction in the rate of unemployment in the country.


An hon. Member:: Certainly with this budget.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We anticipate that by the end of the year the rates of unemployment will be down from their current level. But I would not make any pretence that it would be possible to make a drastic reduction in the current year.


Mr. Speaker:: On a supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. The minister realizes and knows, and certainly the House knows, that the reason he introduced the concept of man months was not simply because of the explanation now given by the minister, but also because he was trying to fool Canadians with a larger figure than simply admitting the limited impact of the additions to the Canada Works programs that are proposed by the budget. Since he has admitted now that his budget last night offers no real hope, except the prospect of continued joblessness to those Canadians who are now out of work and to the many more Canadians who are going to be entering the work force without work to go to, will the minister not reconsider and introduce new measures that will create jobs for Canadians instead of consigning them to another year of hopelessness?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on this first point made by the Leader of the Opposition, it is plainly and simply a falsehood and can be dismissed as that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to his second point that there should be a very substantial increase in government spending, may I address him to the words of his financial critic who was complaining about the fact that we have increased the deficit by one billion dollars.


Mr. Speaker:: On a final supplementary, the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: If I might address this philosophic government on a philosophic point, does the Minister of Finance not
Oral Questions
recognize that there will be extremely high costs in dollar terms and in terms of anguish to the individuals affected by the budget which guarantees that there will be, in the year ahead, more than one million Canadians out of work without any hope of finding work? Does he not realize that that is a cost which is the responsibility of this government to address?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: They do not care about the unemployed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are very deeply concerned about the rate of unemployment.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are heartless, Mac.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We recognize the cost that is involved. I just put back to the Leader of the Opposition that if that is something that should be recognized, if should be recognized as well by his own financial critic who is critical even of the employment measures that we put forward in the budget last night.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You have no priorities.


FORECAST OF FUTURE LEVEL OF INFLATION, WITH AND WITHOUT CONTROLS, ON WHICH BUDGET BASED
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question also goes to the Minister of Finance about the other element of his most peculiar budget which does nothing for unemployment. I would like to ask the minister why he thinks there is an underlying trend toward downward pressure on prices, toward less inflation. Given the fact that in the last few months the Consumer Price Index has gone up, and given the fact that there is going to be higher prices of energy and higher prices caused by the foreign exchange devaluation, I would like to ask the minister precisely what the forecast is for the Consumer Price Index over the next 12 months on which this budget was based?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the major, underlying trend has been a reduction of the rate of settlements in the first year or life of a contract. There has been a substantial reduction since the program was introduced and there is a prospect, thereby, that the non-food sector of the Consumer Price Index will progressively come down. We look in the coming year, as I have said a number of times in the House, to the attainment of the target set forth in the anti-inflation program on the second anniversary of the program.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance perhaps be more precise and tell us, in the preparation of his budget, what was the forecast which was made by his department officials for the rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index or even by the Gross National Product deflater? What was the forecast of the level of inflation if controls were taken off? I presume the decision for the minister not to take controls off had to be based upon some forecast
80012-10'/i

April 1, 1977
Oral Questions
that was made of what inflation would be if the controls were removed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a recognition, rather than on the basis of that precise calculation, that there are very substantial claims still being made out in the community, for example, the claim being made by the International Woodworkers' Association in British Columbia for a 30 per cent increase in their new contracts, and claims by other spokesmen for substantial increases to recover settlements rolled back. But there is not a recognition generally in many parts of the community of the importance of the kind of restraint which will be needed to .contain inflation in Canada and to maintain the competitiveness of Canadian industry. That judgment, I would say, is not confined to myself; it represents the judgment also of the majority of provincial governments in Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance saying today that the budget as presented last night was prepared without specific forecasts having been made of the probable rate of inflation in Canada during the following year, either with or without controls? Is that what he is saying? Is he saying the government did not make those calculations, and that he is not prepared to put those calculations forward which were used as a basis for preparing the budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it makes any sense to put it that way.


Mr. Fraser:: Why?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The calculation of course can be made. The fact of the matter is that there has been an absence of recognition on the part of the official opposition that there has to be continued restraint against inflation in Canada and that in the long run, if we fail to exercise that restraint we, all of us, will be worse off. There has not been a recognition in many parts of the economy of the necessity to reign back expectations in this regard.


John Allen Fraser: What are the minister's projections?


UNEMPLOYMENT-BUDGETARY ACTION TO COMBAT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Considering that for the past few months the government has told members of the House that we should wait for the budget, to learn what the government plans to do about unemployment, and considering that the forecast of the minister in his speech last night of a minimum or average increase of 150,000 jobs this year, with a rosily optimistic possible target of 250,000, means that with the number of entrants coming into the labour force in 1977 unemployment will remain at best at the same level as this year, and probably worse, I ask the Acting Prime Minister if he is acknowledging that the government has done nothing

about unemployment in this budget; and, related to that, is the government really saying to all the unemployed in Canada what the Prime Minister said to students last week in Toronto, that if they want to find a job they will have to leave the country?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to the people of Cape Breton.


REASON FOR PROVISION OF INCENTIVES TO EXPAND PLANT CAPACITY RATHER THAN TAX CUTS FOR CITIZENS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my next question to the Minister of Finance?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Lots of luck.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that manufacturing is now operating at 20 per cent below capacity, meaning there is already unused machinery capacity, can the minister tell us why the government decided to give about $1 billion worth of incentives to further expand unused plant capacity, instead of providing a substantial tax cut to ordinary Canadians who would spend that money to stimulate demand and bring that idle machinery back to work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, combining what took place in the budget and the measures enacted at the beginning of 1977, there has been a substantial tax cut in personal income tax for Canadians. I emphasize, for the hon. gentleman and his colleagues who have repeatedly railed against incentives for further investment in Canada, that investment to improve the productivity of Canadian enterprises is the single most important thing for assuring not only that people will continue to remain at work in Canada, but that there will be further jobs. We have provided in the budget a substantial stimulation for the private business sector, which has been the slowest growth area of our economy, to invest now and take advantage of the growth in our markets at home and abroad which will be coming about in the next few years.


REASON BUDGET FAILED TO PROVIDE MORE FUNDS FOR DIRECT JOB CREATION
John Edward Broadbent: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. We heard the same rhetoric from the minister's predecessor. The precise programs the minister announced in this House were first introduced by the-former minister and they led to the highest level of unemployment we have faced. I ask why the government did not in this budget provide more funds for direct job creation, given that our level of unemployment now is higher than it was in 1971, than it provided in 1971, when it put more money into the economy in terms of direct government spending and direct increases in consumer demand than it is doing at present?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would just point out to the hon. gentleman, with regard to his first question, that my predecessor made certain through the measures he brought in that throughout the period of time when the U.S. went through a substantial recession, Canada remained one of the fastest growing economies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to direct job creation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the fact that during his budget speech of March 31 the Minister of Finance bowed reverently towards the minister in charge of the DREE program and stated that there would be very large increases in credits for the development of slower growth designated regions in Quebec and the Maritime provinces, could the minister advise the House whether projects have been set up for the use of these additional credits within these designated regions?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct slightly the interpretation the hon. member has just given of the Minister of Finance's statement. These are additional credits for investments. This means that the firms which will invest in these designated areas will be eligible for a further tax cut. Instead of getting 5 per cent for investing anywhere in Canada, the firms which will invest in the so-called designated areas of the Atlantic or Gaspe regions will get 10 per cent. Should they invest in other designated areas under the DREE program, they would be eligible for a IVi per cent tax cut. Therefore, these are not credits for investments, but tax cuts granted to firms investing in these areas.


POSSIBILITY OF MEETING WITH QUEBEC MINISTER
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the minister for this information. I think the manufacturers in my area will be very pleased to hear such good news. However, I should ask the minister whether he had discussions with the minister in charge of this field in the new Quebec government-


An hon. Member:: Is there one?
Oral Questions


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I hope so-concerning the federal-provincial agreements in order to work out some programs likely to create new jobs, and also to encourage manufacturers to establish new industries in the lower St. Lawrence area to promote the development of this region before everybody leaves.


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did have the opportunity of meeting my provincial colleague, Mr. Leonard, on several occasions and there will probably be some other talks at the same level very soon. Meantime, our officials are going to meet to consider some propositions which were made by the two levels of government. But, concerning the particular point raised by the hon. member, special industrial projects are not going to be discussed with the provincial authorities. It is the responsibility of DREE and of our staff to promote industrial development, to consider the plans proposed by manufacturers and to find out new projects that we could support to accelerate the economic development of the province of Quebec and more particularly of the hon. member's area.


INQUIRY WHETHER LE CREUSET COMPANY WILL ESTABLISH IN MONTMAGNY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I should like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the most important question now at issue, could the minister tell the House whether the French company, whose name is Le Creuset I think, and which was planning to set up a plant in the south shore area is still having discussions with the government and whether it is hoped that the company will establish a plant in our area?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are still going on but I must admit that after granting the company additional delays for it to make its final decision about our offer, I am not very optimistic at this stage, even though I still hope the company will decide to go ahead with the plant it intends to construct.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Perhaps I should give him more time to console the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to the very serious situation with respect to unemployment in the five eastern provinces where almost half the unemployed presently reside. Considering that only 17 per cent of the new jobs created in 1976 were created in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, an area with at least 36 per cent of the population, can the minister tell the House what propor-

April 1, 1977
Oral Questions
tion of the 150,000 new jobs he expects to create this year will be created in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, or does this budget in effect say to the people in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces that they must endure an average unemployment rate anywhere from 10 per cent to 11 per cent and in some parts as high as 30 per cent?
[DOT] (M30)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary; both in the direct job creation measures and in the investment provisions there are programs specifically directed to eastern Quebec and to the Atlantic provinces. We have introduced a fiscal policy change with regard to the investment tax credit to give a special benefit to this particular area, twice that which is available for investments in other parts of Canada.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, because of the very nature of those provisions, which are a one shot affair, I wonder if the minister can indicate to what degree these will be effective for job creation, as they very much appear to be more capital intensive than labour intensive. Can the minister give an indication of why there should be an expectation of very much job creation in the Atlantic provinces or in Quebec based on this particular fiscal incentive?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. member means by a "one-shot affair", but it seems to me that substantial job stimulus will be created in the first place by installing additional capacity and in the second place by providing additional jobs which the additional capacity will provide.


MANPOWER
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister may have more opportunity later to clarify the actual impact of these particular fiscal initiatives. I wonder if he would indicate as well-because the term "marginally attached" has been used with reference to some of the unemployed-in what way the government is defining those who are marginally attached to the labour force, particularly as this applies to young people and to women. These two groups are presently encountering very real difficulties with the government's unemployment program.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member has been listening, but we have catalogued a whole series of programs specifically directed to youth. An affirmative approach has been taken to deal with women in the work place. We are trying to remove some of the hurdles or handicaps women face when trying to get into the work force. We have to break down the attitudes which exist in industry, and we are in fact doing

that. I do not want to catalogue what we are doing here at this time, but I would be happy to write to the hon. member and tell him about the millions of dollars being put into this category.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State (Small Business). In view of the fact that the minister was unsuccessful in persuading the Minister of Finance to include certain small business incentive measures in his budget, measures which the minister himself has been advocating for some time, resulting in a disappointed small business community, I wonder whether the minister is now in a position to introduce incentives of his own, particularly in the area of creating risk capital for venture investment in small business, which is something of great importance within this important community.


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfair to say that the budget did not contain a number of things which favour small business. I think the Minister of Finance did extremely well in incorporating a number of things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Len Marchand: In the field of encouraging more venture capital to be available in the country I do not think there is any one single measure which can encourage this, but a number of the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance will definitely encourage more investment by venture capital companies. However, I should also point out that the whole question of venture capital is still under investigation by the Department of Finance and by my small business unit as well.


DOLLAR VALUE OF BUDGETARY COMMITMENT TO SMALL BUSINESS
Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Notwithstanding the minor small business measures which were included in last night's budget, and keeping in mind that this sector forms the backbone of our economy, I wonder if the minister could transfer into dollars his government's commitment to small business based on his budget?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, quite to the contrary, there has been a substantial commitment. The provisions with regard to investment tax and with regard to the adjustment of inventories to take account of inflation will be of very substantial benefit to small business.


Otto John Jelinek: How much in dollars?
April 1, 1977


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The total amounts for the Canadian community as a whole are set out in the budget documents. The hon. member might like to examine them. I just want to emphasize again that in addition to those measures which favour the retention of key investments by small business, there has been a more favourable treatment of small business from the standpoint of equity investment. There will be very substantial assistance to this very important part of the Canadian economy.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Like his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs announced this week in Montreal that the government intends to spend $260 million. Could the minister be more specific about the investment planned?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to send a copy of my speech to the hon. member.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. As the Place Guy Favreau project was mentioned, which has been promised at every turn, as well as those of the Lachine Canal, the Montreal Harbour, can the minister tell us, to give those projects the necessary credibility exactly when those works will finally get under way for the benefit of Montreal citizens?


Mr. Ouellet:: No, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned in my speech that one of the main reasons why construction of the Place Guy Favreau was postponed was that at one point before the Olympic Games the whole construction industry in Montreal was so busy that it would have been untimely to add another project that would have played havoc with the target date set for the Olympic Games facilities. On the other hand, the hon. member can readily look at the public accounts which have been tabled. He will see that the various departments have set aside the moneys assigned to those projects.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON LAND ACQUISITION IN NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, relating to the minister's answer about projects in Montreal, can he now assure us that there will be no interruption in the firm policy of the government of Canada to proceed with land acquisition and planning measures for federal construction in Hull and the national capital region?
Oral Questions


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr.   Claude-Andr@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
In view of the deadlock reached by the four unions representing millers in the province of Quebec over the Anti-Inflation Board interpretation of the collective agreement signed by the employees and the mills and since the strike has lasted to the point where one company at least got an injunction to force its employees back to work, even if it is a legal strike, can the minister tell the House whether his intervention has helped the parties come to an agreement and whether we can expect a settlement of this conflict in the very near future?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the situation in the flour mills in Montreal is very serious. The companies obtained an interim injunction. It is now incumbent upon the CSN leadership and its entire membership to obey the law. To disobey the law and the court injunction would be to the discredit of the CSN and its entire membership, and that will not assist at all in trying to resolve this very serious dispute. I hope the men will obey the law and go back to work immediately. That would assist greatly in the ultimate resolution of this particular dispute.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On page 19 of his budget speech last night the minister conceded that the prices of food, energy and imported goods would undoubtedly rise in the coming year. Under the AIB regulations wage increases will be limited in the third year of the plan to six per cent, and if the cost of living index continues to go up as it has in the first quarter of this year, we will probably see price increases of eight per cent to nine per cent over that period. AIB regulations can be avoided by the corporate sector in that while they may be limited as to profits, the minister's concessions to corporations and to stockholders will enable them to keep a larger share of those profits. I want to ask the minister if he considers this a fair and equitable way of distributing the burden of holding down inflation as between wage earners on

April 1, 1977
Oral Questions
the one hand and those who get their income from investments on the other?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me there is a confusion in the hon. member's analysis. The profit controls will remain on the corporations and the profit that the corporations will be able to draw from their operations will not be increased. The portion of that profit they will be able to retain as opposed to paying it to the treasury, will increase. The purpose is to put these funds to work, as the chairman of the Canadian Labour Congress has said, to create jobs for Canadians. I would have thought that was something of which even the hon. member would approve.


RELATIVE EFFECT ON CONSUMER DEMAND OF TAX CONCESSIONS TO WAGE EARNERS AND CORPORATIONS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question. In view of the fact that what this economy needs more than anything else is demand for consumer goods and that the economy is only operating at a little over 80 per cent of capacity, may I ask the minister if he considers stimulation of demand will be met by granting to wage earners tax concessions for the full year amounting to some $390 million, whereas tax concessions to corporations and their stockholders amount to over $1 billion? Does the minister consider that will either stimulate demand for goods or will represent fair distribution as between the corporate sector and the workers of this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, several misstatements by the hon. member offer the opportunity for correction. In the first place, consumer demand has remained strong in Canada through the past 12 to 18 months, as opposed to business capital investment. As to the funds made available for the working man in Canada, the combination of $900 million in adjustments that occurred at the beginning of January plus another $400 million to $500 million in adjustments which occurred in this budget have gone for the purpose of increasing personal disposable income.
I would point out to the hon. member and I would refer him to the budget documents, that the cost of concessions on an annual basis is by no means $1 billion, but much less than that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A final supplementary question. When the minister says that demand has held up very well, I do not know what income group he is talking about.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Consumer demand; the figure you used.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If the
unemployed were working and if those who are already working were not faced with the prospect of a reduction in real income, surely the minister will concede that would be the best

way to stimulate demand in this country? Does the minister consider that the money granted to the corporate sector over the last four years under successive Liberal budgets has resulted in increased investment and increased employment or is he prepared to admit now that the policy of the Liberal government has been a ghastly failure?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind the hon. member again that by its very nature the investment tax credit is available only to a corporation which engages in productive investment for manufacturing and processing. If the investment is not made, then the tax credit is not available.


INCOME TAX
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, as a classics scholar you will be familiar with the old Greek adage, "It is good to have friends both in heaven and in hell." I should like to address a question to one of my friends in the Cabinet, the Minister of National Revenue, following a specific inquiry put on March 25 by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador. I should like to ask the minister whether there is a general policy which would prohibit those charitable organizations registered with her department from writing to or lobbying members of parliament with regard to legislation that affects their particular area of interest. Is there a general policy that would prohibit charitable organizations from lobbying members of parliament?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the hon. member, I will check the particular lobbying technique which consists in writing to hon. members. In any event, as I said last week before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when they were considering my department's estimates, the application of the legislation providing exemptions for charity purposes is being considered by my department.


TRANSPORT
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and he has received prior notice of it. In his policy statement on rail passenger services reported in Hansard on January 29, 1976, the minister stated the government's desire to extend the Canadian transportation system to serve all users efficiently. In light of this statement can the minister inform the House whether the
April 1, 1977

recently announced Via rail program will include facilities designed for passengers with special transport problems?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of the question. We have asked that in the design of cars and equipment for the new Via rail service special provision be made for the handicapped in the interior design. In Transport Canada we are currently developing mechanized boarding systems which will assist the handicapped in boarding. Canadian National also recently installed a ramp in the Toronto Union Station to permit direct passenger access to platforms instead of the circuitous procedure formerly involved. We are trying to bear in mind the special needs of these people.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the fact that certain embassies refuse to co-operate with their Canadian employees by neither contributing to the Canada Pension Plan nor to unemployment insurance payments or indeed providing a T-4 slip, thus causing great hardship to these Canadians, would the minister use his good offices to have this situation corrected so that these employees can be protected like all other Canadians?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first I have heard of the matter and I must say that personally I have not had any complaints. If the hon. member has a specific embassy or more than one in mind perhaps he could give me that information and I would be happy to see what could be done to correct the situation. I have not been aware of it previously.


MANPOWER
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the unprecedented event this morning when news reports indicated that Canada had a new budget and also immediately reported that unemployment is to increase, and because money is going to be allocated for Canada Works programs, may I ask the minister if he will immediately proceed with the processing of those applications that are in hand or whether further applications will be necessary?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have a sufficient number of applications in
Oral Questions
hand and we will be processing them. I will have to determine to what extent we will use the additional $100 million we got last night, a wonderful initiative for which I thank my colleague the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY ISOLATED AREAS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM REGIONS
Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there are many pockets of unemployment, particularly northern settlements, which are lumped together in regions and thus do not indicate the true unemployment picture of those areas, may I ask if those isolated settlements are to be considered separately from the regions? They do not have manpower offices so are they to be considered separately or lumped together with regions?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, again we have the perpetual problem where we have representations from members of parliament on both sides of the House that the figures should be on a constituency by constituency basis. Then, we run into the kind of anomaly that the hon. member has suggested. We are attempting to overcome that and we did with Canada Works, for example, in so far as status Indians on reserves who are not counted in the labour force survey are concerned. We made provision to put that figure at 75 per cent unemployment to increase the amount of money in this particular area. I would welcome any representation the hon. member has to make, perhaps putting two or three ridings together and agreeing to share the pot, as it were. However, we are trying to find something that will be equitable and will meet the needs of the people who are unemployed.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Listening to him last night, I was impressed by what he said, but also depressed by the fact that throughout his speech there seemed to be a feeling of defeatism on the part of the government, not knowing what it is going to do or where it is going. In view of the statements made by the Prime Minister that Canadians are living too high on the hog and the need for restraint, is the minister going to launch across Canada a crusade for restraint on the part of all Canadians so that there will be a general realization as to how serious the situation is?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not
precisely in that form, Mr. Speaker, although as one Baptist to

April 1, 1977
Oral Questions
another, the right hon. member and I may think very much along the same lines on many of these matters of doctrine. I think that the message that is important to be carried across the country is in particular with respect to the impact of higher costs, either due to energy or the re-evaluation of the dollar, that the competitive position in Canada will be prejudiced if we seek to catch up on those costs by increasing our nominal income. That is the message we would like to convey to Canadians generally.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that we are immersed in the same views-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: -I would like to ask the minister whether the physicians would heal themselves and whether he would place before the House next week a list of the ministers of the cabinet from the Prime Minister down who practiced any restraint in the last two years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will give some consideration to that and see what prospect there is for some of the others to be born again.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM NAMES OF PROVINCES FAVOURING CONTINUATION OF CONTROLS-EFFECT OF UNCERTAINTY ON BUSINESS COMMUNITY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow up to those posed to the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for Don Valley. Since it is inconceivable that the government would prepare a budget without making calculations as to the rate of inflation expected in the year ahead with controls as compared to without controls, something like going to sea without a chart, and since the minister indicated last night that his phased approach to decontrols is generally favoured by the provinces, will he now state specifically which of the provinces favour this approach, which provinces have agreed to carry on the controls program beyond the expiry date of their original agreement and which have indicated they will not continue to adhere to the controls program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to prepare an actual statement of individual cases. Alberta, for example, has passed legislation to extend the application of the controls program to the end of this calendar year. I think it is correct to say that with the exception of Quebec, which has now opted out of the program, and, I believe, Saskatchewan, all the other provinces have indicated that they would be prepared, indeed that they would seek to have us continue the program.


Miss MacDonald:: Given this rather vague reply as to the definite intention of the provinces as to what they are going to do with the decontrols program throughout the year ahead, is the minister not aware that this lack of definite information will greatly aggravate the climate of uncertainty in the business and labour community that now surrounds the government's approach to decontrols?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being less than honest in her assertion and in the way she put the question. The response I gave is that the provinces have responded as a group, but in different ways. If the hon. member had wanted on the record what the individual responses were, she might have let me know in advance. As I said to the House, the provinces have generally indicated their support. I stand by the original answer.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question. Will he or the Minister of Justice be bringing forward amendments to the Criminal Code similar to those contained in Bill C-83 and will it again be an omnibus bill? Will gun control be severed and brought in as a separate and distinct bill?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as far as amendments to the Criminal Code are concerned, any bills before the House would be sponsored by the Minister of Justice. My understanding is that when it is time to bring in the amendments to the Criminal Code concerning gun control and other matters, the Minister of Justice will also bring in other amendments fairly close to the amendments placed before the House last year and which passed the committee stage of the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the bar associations of this country are complaining continuously about the sections of the Code in connection with privacy, calling the existing sections an invasion of privacy rather than a protection. Will the Solicitor General now say that in the new bill he will repeal that section which makes it necessary to give notice to the person who is the object of electronic surveillance.


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to wait until the Minister of Justice introduces the bill in the House to see exactly what changes will be made to that section.
April 1, 1977



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that countless municipalities throughout Ontario are expressing their concern regarding the impending expiration of the ARDA program in that province, will the minister indicate when the renewal will be signed by the federal government?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, negotiations are going on now. I hope that we will come to a conclusion within a few weeks and sign the extension to the ARDA agreement.


William C. Scott: As the provincial cabinet had indicated its approval of the renewal agreement, can the minister assure the House that there will be no further undue delay in this matter?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing. But I must tell the hon. member this involves many items still under discussion. I hope this will not take too long and the agreement will be concluded shortly. 1 must also tell the hon. member that even though the existing agreement expired yesterday, this does not prevent the program from going on since before its expiration we had agreed on a lot of projects which will be carried on during the year and for which moneys have been allocated. So there is in fact no delay. As soon as the agreement will be concluded, we will make plans for the other projects we might initiate during the year and which will carry on in the years to come.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister is aware, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and his officials have proposed a ban on saccharin. There is an industry in my constituency which is dependent on that. Will the minister or the government consider giving compensation to these industries that will be put out of business because of the minister's department jumping the gun?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not considered such a measure, but I will take notice of the hon. member's suggestion in this regard.
Oral Questions


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has not given any consideration to this, I hope that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration can do something for the 25 or 30 employees who are going to be out of a job through no fault of their own because of a decision of the government.



HOUSING


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It arises out of a statement made to him in committee this morning with which he concurred. I quote briefly from that. More than 280,000 families in Canada pay more than 50 per cent of their family income on housing and 820,000 pay more than 25 per cent for housing. Two thirds of all Canadians without housing cannot afford to buy or rent a house without government subsidy. The Chairman of CMHC said that we must take decisive action now or face unparallelled problems later. Would the Minister of State for Urban Affairs now tell the House what specific policies he has in place in lieu of any reference in the budget addressing itself to the difficulties of those Canadians who need housing but cannot afford it?


Harvie Andre: There are three programs which are very well known and successful-AHOP, ARP and RRAP and I will be glad to send the hon. member information about those programs. I am surprised he is not aware of them. However, thousands of Canadians throughout the country are aware of them and are taking advantage of them.



MANPOWER


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. Since almost half the unemployed are under 25 years age and the rate of unemployment among those young people is two and a half times greater than that among those who are over 25, would the minister assure the House that the bulk of the $100 million in the budget for job creation will be allocated to measures to provide for the employment of these young people and that should the number of young people unemployed continue to rise, he will give consideration to increasing the funds available for job creation programs?

April 1, 1977
Labour Conditions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In the light of the increase announced last night I want to work out specifically where the money can do the most good. The Young Canada Works program is directed primarily at students but the Canada Works program covers a large segment of young people who are not in school. I want to use these funds in the area in which they can do the most good.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower. Since the rate of unemployment among women 25 years of age and over was 60 per cent higher than the rate of unemployment among men, has the minister given consideration to any programs to reduce the very high rate of unemployment among the group of women to which I have referred?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: My information is that women accounted for 41 per cent of the jobs created under LIP in 1975-76, a share larger than their participation in the labour force. I would expect that under the Canada Works program that percentage would be maintained and possibly increased.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Cafik.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the budget document which was issued last night in conjunction with the budget.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering the total failure of the government in last night's budget to show concern about Canada's one million unemployed, and its refusal to indicate any new job-creation measures today during the question period, as an expression of lack of confidence of the House of the government's performance on this major question facing Canadians I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that the House do now adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than jive members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, it has been the custom in this House to give those of us with offices away from the centre block 15 minutes to come to the chamber. This has been the accepted custom since I came here 4Vt years ago. This appears to be the first time we were not given 15 minutes to get to the House. For those of us in the Confederation Building who have difficulty with an elevator service that is not working at the present time, and difficulty with the bus service because the bus drivers are off getting gas today, less than 15 minutes makes it an absolute impossibility to reach the chamber. If this is to happen in the future, there must be a different arrangement with respect to the offices of members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Marceau:: Mr. Speaker, I too want to take a stand against what has happened. I was in the House till ten to twelve, but I was called urgently to my office and did not have the opportunity to cast my vote. If this were to happen again in the future, I protest against it. I had the right to vote, I was here. Such a decision is highly prejudicial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the hon. member for Hastings rising, presumably to make the same point.


Mr. Ellis:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: On the question of the duration of the bells, hon. members will realize that there is a choice except within certain prescribed situations where there is a minimum duration of 15 minutes set by the Standing Orders. Otherwise the duration of the ringing of the bells is, by the custom of the House, by agreement between the government whip and the opposion whips. They agree that it is time to stop the bells and take the vote, and that is not a decision that is within the hands of the Chair. While I understand the difficulties of hon. members, this question ought to be taken up internally.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, mine was on the same point of order. I just want to point out that I am on the top floor of the Confederation Building. I casually completed a telephone call, waited for an elevator, waited for a bus, and was here ten minutes before the vote was taken.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are faster on our feet.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, for those who are interested in House business, the following questions will be answered
Order Paper Questions
today: 826, 1,541, 1,620, 1,841, 1,842, 1,858, 1,887, 1,951 and 2,188.


Mr. Yewchuk: What funds were expended by the Department of the Environment on studies on the marketing of freshwater rough fish as human food in (a) 1970 (b) 1971 (c) 1972 (d) 1973 (e) 1974 (0 1975 and what were the conclusions of such studies?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: As a first step toward new sales of freshwater rough fish for human consumption, it was recognized by the department that research and development of new products had to take place. Accordingly, the department expended the following amounts on research into means of processing freshwater rough fish into palatable human food. This work was carried out at the Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg. 1970, $8,500; 1971, $13,000; 1972, $15,000; 1973, $19,000; 1974, $15,000; 1975, $20,000; Total $90,500. Efforts were then made to find acceptable new markets. These efforts were made by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation and the Federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on a 50-50 cost shared basis. 1972 Europe was canvassed at a combined cost of $6,800 with some success (i.e. Container of deboned mullet was sold in Sweden at profitable levels). This effort is continuing. 1973 Japan and the Far East were studied at a shared cost of $8,000. Prospects look promising and Japan may prove to be one of the better trading areas. As well as pursuing all possible avenues for the sale of Freshwater rough fish species, the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is also working closely with the Freshwater Institute and the Manitoba Government in product development technology for maria produced for institutional markets. A supply of maria thus far has limited the success of the program.


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


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) (i) British Columbia, nil; (ii) Alberta, nil; (iii) Saskatchewan, nil; (iv) Manitoba, nil; (v) Ontario, 1975: 254, 1976: 201; (vi) Quebec, nil; (vii) New Brunswick, nil; (viii) Nova Scotia, nil; (ix) Prince Edward Island, nil; (x) Newfoundland, nil; (b) Nil.
2. Main Estimates.

April 1, 1977
Order Paper Questions
3. (a) $7.25; (b) information not available; (c) (i) 1975, $268,957; (ii) 1976, $287,687.


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many public servants in the Department of Public Works are located in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated payroll for the fiscal year 1976-77?
2.	What is the value of buildings and equipment owned by the Department in the Province?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. As of December 31, 1976, there were 1,521 located in the province of Quebec. The estimated payroll for the fiscal year 19766-77 will be $20,328,000.
2. This part of the question cannot reasonably be answered as records are not maintained to show the value of D.P.W. holdings. Original cost data is available but this generally would be a very poor measure of the market or replacement value of these holdings. To determine the market value would be an extremely costly task as it would involve the individual appraisal of every building and property, including presumably marine structure and equipment, roads, bridges and surplus properties such as Mirabel peripheral lands, Lachine Canal, etc. Furthermore, to attempt to value or even report the original costs of buildings and properties would be impractical as it would involve, in buildings occupied by more than one department, a subjective proration of costs.


Mr. Yewchuk: What research and development activities did the government carry out in the field of weather modification in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I-Hail Suppression: (a) to (e) Since 1955, the Atmospheric Environment Service (AES), the National Research Council (NRC) and the Alberta government have cooperated in the study of Alberta hailstorms seeking ways and means of combatting them. The Stormy Weather Group of McGill University, under contract to the AES, has done much of the analysis and research studies. Each summer field work has generally been performed near Red Deer, Alberta. Beginning in 1970, experimental testing of a hail suppression technique has been conducted under the name Project Hailstop. In 1974, the Interim Weather Modification Board of the government of Alberta assumed the operational responsibilities of the Alberta Hail Project. The project is ongoing. II-Rainfall Augmentation: (a) Final Reports and analysis on cloud seeding experiments conducted during 195963 by the AES and NRC with the assistance of a number of other agencies, (b) Nil. (c) to (e) Since 1974, with the cooperation of the Canadian Forestry Service and, NRC, the AES is attempting to develop new techniques to determine if rain can be stimulated to fall from cumulus clouds passing

over forest fires. Cloud seeding trials were conducted in 1975 and 1976 out of Yellowknife, N.W.T.


Mr. Yewchuk: What were the government outlays for research into weather modification in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: (a) 1972, $195,000; (b) 1973, $205,000; (c) 1974, $345,000; (d) 1975, $420,000; (e) 1976, $520,000.


Mr. Huntington: What is the total amount of revenue collected from income tax paid on pension income by taxpayers for (a) 1973 (b) 1974 (c) 1975?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Under the Canadian income tax system, tax is levied on the composite of income from all sources and not on individual components. Thus, conceptually, it is not possible to precisely determine the tax revenues associated with any individual income component. Under the Income Tax Act, tax is levied on four distinct types of pension income. These include payments under the Old Age Security Act, benefits under the Canada/Quebec Pension Plan, private pension income from registered pension plans and distributions from registered retirement savings plans, either in lump sums (subject to income averaging provisions) or as annuity income. In addition, all pension income received by the dependent spouse of a taxpayer served to reduce the marital exemption claimable in respect of that spouse in the 1973 and 1974 taxation years. The amount of this pension income is not reported separately on the income tax form and thus is not separately identified in income tax statistics. Estimates of the revenue consequences of the taxation of all types of pension income would require special data processing, the costs of which would be several thousands of dollars. Furthermore, a complete accounting of the revenue consequences of the taxation of certain types of pension income would require an accounting of the fact that employer and employee contributions to the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans and to private pension plans are deductible from income in computing tax.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What is the intention of the Department of Veterans Affairs concerning those veterans presently in the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal who require geriatric or chronic care when the hospital is transferred to the provincial government?
2.	How many of these veterans are considered to be a continuing responsibility of the government?
3.	Is there any difference in the agreement of transfer for the treatment of the two classes of veterans patients?
April 1, 1977


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Queen Mary Veterans Hospital is an active treatment hospital, not a hospital for geriatric or chronic care.
2.	The government accepts continuing financial responsibility for the veterans in Queen Mary Veterans Hospital who require active treatment of service-incurred disabilities. The number of such veterans in Queen Mary Veterans Hospital for the month of January, 1977 was 17. The remainder of the patients at Queen Mary Veterans Hospital are the responsibility of the Provincial Government for payment under the Provincial Health Insurance Plan and are admitted to Queen Mary Veterans Hospital only on a beds available basis.
3.	There is no agreement of transfer. In the event of transfer, because the hospital is an active care hospital, an agreement would contain no reference to chronic or geriatric care.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the staff at the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital provided with a better quality and more in quantity meals than the patients?
2.	Do the patients have the same choice of meals as the staff and, if not, are they given a choice?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. The quality of meals served to patients and staff is the same. All food is purchased according to Canadian Government Food Specifications Board standards. The production of the regular menus for all patients and staff is one process. Therapeutic meals may be a modification of the main meal or be specially prepared. Approximately 275 of our 850 patients in the main building are on therapeutic diets; their meals are modified and may be restricted in quantity because of the dietary prescription. Other patients because of their condition require special meals-e.g. minced meat for some who cannot swallow easily, or have no dentures. Normally there is no restriction in quantity of food for patients. The size of portions is standardized but patients may have seconds. In the interests of good nutrition, some patients who use the cafeteria are encouraged not to over eat.
2. The patients do not have the same choice of meals as the staff. Tray patients (average 650 in the main building) receive a set menu; a kardex is kept on each patient and his dislikes are respected. Special attention is given to seriously ill and/or difficult patients. In the patient's cafeteria two or three choices of desserts are offered. At the present time there is at the dinner meal (noon) no choice in variety of meat, but cut and minced meat are available. Because of the varied clientele in the staff cafeteria, in addition to the same hot meal as the patients receive, a lighter meal of sandwiches or salad is offered.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Friesen: Were any (a) cards (b) letters (c) petitions received in the offices of the Minister of Justice relating to Private Member's Public Bill C-221, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abduction of child) and, if so, in each case, how many?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Yes. (a) 213; (b) 97; (c) 2.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 1,302 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is a record maintained of firms engaged in the business of private couriers in Canada and, if so (a) what are the names of these firms (b) in what cities do they provide courier service (c) which ones provide service that could normally be carried out by the Post Office Department (d) what is the estimated annual loss in revenue to the Post Office Department as a result of the service being provided by private couriers?
2.	Are any of the firms engaged in the private courier business currently under contract to the Government and, if so (a) with which departments of the government (b) for what reasons?
3.	On what date were the answers to these questions prepared?
Return tabled.


William Ross Milne: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

April 1, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-2, to facilitate the making of advance payments for crops, be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there is no quarrel with the principle and objective of Bill C-2. The quarrel is with the method of implementation and the lack of availability of this program to all farmers who are producing storable crops. There is precedent for a different structure other than the one proposed. For instance, in the Wheat Board the only security that is required for a grain producer is that he sign his permit book and place his crop virtually at the disposal of the Wheat Board as they advance him cash, under the advance payments program on the government. It is simple; it is workable; it is safe.
There are other programs in government which could operate on a very simple basis. In the case of farm improvement loans it is negotiation between the applicant and his bank, his financial institution, his co-operative or his caisse populaire. This would provide a reasonable approach for farmers to the funds which the government is making available for this purpose. It is customary for legislation in this country, and the regulations associated with it, to be presented in rather convoluted language, establishing a difficult method of procedure in order that moneys may be spent. There is no necessity for it in this structure.
It would be advisable for the Minister of Agriculture and the government to examine the method used in the United States for comparable purposes. If a person requires an advance payment or a loan on grain stored, in the United States the applicant simply goes to the financial institution of his choice, presents his credentials, describes his inventory, describes his storage capability and, if necessary, passes over the key to the financial institution which makes the loan. The government of the United States is the guarantor of the loan; the bank has no chance of loss. The farmer has the money which he requires.
1 see no reason why we in Canada should complicate the program for advance payments on crops, as we are at present. In many instances there is no organization in place to act as the instrument of the government of Canada or the Minister of Agriculture. In many instances farmers do not wish to belong to organizations. Both these groups are prohibited from participating in this program. In addition to that, the minister has laid down qualifications respecting whether an organization is or is not eligible. To complicate it even further, organizations of Canadian farmers have suggested that under the present obscure proposal they do not know whether they wish to act, under this act, as bankers for the minister and the government.

It was moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) that we should extend borrowing privileges to farmers by means of their financial institutions. This is a very logical, proper, feasible and easy fashion in which farmers might obtain this money. I supported that amendment, and continue to do so. I think it would do for the financial institutions what the government cannot do. Perhaps I should say that the financial institutions can do better what the government tries to do. For instance, financial institutions such as banks would have a very easy opportunity to check the inventory, the quality of storage and the qualifications of the applicant. I think financial institutions ought to earn their interest by providing guaranteed loans in accordance with the government's legislation.
Experience shows that losses sustained under guaranteed farm improvement loan legislation have been negligible. That shows how well the farm improvement loan legislation is administered. The government guarantees a portion of the loan. The financial institution lends money to the applicant and does its best to ensure that the applicant uses equipment properly and makes regular payments. Therefore, on behalf of the government the lender performs a service for the farmer and in the process earns interest. I think what has worked in connection with the farm improvement loans structure would also work in connection with this bill. I have received inquiries from people interested in obtaining such loans.
Since the government has rejected an amendment to allow banks to be the government's agent rather than organizations, and since it is intended to extend the provisions of the bill to farm groups, perhaps provincial ministers of agriculture could be persuaded to act as the delegated instruments of the federal Minister of Agriculture in the implementation of this process. That is a second alternative. Perhaps the government could adopt it in order to make the scheme workable, available to farmers, and to make it democratic, not autocratic. The bill orders farmers to join. It virtually compels certain organizations to participate in the program. I suggest the government is abdicating its responsibility with respect to all citizens of Canada by enacting such legislation. This is a wrong move.
There is no use belabouring the point. I hope, since this bill is to be considered in the other place, that the government will reconsider its adamant position. Let it make the provisions of the bill available to all farmers, and let it allow loans to be available in the way farm improvement loans are available from banks or other financial institutions. In addition, I suggest that the federal Minister of Agriculture should make arrangements whereby his provincial counterparts will act as agents and assume responsibility on behalf of farmers. I submit that this piece of legislation is intended to attain the philosophical ends of the minister, rather than a solution to the problems of farmers mentioned earlier in this debate.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length but I wish to bring forward a few points because I am disturbed by certain developments con-
April 1, 1977

cerning the income of western farmers and farmers all across Canada.
I agree with the principle of extending cash advances. Farmers want, and need, this type of legislation. Many in this country are under the mistaken impression that farmers these days are doing well. True, grain in the last few years has fetched high prices. Between $4 and $5 per bushel has been charged, and some time ago prices were in the $6 range. People who watched the CBC program "Our Breadbasket", a program which dealt with two farmers, one owning an airplane and the other a swimming pool, might be under the impression that all farmers are doing very well. That is wrong, and we must make sure consumers in this country are not left with that impression. The consumers of this country have a soft spot for farmers and understand their problems. Farmers appreciate the concern of consumers. Unfortunately, the sort of distortions of the truth one sees, for example, on television programs, leaves consumers with the wrong impression; good relations between farmers and consumers may degenerate and we may run into difficulties in food production.
According to a Statistics Canada report issued three weeks ago-this is of concern to the acting minister of agriculture who comes from Quebec-gross farm income in Canada, January over January 1976 to 1977, declined by 31 per cent. Farm income in the four western provinces from January, 1976, to January, 1977, declined by 38 per cent. That is why a bill providing for cash advance to farmers is important. Of course, it only provides a cash advance on the crops they sell. The fact is, as 1 have said, that farm incomes in this country are dropping rapidly. The House ought to be aware of this fact, because we should do our best to pass legislation which will give farmers security of income. Cash advances are only a picayune part of any program which will guarantee the farmer a decent livelihood. After all, it is only an advance on what the farmer will realize later from his sales. The farmer needs the sort of income security which many in this country enjoy. Sometimes income security is not great, especially for the unemployed. Unfortunately, at present the farmer does not have security of income. He needs it, especially at this time when farm incomes in the country are falling rapidly.
Many do not realize that although a farmer's income may fall, his input costs remain the same or may even rise. Farm machinery prices are outrageously high. International Harvester, Massey-Ferguson and other farm machinery manufacturers have maintained farm machinery prices at a high level. They took advantage a few years ago of high grain prices, raised their machinery prices and have kept those prices high. If this situation continues you will see huge lay-offs of farm machinery workers in places like Brantford because farmers will not be able to afford farm machinery. As a result, more Canadians will lose their jobs.
We ought to consider a farmer's input costs when debating a bill affecting farm income. It is important to guarantee the farmer's income but it is equally important to guarantee orderly marketing. Farmers need marketing boards and marketing agencies to bargain on their behalf in the marketplace.
Advance Payments for Crops
Such boards and agencies give them a clout and help them even out the peaks and valleys of prices paid under our so-called free market system. Thus it can be assured to some extent that farmers will obtain at least a minimum reasonable price for their commodities. That system is also good for the consumer because he will not be at the mercy of the forces of supply and demand to such a great extent when buying his bacon at the corner grocery store or the other commodities which he needs. In addition, we must guarantee a minimum price for farm commodities in this country and make sure that we maintain controls over the price of commodities which farmers use, such as machinery and fertilizer.
Let me mention something else which has concerned me for a long time. I mention it now because the point is raised in the "bible" of the House of Commons, the Globe and Mail. A story on the front page of our "bible" says that people who buy cheaper foreign foods are undermining our farmers. So charges the minister of agriculture of the province of Ontario. That point is worth noting. I do not think we should build great tariff walls inhibiting trade between this country and other countries. I do not favour a great deal of protectionism in this country or elsewhere. I like to see as much free trade as possible, a world community the members of which help one another, a community which genuinely tries to redistribute wealth and income. I am speaking of redistribution not merely within countries but between countries, between the more prosperous parts of the world and the developing world.
On the other hand, the point must be made, when one talks about this country's tariff structure, that the least protected sector of our economy is the farm sector. The average tariff for farm goods in this country is one-half of one per cent; that is all the protection afforded our farmers. Compare this protection with that given the textile industry and the manufacturing industry, particularly of southern Ontario. Compare it with almost any other industry in this country, and you will find that the farmer is getting less protection. Some people are getting tariff protection at the rate of 10 per cent, 20 per cent or more, but the farmer is not. As a result, we Canadians will never become self-sufficient in food 10, 20 or 30 years from now. The Science Council has warned us that by the year 2000, Canada, with its vast acreage, will not be able to feed itself. We will be net importers of food. One of the many reasons for that is the stupidity of governments over the years in not establishing a decent trade and tariff policy for Canada.
There are many examples one could give of our goods competing in other parts of the world. The European Common Market is a good example where tariff barriers are put up by the EEC or other countries. Yet the goods from those countries, which are really subsidized and are helped by support prices, come to our country without any tariff barriers. It seems to me to be a blatant form of discrimination. An example is given in today's Globe and Mail which is probably as good as any in making the point. It is with regard to the food and vegetable market. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) said a short time ago that Ontario peach growers had

April 1, 1977
Advance Payments for Crops
about 80 per cent of the Ontario market; but there is no protection at all for peach growers in the province of Ontario. Australian peaches come into Canada with a tariff of W2 pence per pound, and Australian pears come into Canada duty free. As a result, the share of the market of Ontario peach growers has gone down from 80 per cent to 20 per cent. I predict that if this continues in a short time we will have no Ontario peach producers, or perhaps a few guys here or there, but no significant number of Ontario peach producers and we will be at the whim and mercy of the importers and the peach growers in other countries. Once they have us by the short hairs, they will dictate prices that our consumers will have to pay.
These are the questions that the House should debate some time. These are the questions we will have to resolve if we want a food and agricultural policy in this country which will bring self-sufficiency and security of supply of food for Canadian consumers. At the same time, when we. secure that supply for Canadian consumers we will ensure a secure, decent and adequate income for the food producers of Canada.
I wanted to make those few points this morning before the minister replied to me. There are many other things one could say about farm products in this part of the country. I think of industrial and fluid milk producers and the vast imports of cheese from other parts of the world. I think of the lack of imagination that our governments have displayed in helping our farmers to produce cheese and helping provide jobs for our own people and incomes for our farmers. Then I think of something I discovered only four weeks ago. There are companies in the United States which are producing artificial cheese made of vegetable oils. They inject this cheese with artificial flavouring to make it taste like Cheddar or any other cheese, and also they inject the cheese with artificial colouring to make it look like Cheddar or any other cheese. Then they sell it on the Canadian market. There is a company in Texas which is now lobbying three government departments for the sale of synthetic cheese in Canada which would sell at about two-thirds of the price of real cheese.
Most probably, it does not have anywhere near the same nutritional value and in many ways it would be fraudulent to sell this cheese because people would think they were eating real cheese, instead of which they are eating vegetable oils with different additives. As well, it would undermine the income of farmers. These are genuine threats to farmers' income, and if we do not come up with a comprehensive agricultural policy, then before we are much older we might not be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves. That is a real crime in a country as vast as ours, in a country with so many acres of land and as much potential as we have in Canada. We think of ourselves as a vast food basket, but we are not. We are putting land out of production, according to the Department of Agriculture, at the rate of 250 acres per day, or 10 acres an hour. If that continues, along with the other stupid policies we have we will not be able to feed ourselves and we will become a net importer of food. We will
[Mr. Nystrom.J
have an availability and supply problem which will affect the price of food, and we will have to solve these problems.
We should have in this country a much better co-ordinated food and agricultural policy. At the moment food and agriculture are divided among five or six ministers: the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport who is responsible for the Wheat Board, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who looks after community pastures and other aspects of farming, the Minister of National Health and Welfare who is responsible for the health protection branch and many aspects of nutrition, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who looks after many aspects of pricing, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who deals with tariff and trade policies, and probably two or three other ministers.
I suggest that we combine all these aspects of food and agriculture under one minister, but certainly not many more than one, and come up with a food and agricultural policy which will give us a guaranteed food supply for the consumers and at the same time a secure income for the producers, namely, the farmers. I realize there are a few trade-offs. There has to be some give and take on both sides. But I think we have a feeling in this country that we would be able to accomplish that if we had leadership to take us in that direction as its objective.
The bill before us is only a tiny bill, a bill which most farmers will appreciate, but it is so small it is almost irrelevant in the total scheme of things. What we need is a decent and forward-looking food and agricultural policy for all of us and for our children in the future.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been impressed with the consistency of the government in doing things in one way if they cannot do it in another. Parts of this bill seem to fall into that category. For years the government has tried to persuade oilseed producing farmers to agree to having their products designated under the Wheat Board, particularly rapeseed and mustard seed, but they have been unable to do so. So now they are providing some protection to those farmers, under Bill C-2, that they were unable to provide in a more direct way. I certainly commend them for their ability to accomplish by a roundabout method what they could not do either directly with the support of the farmers or in any other way.
The previous speaker mentioned what is probably the major problem facing agriculture today. It is highlighted not only by the government's inability to relate the national requirements of Canada to the ability of other countries such as Mexico and the U.S. to dump their surplus vegetables and fruit crops in Canada at a time when our prime crop is coming on the market, thus making it almost impossible to sell Canadian fruits and vegetables where they can be sold at the lowest cost, particularly in areas such as the Niagara peninsula, but its inability to provide Canadians with the same kind of protection that any other area would have when the main portion of their crop comes on the market free of tariff from other countries. This is not possible in Canada. The Ontario minister of agriculture has been screaming loudly about the inability of
April 1, 1977

Ontario farmers to produce and market their products at reasonable prices, not the surplus price but the normal production price which has to compete with U.S. surplus production. The Ontario farmer is really getting the short end of the stick.
To some extent this bill would assist the farmer of Ontario. It would allow him to retain his crop for a period of time, to develop his market and to maximize the price for his commodity. However, it would only do that if we stopped the Americans flooding our market at the time our crops are on the market. In this bill we are applying the same type of legislation we used for cereal grains to fruit and vegetables. They do not fall into the same category. It is quite true that farmers can get advance payments for wheat. They can hold that wheat for two or three years until the market improves, and get a better price, but with fruit and vegetables there is a limit. In some cases that limit is quite short and these commodities cannot be held until there is a better market. Therefore, in allowing each producer a maximum of $15,000 we can expect banks or other financial institutions to advance that money to hold products only if those products can be held and will not deteriorate.
Some potatoes which were sent to Haiti went by slow boat, taking four or five months to get there, and when they got there they were of no value. In fact, it cost a lot of money to clean up the ship.


Fred Alward McCain: You need more information on that.


William Arnold Peters: The only information I am presenting is the fact that it did not matter what price those potatoes brought. When they got there, they could not be sold at any price. So if we are going to maximize the price in the market, and if we are going to do it by allowing an advance payment, obviously we are also going to have to do it within the confines of our ability to hold commodities long enough to maximize the price. Many products cannot be held as long as wheat can be held.
Farmers in this country have an organization problem. Farmers want the government to give them subsidies, but they do not want to be organized or restricted. They do not want marketing boards. They do not want to come under quota restrictions. They are really asking for a free market, which means an open border. However, at the same time they know perfectly well that they cannot exist without certain conditions. A number of organizations came before the committee, but there was only one organization prepared to take an administrative role. The bill provides a very small amount for administration. Certain conditions must be met. There have to be audits and financial controls, for which most organizations are not prepared. They have not had to carry out these functions previously and they are not capable of setting up that kind of machinery. There was, however, one organization from Ontario which came forward and said it was in a position to do that and it would be prepared to do it. It is also true that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture said it probably had the machinery and the wherewithal, and that if an organization
Advance Payments for Crops
came forward and wanted to take advantage of cash advances for a specific commodity, that kind of machinery could be provided. However, that federation was not asked to do that.
We will have to face the fact that if farmers are going to be guaranteed prices, that will have to be done in an orderly way and there will have to be orderly marketing. Producers will have to submit to some types of control because with most commodities the import-export market will have to be controlled. Import bans will have to be put on certain commodities so that the market will not be unfairly flooded. There will have to be control of the export market, because if prices go up in another country it is possible for a selfish group of producers to send that commodity out of the country, leaving it unavailable to consumers in Canada. Orderly marketing would provide commodities to consumers at reasonable prices, and a reasonable return for producers.
Very shortly the government will have to consider some method of providing the almost immediate imposition of tariffs or outright bans against the importation of goods during specific seasons. Let us consider tomatoes, for example. When our tomatoes come on the market, that is when there is a surplus of tomatoes in the United States. The United States crop year is finished and there is a surplus there. American tomatoes come into Canada at the same price they are sold in the United States. This does not really defeat GATT, but as far as our producers are concerned those tomatoes are being dumped into Canada at far below the cost of production of our crops. Our crops compete with the United States surplus. There should be a ban on the importation of that surplus for the benefit of our producers, our producer organizations, our agricultural agencies and, indeed, our provincial ministers of agriculture.
The Ontario minister of agriculture said that it would be very nice if the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce responded to his demand for restrictions on some commodities. He made an application in 1973 and has heard nothing as yet. It is possible that some commodities like wheat may be kept for years, but I think there would be difficulty with some other commodities.
Unless someone else wishes to speak, in one moment I am going to resume my seat so that this bill can be passed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) indicated that he is prepared to allow the bill to pass. Therefore, I wonder if we could agree not to see the clock while we go through the formalities.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to waive any further remarks so that the bill can be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.

April 1, 1977
Commissioner of Official Languages


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: That in accordance with section 19 of an act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, chapter 0-2, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, this House approves the reappointment of Keith Spicer, Esquire, as Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada, for a term expiring July 31, 1977.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very brief indeed. The commissioner has completed a full term in this post, and on behalf of all members of the House, I am sure, I want to express to him our appreciation of his dedication and the contribution he has made to the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am sure other hon. members will want to make the same point in their comments, because I believe it is universally shared. The purpose of this motion is to extend the term for an additional four months. Before that period expires, of course, it will be necessary to bring before the House a motion to provide for a successor to the present commissioner for a full term. Because that motion will have to come forward before the end of this present session, it would provide an opportunity for hon. members to discuss the issues of substance that may arise in connection with the new appointment.
There is some urgency to passing this motion today because the term expired last evening. It is desirable to maintain the continuity of the office by passing this motion. In asking the House to deal with it expeditiously, I hold out the assurance that it will be possible for hon. members, before the end of this session, under another motion to discuss at greater length matters that may interest them.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, before speaking directly to this motion I feel compelled to make two or three comments. My first is to join the government House leader in complimenting the Commissioner of Official Languages on his frankness, straightforwardness and ability to speak out clearly when criticism is deserved. My
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
second refers to a procedural matter related to the manner in which this motion was first presented to us.
My understanding is that the government House leader secured an undertaking from the opposition parties to accept this motion without debate. This undertaking was obtained before the commissioner's report was tabled with, one is tempted to believe, the hope that the report of the language commissioner would pass without comment. The government obviously was aware of the nature of the comments in the commissioner's report, and therefore obtained this undertaking with knowledge of facts which were not at that time revealed to the opposition.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, because it is an important matter 1 would like to assure the hon. member that when the request was made it was not made known to me that the report was to be tabled at this particular time. In fact, I realized the moment the report was tabled, which was an action taken independently, that it would create difficulties in having the motion passed without debate. It was quite unknown to me that this tabling would take place at the time it did.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged, in view of parliamentary practice, to accept the explanation given by the government House leader. I will, therefore, withhold any further comments which were in a way a stricture of the government for having tried something and not having succeeded in doing it. I will leave that aside. [Translation]
There are more preliminary comments. First of all, I wish to indicate unequivocally that the Progressive Conservative Party fully and unreservedly supports the Official Languages Act and acknowledges to Canadians, first the right to deal with the federal government in the language of their choice, and second the right to integrate with the federal administration with the assurance that they will be able to work in one or the other of our official languages in the sectors of this administration which are designated bilingual or unilingual. That, Mr. Speaker, is the nature of our commitment towards the Official Languages Act, a commitment which cannot be questioned. [English]
I will now turn to some of the commentaries in the report of the languages commissioner. This will explain the reasons for the support which we propose to give this motion. I wish to cite, first, an article in the Globe and Mail of last Tuesday. This is a report on discussion with the Commissioner of Official Languages. The comment in the Globe and Mail is as follows:
Responsibility for language policy is scattered among five government departments and agencies.
It is well known that there is a disparate responsibility within the government. It falls in many quarters. Mr. Spicer is quoted as saying, and this is a direct quote:
"Plainly, the government cannot pull its information act together until it pulls its administrative act together."
April 1, 1977

In other words, until it decides where the responsibility lies. He went on to say:
"None of this would require genius, or even that favourite government substitute for genius, bloated budgets. Just a sense of what is clear, practical and engaging.
And none of it would do the slightest good without a key ingredient: the political will to explain".

In his report, Mr. Speaker, the commissioner says with the same clearness and openness, and I quote:
Whatever miracles the government may work in adjusting its priorities and administrative plumbing, it shows every sign-nearly eight years after the act's passage-of continuing to sabotage its best efforts through bankrupt information programmes.
If it persists in ignoring the people's need to believe, or even to understand, the government's reckless squandering of goodwill may sooner or later cost our language reform its vital, and newly fragile, popular support.
The commissioner goes on, as reported on page 28:
If the government persists in viewing communication of its purposes, plans and acts as of marginal importance-
I emphasize the word "marginal".
the linguistic cause it must anguish over, still again, will end by striking many as of marginal value, if not of unacceptable annoyance. Surely the passionate events of the past year have told the government that much.
Of course, he is talking about events which took place in another province. I go on quoting:
And warned it that, however sound its reshaping of priorities and methods, if the people know nothing, they will believe nothing. And anything.

That is a sad commentary. Here he brings the matter very close to home. The languages commissioner, in a quotation cited in the Globe and Mail of the same day, picks up the same story and says:
"But in selling bilingualism, particularly in western Canada, the federal government has utterly failed.
I lay the alienation of the language question in the west squarely at the government's doorstep."
By its thoughtlessness, by its insensitivity, the government has destroyed so much of the fabric that was Canada, the Canada so many of us knew and for whose survival so many of us were prepared to pay a high price. The government's insensitivity has eaten deeply into the fund of good will toward the French-speaking parts of our country which I can testify was alive and thriving. That fund of good will is now sadly depleted and dissipated. How it is to be restored is a question which causes me great concern.
I speak from personal experience. I know the good will which was there. It was in that climate of good will, and in the belief that national unity would be strengthened thereby, that French was made a compulsory subject in our high schools in British Columbia and, I believe, in other western provinces as well. Now that is gone; French is no longer compulsory. The good will is there and it fostered the creation of first-rate French language faculties in our western universities. Its presence explains the motivation of those who made the effort,
Commissioner of Official Languages long before recent governments invented such words as "bilingual", to learn and to use Canada's other language, thereby building increasingly effective links between the two major linguistic communities in this country.
There is an expression we use in English indicating that when circumstances warrant we are speaking more in sorrow than in anger. Today I speak in sorrow and in anger when I look at what the government has done to my country. [Translation]
Being a westerner, Mr. Speaker, and having made the effort to bring the two linguistic communities of my country closer, thanks to the facilities and good will which existed in the west,
I share those feelings. Consequently I condemn this government for having alienated my region from the remainder of Canada with a total lack of sensitivity for what Canada represents for westerners and for its serious political and social consequences.
In spite of various warnings from every quarter, including the annual warnings of the Commissioner of Official Languages, this government undertook without any misgiving to enforce a senseless and obsolete linguistic policy. That government policy has so seriously alienated western Canada that even some separatist movements are being set up there.
I particularly regret the confrontations the government has brought on and the cultural frictions it has caused with its stubborn and obstinate language policy.

I am deeply saddened, and I am angry. I am also fearful of what the future holds. The government has brought us to a sad pass. In 1967 there was virtually no separatism in Quebec. It was the year of the centennial, of jubilation. In 1968, only 10 per cent showed itself. By 1970 there were serious cracks in the national structure. By 1974 the separatist vote had risen to 24 per cent, and by 1976 to 40 per cent or more. A government is now in place in the province of Quebec dedicated to separatism and, what is more, veering ever more strongly toward unilingualism.
The government has failed the Canadian people through its inability to put across to the nation the worthy purposes of the Official Languages Act. It has driven the west further away from Ottawa, as well. There is a crying need today, as never before, to re-evaluate the programs, the practices and the instruments used to make the Official Languages Act acceptable across this land. Warnings as to this need have been placed before the government in the various reports presented by the languages commissioner and in many studies undertaken in this field, notably in the Bibeau report and, even more recently, in the Lamy report from the University of Ottawa. Does the government intend to allow an inquiry to be undertaken? My leader has suggested that there should be an. inquiry set up into the practices underlying the application of the bilingual program.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid time will not permit me to give you examples of texts used in schools for teaching the other

April 1, 1977
Commissioner of Official Languages official language. I have some here. I have submitted them to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and the Chairman of the Public Service Commission.
I feel that some of these texts are harmful. They are vindictive and malicious, they seek to destroy the notion of a Canada from sea to sea. They breed contempt among those who could otherwise live in harmony and as brothers.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, those texts and perhaps others could be discussed at the time of the inquiry my party is calling for, an inquiry that is truly necessary to examine closely the mistakes made by the government in setting up a language policy which, far from uniting this country, has seriously divided it.

There are other matters which such an inquiry could pursue; for example, the quality of the instruction and the attitude of the instructors as well as the value of sending public servants on language courses a year or so before they are due for retirement.

In concluding, Mr. Speaker, once again I urge the government to allow Mr. Spicer's report to be referred to a parliamentary committee so it may initiate an inquiry into the government's language policy. In the meantime, in view of the commissioner's frankness and objectivity, we will not raise any objections to extending his term as proposed by the government.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, during the lunch hour the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) asked me to say a few words in French and with your permission I will give it a try. Like the minister, I would like my remarks to be very brief. So I will only be speaking a few minutes.
Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to be able to say a few words to support that government motion to extend the term of office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Mr. Keith Spicer, since that term of office expired yesterday, March 31, 1977, and I would like it to be extended until July 31, 1977.
I would like to express on behalf of my party our faith in Mr. Keith Spicer and his colleagues and commend him for his efforts to promote bilingualism in this country. Should he persist in his decision to leave his position I hope his successor will be as successful as he was in promoting bilingualism.
[DOT] (U30)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).J


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the day I asked that the motion standing in my name establishing the period of adjournment for the Easter break be stood. If it is agreeable to hon. members, I should like now to call that motion and have it considered.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, when the House adjourns on April 6, 1977, it shall stand adjourned until April 18, 1977, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that we have, so close to a budget which has caused such great distress to both the business community and to the army of unemployed in Canada, consideration of a motion to adjourn the House, because this motion must be framed against the background of that budget. The budget was aptly described this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as a master plan for unemployment in Canada. There are now over 900,000 unemployed people in this country. There is disaster in the fishing industry, there are difficulties in the farming community and there are a whole host of other things the budget has failed to attack. Therefore, I think it interesting that we should be asked to adjourn the House at this time.
The 932,000 Canadians who are out of work do not include the hidden jobless of Canada. The seasonally adjusted rate is 7.9 per cent, but there are many people in this country who are being seasonally adjusted out of what is their birthright, namely, working and helping to develop this country. The Conference Board of Canada predicts 8.3 per cent unemployment for the fourth quarter of this year. The unemployment crisis which particularly affects young people in all parts of Canada, but especially in the five eastern provinces, ought not to be forgotten by this House as we consider a motion to leave this place.
Sixteen of every 100 young persons looking for work in this country are unable to find jobs. Eighty per cent of last year's unemployment was created in the five eastern provinces. Young people, who make up one fifth of our population,
April 1, 1977

comprise two-fifths of the unemployed. The five eastern provinces contain 34 per cent of the population but carry 45 per cent of the unemployed in Canada. The unemployment rate among the young is now nearly twice the average.
So is it any wonder that in some parts of this country there is disenchantment? Is it any wonder that young people in some parts of the country begin to look to other options to realize their own personal ambitions? Every member of this House would wish it otherwise, but this government must take a great deal of the responsibility for this situation which exists among our young people today, a situation that last night's budget goes nowhere to meet.
Another aspect which last night's budget fails to deal with is the present uncertainty in the business community. The private sector asked nothing of the government except the opportunity of knowing what are the government's intentions so that it can properly plan ahead. The fact is that since 1975 Canadians have been investing more abroad than foreign-owned corporations have been investing in Canada. This is a phenomenon the results of which we have not yet fully felt in this country. The situation is most alarming vis-a-vis the United States. There are direct foreign investment outflows to the United States to the extent of $556 million this year. In other words, Canadian business enterprise is looking elsewhere. Business enterprise is looking beyond the rhetoric of the government to the facts of the matter, and the facts show that in other countries it is easier to make one's way since there is more certainty in their business communities.
Is there any member of this House who could look at last night's budget and feel that it had moved in a direction that would provide hope either to the unemployed and their future or to business development, which is the best prospect for overcoming unemployment in Canada in a permanent way? I think the answer to that question must be known. The government is responsible for that, not parliament.
We had an example today of what I think is an irresponsible approach to the operation of this House. In face of an adjournment motion on the order paper, the New Democratic Party decided to thwart the legitimate operation of parliament by proposing an adjournment motion to cut off debate for this day.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: In face of an adjournment motion on the order paper of the House which was there to be read by all who wanted to do so, the New Democratic Party used a parliamentary gimmick which would have cut off the right of the members of this House to deal with some very important legislation on that order paper. If that motion had carried, Bill C-2, the Advance Payments for Crops Act, would not have been dealt with. That is legislation which this party supports. I do not know if the government knew what would happen in the course of the debate in this House. Bill C-26 is sitting on the order paper. If reorganization of the scientific community in this country could have been reached, it could not have been reached today. This reorganization is something
Easter Recess
for which the university community is crying out. I am not excusing what I have commented on before, namely, the operation of this House of Commons and the kind of legislation that we have to deal with from time to time. There are circumstances when it would be equally wrong for me to commend and advocate support. The adjournment motion is already on the order paper of the House of Commons. I have described the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party as a parliamentary gimmick. The motion, by its very terms and in the context which I have spoken, would give some fuel to those who say that parliament has become irrelevant. I think the NDP ought to be ashamed of itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. I have sat patiently listening to the hon. member's little speech, but may I remind him that he has been violating Standing Order 35, which reads:
No member may reflect upon any vote of the House, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
That vote was taken this morning. It stands as a judgment of the House. What the hon. member was saying was completely out of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I was not commenting on the vote on the motion that was before the House. I was commenting on the motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. There is quite a difference, I would suggest. In any event, that is the situation. What should be done with this motion? Should it be allowed to pass? If so, why? I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members of the House that this motion should be allowed to pass.


John Edward Broadbent: What a surprise.


Walter David Baker: It is important that members of parliament who support the government, who day after day vote approval for programs, and who thumped loudly last night at a budget that was inadequate, be allowed to go home for a few days at Easter time to see their constituents.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They will find out what their constituents think about that budget, that program and their supporters. It might be very enlightening for the NDP members as well. That is why it is important that this motion pass. I have no idea what another opposition party may choose to do with this motion. I am sure it is going to be vigorously debated on both sides of the House of Commons. The members of the Liberal Party who cheered that innocuous budget, who cheered the lack of answers to our unemployment situation, who cheered and supported the continued lack of certainty in the economic system of Canada, which did nothing in terms of government spending, which did not help the senior citizens, which did not help the pensioners, which did nothing for the disadvantaged in Canada but to make sure they stay in

April 1, 1977
Easter Recess
the position they are in, should go home and find out what their people think of them.
This will be a grand opportunity. This parliament can only deal with legislation that is brought before it. It is in the hands of the government House leader. It is important, therefore, that the members of the Liberal Party go back to their people and find out how low an opinion of the programs which they support, and the government which they support, is held by the people of Canada. That is the purpose of this recess. It is not a rest for them. It is important that they go back to see and to feel the wrath of the Canadian people.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is a malaise in this country for which this government can, and should, accept a great deal of responsibility. This country cries out for leadership, and it has depression. This country cries out for vitality, and it has an abundance of lack of vitality. This country cries out for cohesion, and never in our history have we been less united. The supporters of the government should return to their people for a while and see the people who are writing letters to them complaining about the situation in which they find themselves. After a reasonable debate on the motion, I believe it should be supported.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the prince of sophistry when speaking in debate in this House. The House leader of the Tory party has just outdone himself in the incredible performance we have witnessed in the last few minutes. I will come to the government in a minute. We have the official opposition who witnessed the budget which I read in the lock-up yesterday and then heard it presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) last night. I could have sworn that it was written by the financial critic of the Tory party because it was so conservative. It was, however, a budget that the official opposition in Canada said was so harmful for the unemployed, was going to do nothing to produce jobs, was going to leave the Canadian economy basically as it has been and in a solid state of stagnation for the remainder of 1977. They were condemning the budget on one hand, but on the other hand they had to admit that the basic policies advocated by the government were taken from Conservative suggestions made in the past couple of months.
Then we had the performance this afternoon of the Conservative House leader when he had an opportunity of saying that the opposition in the House is against adjourning at this time until the government does something about unemployment. Instead, we get that master of sophistry saying, "No, we cannot vote against an adjournment motion because government members have to be allowed to get back to their constituents."


Walter David Baker: You wanted the day off.


John Edward Broadbent: I will come to that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You wanted to travel to Verdun.


John Edward Broadbent: I say to the leader of the Conservative party that the Liberal cabinet ministers, as well as their backbenchers, have the opportunity this weekend to go back to their constituents to find out what they thought of the budget. Next weekend they have a mandatory four-day period consisting of Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday during which they will be back with their constituents to find out what they think of it.


Walter David Baker: That is a whole week.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Go to church.


John Edward Broadbent: The members of the House of Commons do not need an adjournment for an extended week beyond that to find out what the people of Canada think of the budget. I have never heard such a phony argument as was presented this afternoon by the House leader of the Conservative party.
A point was raised about the motion I put forward on behalf of my colleagues this morning after the question period. The motion, if it had carried, would have adjourned the House for the day. So we would have been back here on Monday. If that motion had carried, we would not have debated during the three hours that will be put in this afternoon in the House of Commons. The reason the motion was moved today was that it was the first opportunity, under the rules of the House, for an opposition that really cares about unemployment in Canada to unite in showing Canada what it thinks of the government's disastrous budget.
If the Conservative party knew at least for an hour during any one period of the day where it stood on an issue, it would have said, "we do not like that budget. We think the government has failed glaringly to deal with the problems of unemployment, and we will vote to set aside the business of the House as a visible demonstration of our contempt for this government." Instead, I suspect, if I can put it bluntly, that because they did not think of moving the motion themselves, instead of wanting to have a united opposition showing their contempt for the government, they voted with the government despite the fact that their financial spokesman the night before went on television and radio across the country and said the government had brought in a budget that was disastrous for the country. When the opportunity came this morning to give a visible demonstration on behalf of the unemployed in Canada of what they thought of this government, instead of voting against it they voted with the government.
The government House leader has just said that such a motion was contemptuous of parliament. I remind the Conservative House leader that just about a year ago the Conservative party did support an NDP motion for adjournment of the House.


Walter David Baker: In different circumstances.
April 1, 1977


John Edward Broadbent: It was on a different issue. On that day the Conservatives presumably knew where they were going for 24 hours.


An hon. Member:: It was reflected in the vote.


Mr. Andras:: Stanley, what about your point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I suggest hon. members extend to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) the same courtesy that was extended to the previous speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, the Conservative party, in one of those rare aberrations, knew for more than two hours where they stood on an issue and they happened to vote with us on a major matter then facing the country for an adjournment of the House, acknowledging that it was a symbolic gesture. We do not pretend it is anything other than that. It is a kind of visible expression at least of what members of parliament at a given time think of an extraordinarily bad performance by the government. That is why a year ago, at the time of the so-called judges' affair when the government was behaving in a contemptible fashion we did not hesitate to move adjournment. Similarly, the government, at a time when we have had the worst unemployment figures since the depression for six months in a row, brings in a budget which has as its basic assumption that unemployment will continue throughout 1977 at the same abysmal level. That is why we did not hesitate to bring forward a motion for adjournment today. We had hoped we would get the support of the official opposition. Instead, we saw them lining up solidly with the government.
Prior to the budget last night, the NDP was in fact prepared to support the motion for adjournment on condition that something would be brought down in the budget that would present tangible evidence that the government had come to its senses. For the last two months, day after day in the question period the government, in response to questions about what they are doing about unemployment, whether it is unemployment affecting the young, women, or family men, has consistently said, "Wait till you see the budget". We waited, and we saw it. We decided, after seeing the budget, that we cannot support an adjournment of the House at this time until the government brings forward some legislation that gives tangible proof that they have some concern about the unemployed in Canada.
What did we see in the document last night? We received the document which I think was ghost-written by a combination of R. B. Bennett and Herbert Hoover, so outmoded in its economic thinking and social commitment that even I was surprised to first read it and then hear it delivered in the House at a time when industry in almost every province across Canada has 20 per cent of unused capacity, which means that there is machinery and there are facilities in the plants that are not used. At a time when we have that excess capacity, what has the economic genius of the government come up with as a method of improving employment opportunities? What
Easter Recess
they came up with is another $1 billion hand-out to the corporate sector, a massive incentive program designed to cause the same factories to expand their plant facilities which are already underutilized.
I simply cannot understand the logic of the argument. Because we believe in a strong and healthy sector in the economy, my party supports a government economic program designed to stimulate economic growth and to increase the productivity of the private sector and designed at a time like this in our industry to provide grants or special tax concessions if they would lead to the important objective of employment for more people. But it is precisely because the government's approach at this time will lead to the opposite result that we want nothing to do with it. If the plant capacity were at 100 per cent, if the factories across the land were hard pressed in terms of their capacity to produce more goods and services at a time when we have one million unemployed, then some kind of stimulation to the private sector for expanding their capital capacity might make sense. But it makes absolutely no economic sense at this time to provide the $1 billion give-away that the government has given the corporate sector.
All that the $1 billion will do is give the corporations an unneeded increase in their profits during the coming fiscal year. At the same time, instead of recognizing that what we needed was an increase in demand, a demand for ordinary families to increase their consumption and following that through with providing a major stimulus by providing a major tax reduction, the government did just the opposite in terms of its tax reductions to the ordinary taxpayer in Canada. It could not be more economically foolish at a time when we are still experiencing high levels of inflation, and it is cruel to the ordinary taxpayers. The NDP has said that that is where the significant tax change should have taken place. We put forward the proposition that we needed a $500 million tax reduction which should go to middle and low income Canadians.
We would abolish the system of indexation. That should have been abolished in this budget. That would have netted for the treasury about $1 billion. In addition, there should have been an across-the-board tax reduction of $1.5 billion which would begin with the low income earner and tail off with the $25,000 a year earner. Everyone earning more than that would get nothing, and those earning less would get larger reductions in proportion to income. By abolishing the system of indexation and by providing that kind of tax reduction there could have been a net impact on the economy of some $500 million which would have stimulated, on the demand side of the economy, the production of goods and services, which would have resulted in calling back to work the one million men, women and young people who find themselves unemployed at this time. That is one step in the short run. In addition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but we do have a motion of adjournment before the House with specific dates attached to

April I, 1977
Easter Recess
it, and if the hon. member wishes to refer to this motion in the course of his remaining remarks, the Chair will recognize him.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will not say what ought to be said more properly, as you have indicated, in a budget debate, but I will make some suggestions about the kind of legislation our party believes should be brought in before we adjourn. Putting this particular iniquitous budget to one side, I will emphasize in my comments from now on the things we think the government should bring in before the House recesses. Among these, as I have already said, there should be a new measure which would give a significant tax reduction to middle and low income people.
Second, we think there should be a bill introduced by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) which would lead to a major increase in the government's budget to allow for the building of more low-cost housing. There is no doubt that there is a glut in the market from coast to coast of homes which are in the $80,000 to $125,000 category. There is no doubt that well paid lawyers, doctors or members of parliament can find a large housing supply, but people who work in fish plants in St. John's, in a mine in Sudbury, where workers are reasonably well paid on a comparative basis for industrial workers, and farmers in the ordinary parts of Saskatchewan-not one of the affluent parts-can still not afford to buy a house or to rent a house at reasonable rent levels.
If the government wants to do something about unemployment before we adjourn, it should provide legislation which shows that the government believes in a major increase in the supply of low-cost housing. This would provide badly needed jobs and would provide a badly needed social requirement, namely, homes for people who need them.
In addition, we would like to see the government live up to the commitment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in July of 1974 to provide some $290 million in financial assistance to municipalities across Canada to introduce or expand urban transit facilities. That is needed now as a job creation measure, which would certainly benefit all the metropolitan regions across the country, and it would also benefit the country as a whole because it would lead ultimately to less consumption of badly needed energy.
We would like to see the government bring forward legislation which would do for all of Canada what has been done for Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, namely, provide a national program of insulation for Canadian homes.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I am glad to see a Liberal member applaud that point. I hope he will join in the debate. This program makes sense in Nova Scotia and in Prince Edward Island, and there is no reason why it would not make sense in the rest of the provinces. This kind of measure would immediately provide jobs in every town, village and city across the land, and it would reduce the consumption of energy in the winter months of next year.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
We would like to see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) bring in a bill next week announcing a major expansion of public works projects across Canada. If he could just put back on to the record the legislation he set aside when the period of restraint was inaugurated a year and a half ago, it would be supported by this party, and it could pass through the House of Commons. Projects of that kind would provide jobs right across the land.
There are a number of short-run proposals we think the government should act upon before we adjourn. We think there should be a tax cut, that the housing industry should be stimulated, and that there should be more capital works projects and assistance for urban transportation. There is nothing remarkably profound or innovative about these proposals. Anybody in Canada who is concerned about employment and simultaneously concerned about economic responsibility could advocate these proposals. A concerned government would not only have advocated them, but would have put them into the budget last night.
My party fully recognizes that the proposals I have just made are short run. Even if they were all accepted by the government and carried out, they would not create by the end of 1977 or 1978 anything approaching full employment. It would be deceptive to suggest that that would be the case, but they would constitute a major beginning which we did not get in last night's budget.
Before we adjourn we would like to see the government bring in a bill committed to creating full employment over a period of years and to setting specific targets. Last fall on behalf of my party I proposed such a program. It was the result of about a year's work by a number of people in my party. I will not present all the details of the program today in the House. I have done that before, but this program stipulates that if we had a government which was committed to serious action, we could indeed have virtually full employment at the end of a four-year period. That is precisely what the people of Canada want to see. They do not expect miracles. They do not expect a government which is faced with one million unemployed to come up with a program which, within six months or a year, would make all our problems go away. However, the people expect the government to make a long range commitment which is backed up by specific proposals, for example, to move from the misery of the winter of 1977 to a winter of perhaps some contentment four years down the road.
My party would like to see the government bring in a full employment bill which would set out specific targets, and which would make it mandatory for the minister to report to the House at least once a year justifying his targets for that year and explaining how government has or has not lived up to its targets for the preceding year. In short, we would like to see the government commit itself to long range planning with regard to employment and with regard to the economic situation in general.
I said a moment ago that the people of Canada do not expect miracles. They do not expect politicians to have simple remedies to complex problems, but they do like to see a
April 1, 1977

government which recognizes the complexity of an issue, which recognizes the complexity of the nature of the Canadian economy, and which suggests how to get out of our current structural problems.
In addition to what I said about a full employment bill, my party also believes the government has to do something about the problem of economic independence in Canada. We believe that the problems of the Canadian economy are inextricably connected with the fact that the vast majority of our material resources are owned and controlled outside our borders. Of course we do not make villains of those investors, whether they live in the United States, Germany or any other country. That would be absurd because we have invited them into Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Why don't you speak about General Motors?


John Edward Broadbent: It is time that we, as people, took concrete action to do more processing in Canada instead of sending raw materials away.
My colleague, symbolically and literally on my right, in the Conservative party, suggests that I say something about General Motors and I shall do so right now. If the hon. member had listened he would know the point I am making is that it is principally in the resource sector that we are in trouble. We export raw oil, raw iron-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that the motion reads as follows:
That when the House adjourns on April 6, 1977, it shall stand adjourned until April 18, 1977,...
That is what is before the House, not anything before April 6. I would ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the motion.


John Edward Broadbent: With due respect, Mr. Speaker, I will try to follow your guidelines. I was outlining to the House the reasons why we oppose this motion. In general terms we believe that the government has done nothing about unemployment up to this point, and specifically that the budget last night gave no indication at all that it wants to deal with unemployment in the coming year.
If we get some action from the government along the lines I am suggesting, within the next few days or next week, then we would be prepared to support the motion for adjournment. I want to stress that the points I am making are germane to the motion, namely, whether or not we should be adjourning at the time the motion stipulates.
I should like to see the government commit itself to long-range changes in the structure of the Canadian economy. That is absolutely essential if we are to solve our balance of payments problem and the situation where we export our raw materials to other countries, something which creates labour intensive industries abroad instead of them being created in Canada. We know it is a difficult task to create an economy
Easter Recess
that can provide full employment. We also know that if the government would level with the people and show that, although it is a difficult task, it wants to take these important structural moves over a period of years in order to lead to more employment, the people would respect that and support it. It is the government's total lack of action on that kind of long-range planning that got us into our present difficulty and keeps us there.
Related to the point I made about planning for full employment and planning for a structural change in the Canadian economy, which is absolutely essential for full employment, there is a third requirement that I should like to put forward on behalf of my party. During the next week we feel that the government should give some visible testimony of its recognition that it must move from boom and bust politics. It deals with inflation during one 18-month period forgetting about unemployment, then shifts to unemployment for another 18 months and forgets about inflation. That has been the characteristic pattern of Liberal governments in Canada since World War II and it can be documented very easily. They are masters of ad hocery; they are the creators of the cyclical difficulties we got into in the national economy. What we need is a commitment to national planning that would entail, for example, substantial control over the allocation of investment.
Even a Liberal government would be able to acknowledge the achievements of Sweden, West Germany or Japan. With the exception of Japan, those countries have social democratic governments but they are all characterized by their commitment to national economic planning-a commitment to the view that the government of the day must play a leading role in establishing the investment pattern for the years ahead.
We propose that in Canada, within the Department of Finance or some other department, a special planning body should be established to administer a special tax such as that which has worked so well in Sweden. I am sure the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) knows about it and perhaps he would even support it, at least privately, in cabinet. A tax mechanism has been instituted in Sweden that is used to level out the boom and bust nature of a market economy. During a period of high inflation a special tax is levied on the largest corporations. The funds from this tax are kept separately and not used for general revenue purposes. When unemployment emerges in the economy the government channels these funds back to the private sector, to the firms it got the money from in the first place, and on an approved project basis it makes sure jobs are created when they are needed. That is what planning is all about.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Any time the government gets messing in things like that, watch out.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says that when the government gets involved like that we had better look out. I suggest that of all countries in the western world coping with inflation and unemployment, Sweden is most successful.
800X2 - 1114

April 1, 1977
Easter Recess


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They just threw that government out because it made such a mess.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member says they threw the government out because it made such a mess. I would remind him that the former government lost after being in for 40 years, with a greater percentage of the vote than it ever had before, but the so-called free enterprise government that replaced it has kept precisely the same planning mechanism. They are a little more advanced than the Tories in this country. They know it works.
I could go on-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Oh, don't!


John Edward Broadbent: I know it is always a burden for a Tory to listen to an idea that originated more recently than the 18th century, but I hope that if only by osmosis these ideas will work their way through.
I want to conclude by saying we are opposed to this motion for adjournment because we recognize the unemployment picture in our country is a human and economic tragedy. People want to work. They do not want handouts. They want a government that is committed to dealing with unemployment. They do not expect magical recipes. They want a government that believes in taking concrete action.
I was dismayed the other day to hear someone call out from the benches to my right that the people want to collect unemployment insurance. Mr. Speaker, ten days ago when I was in British Columbia one of the most moving experiences I had was in listening to a 59 year old woman describe what happened in the small town of Abbotsford when the McDonald hamburger chain announced it had about 20 positions open. These youths, who so many people in Canada seem to assume do not want to work and would be delighted to continue collecting unemployment insurance or welfare indefinitely, turned up for those jobs. Do you know how many turned up? For about 20 jobs at a McDonald's hamburg stand, there was a line-up of young people three blocks long. They turned up the night before with haversacks and sleeping bags because they wanted work. If the line-up was three blocks long, there must have been hundreds of them turned away.


John Allen Fraser: How many were still in school?


John Edward Broadbent: The point is that the people of Canada, the young people in particular, want work and not handouts. They expect from their governments a commitment to provide jobs, if not for tomorrow at least for the end of the year. We got nothing of this kind from this government. What we got from this government was a budget that says that when December, 1977, comes, like December, 1976, we are going to have one million Canadians unemployed. Therefore the New Democratic Party will not support a motion for adjournment until the government gives some testimony during the next few days or weeks to the fact that it has recognized that unemployment is
(Mr. Broadbent.]
a national, economic, and human disgrace, and is prepared to do something about it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be allowed some latitude this afternoon in answering the argument presented by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He began the same as he ended, with the feeling that only they have a heart, only they feel for the youth, and only they feel for the unemployed. I am going to start where he left off.
The Leader of the NDP talked about the line-up looking for work at McDonald's in British Columbia. I did not happen to be there, but I have seen the same circumstance on many, many occasions. I remind him when he comes along with his sophistry and, above all, his hypocrisy, that they had a government in British Columbia-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A good one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It sure was. It was headed by Mr. Barrett. They drove out investment, closed the mines and closed the resources.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They do not like to hear the truth.


Mr. Leggatt:: What is the unemployment level today?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Do you want to make a speech?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, just have a little patience. Listen for a few moments. The hon. member shows respects in committee. I hope he will show it this afternoon because I am going to say some things that I know will hurt him.
That NDP government drove out business. When you drive out business as well as the development and the resource industry, you dry up jobs. That is one of the problems in British Columbia today. Every time they mention the Conservatives they go back to the nineteenth century, or whatever century they want to talk about. The socialists have not had a new idea since their program was first designed. They have been preaching the same stuff for 25 years. Wherever they preached it, either in British Columbia, Saskatchewan or Manitoba, unemployment grew.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about Saskatchewan?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member talks about Saskatchewan. Let me ask this: what province has lost more people than the province of Saskatchewan under the NDP?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 1, 1977


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the truth always hurts those kinds of philosophers. I say to the Leader of the New Democratic Party he should go to Alberta where we encourage development and encourage the resource industry. It is the greatest "have" province. That province has the latest unemployment and the greatest affluence. I invite the leader of the NDP to visit the city of Calgary where building is going on. There are jobs and there is affluence.


Mr. Symes:: What about the Tory government in
Newfoundland?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I will deal with the Tory government in Newfoundland in a moment. Let me deal with Alberta first because that is what I know about. People are coming to Alberta from all over Canada because of the development and the climate created by two good governments, one under Mr. Manning and the other under Mr. Lougheed. They believed in and encouraged exploration and development. They brought in capital and investment so that Canadians, Albertans, and others coming to Alberta, could have a job.
We saw the hypocrisy this morning. The NDP moved a motion. They have been fighting for a 20 or 30 hour week to increase the cost of production in order to drive us out of world markets. This morning they moved a motion so that they could have this afternoon off. That is why they moved that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The NDP are against investment, whether it is foreign investment or Canadian corporations. They want to dry it up. When it is dried up and there are no jobs, they either blame the government or put us with the government. I would remind them that when we went out of office in 1963, the budget of this country was $6 billion. That is what the deficit is today.
In 1972 we had a minority government. I recall the great marriage in those days. The Liberals could only stay in power with David Lewis. When the costs, expenditures and deficits were increasing, they endorsed them all. They were the ones who fought to set up the Foreign Investment Review Agency to drive out investment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They applaud.


An hon. Member:: We don't interject.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did interject a couple of times, but I at least gave you a chance to speak. However, when people cannot stand to hear the truth, they just yell and shout. That is what they are doing right now.


John Edward Broadbent: Louder!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I hope my voice rings across this nation to tell the people the truth about what kinds of governments there have been in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.
Easter Recess
If the NDP could grasp one point, it should be that jobs come from growth. Growth in this country, whether through the resource industry, manufacturing industry or whatever, will only take place if you sell your goods. For years the NDP have been supporting programs which price Canadian goods out of world markets. You cannot have growth unless you market your goods.
I listened to the sophistry of the Leader of the NDP this afternoon. He opposes the adjournment. He talks about bringing in legislation. Surely anyone who rises to be leader of a party, a party with a philosophy of the NDP and the background of the old CCF, does not believe that in four or five days parliament could grind out legislation to put all Canadians back to work. That is what he is saying, and it is absolute nonsense.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is asinine.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He complained about the $6 billion deficit, the imbalance of trade and the imbalance of payments. However, it was he and David Lewis who supported this government and kept it in office when they started this trend of economic mess. They joined together in the marriage that helped to create the mess.
As far as the budget is concerned I am not going to take part in a budget debate at this moment, because we are going to have a proper budget debate in due course. But, you know, it will probably be very good to have a vacation. The country might relax. The country might enjoy a holiday from this government because every day we are here the government brings down the kinds of legislation, the kinds of budgets which get us deeper and deeper into the economic mess we have at the present time. The country will sigh with relief because it will have a rest from the mess which has been created.


An hon. Member:: Free enterprise has done that!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member talks about free enterprise. The answer to him is very simple. Compare any of the provinces where they have any other kind of government but the NDP. You will find a difference in exploration, in development, in economic growth, and in the unemployment statistics.
I agree with the House leader as far as the adjournment is concerned. I appreciate that we are going to have a budget debate. All of us will have something to say then. I agree with hon. members to my left only in this respect-we are disappointed in the kind of budget we got. I do not think anybody in Canada appreciates the budget that was brought down last night or believes it will do anything to help the youth of the nation.
I say to the socialists, and I will say it over and over again, that growth comes as a result of an economic climate which encourages investment, development, exploration, and the creation of factories where people will find jobs. We have to encourage the kind of economy where our products, wherever

April 1, 1977
Easter Recess
they are sold throughout the world, can compete in the market. Without that, you will never get full employment. Pouring out the public treasury for all those who are unemployed and for whom all of us feel sorry will not get them jobs, and will not create the development this country needs to get the economy moving again toward full employment.
Finally, to the group on my left, let me say this: I have been here for 18 years and I have never heard a single new idea from the NDP yet. It is the same old stuff day after day. Therefore I support the decision of our party with reference to the adjournment. As I say, members to my left have the same ideas, the same line, the same philosophy as have already ruined many parts of the country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow my friend from Calgary North, my great and tranquil friend, and I would like to say to him that we have tried to present many new ideas in this House. Maybe I can respond a bit to some of the old ideas that he has presented.
First of all, he was talking in a tone that makes me think that he and his party are all of a sudden very afraid of the NDP. They spent the whole day talking about the NDP. I think they must sense a new public opinion poll coming and suddenly they are afraid of us rather than of the Liberal party. They are directing their attention to our party. That sounds very interesting. Perhaps they and their party are going down, and that very, very quickly. They must be afraid of all these new ideas that we have been presenting because the Canadian people see the Conservative party as getting further and further behind all the time.
The member from Calgary North suggested we might compare any NDP province with any other province. I want to do that just for one second because I come from the province of Saskatchewan. Let us have a look at Saskatchewan. I think we have a lot of prosperity in that province now, considering the ingredients that we have. We do not have all the black gold that Alberta has and all the billions and billions of dollars worth of oil. What we have in Saskatchewan has been put together through the shrewd planning of a good government over the last 20 years. As a result of that, we now have the lowest unemployment of any province in the country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They leave, that's why. They leave because there is no work. How many thousands have left Saskatchewan in the last 20 years?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 am glad to respond to the question asked by the hon. member for Calgary North. He talks about all the people leaving Saskatchewan since the NDP came in. We can show him statistics. When the old CCF party was defeated in Saskatchewan in 1964 we had a population of about 980,000. When Thatcher took over, perhaps the most conservative Liberal we have seen in this country, the population started to dwindle year after year. In 1971 or 1972 when the NDP government took power in Saskatchewan we were down to about 909,000 people.

If the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) were to read he would find now that the population of Saskatchewan is climbing back up toward the 1 million mark. We are back to close to 950,000 people because we have a good government and because of the planning that has gone on.
The other question the hon. member asked was this: he asked us to compare a province like Saskatchewan to provinces which have had free enterprise governments. I should like to compare it to Newfoundland. Newfoundland has a Tory government. I should like compare it to any of the Atlantic provinces. I should even like to compare it to the province of Quebec in terms of unemployment and the average standard of living. Those other provinces have had free enterprise government. I should like to compare it to the province of Ontario. Look at all the assets Ontario has, all the tariff protection it enjoys under the freight rate structure. And despite that, they have a higher unemployment rate than we do. They do not have in Ontario an education or health system any better than ours, working from assets that are a lot less than those of Ontario.
We depend, as the hon. member knows, upon a farm economy which is terribly vulnerable, depending on international prices, whereas Ontario has a stable economy based on a strong manufacturing sector. If only they had an NDP government in Ontario which would plan the economy, just think what living standards the people of Ontario would have with all those resources, and if you had an NDP government in Alberta, with all that black gold to use, to plan for the people of Alberta they would be so wealthy that even the hon. member for Calgary North would be embarrassed.
When the CCF took over in Saskatchewan, people did not have electricity. They were in poverty. This is what the hon. member fails to realize.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You would have had drilling rigs too, if you had not driven them out. You drove them right out of the province. Thousands and thousands of people have left Saskatchewan.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I want to come back to the hon. member for Calgary North when he said: if you are losing an argument, you start to shout. But I do not want to do that because I would embarrass him. Anyway, he said our party was not concerned about growth or productivity or making our goods competitive around the world. Yet these are some of the very premises of social democratic policy.
Our party has been calling for budgetary measures to stimulate consumer demand. We need more consumer demand, and the best way to get that is to give a tax cut to the low income people and to decrease sales taxes so that lower income people can buy more clothing, more food, more consumer goods generally, which in turn would stimulate the economy. These are things for which our party has asked time and time again. We will continue to do so until the hon. member for Calgary North understands what a social democratic party is all about.
April 1, 1977

I oppose the motion not just for that reason but also because the budget which was brought down is a real affront and insult to the million or more people who are unemployed. I cannot in good conscience leave parliament without at least trying to encourage the government across the way to bring down a bill-


Mr. Dick:: Why don't you do something about it then?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We moved a motion today, Mr. Speaker, which is one of the few ways we can protest the budget which was terribly inequitable and cruel to over one millon unemployed workers. If the Tory party had supported our motion and it had gone through, perhaps the government could have spent the day planning new legislation to help some of the unemployed and put them back to work.
Our party is not like the Conservative party. The Conservative party would sooner have people drawing unemployment insurance benefits and collecting welfare than have the government come in with good, sound legislation to put Canadians back to work. We have never been a welfare party. We have always been a party which says that the Canadian people should work and make a contribution to society. The Conservative party members are willing to sit on their fannies and watch more than one million people remain unemployed. They are willing to have the ordinary worker see an increase in his UIC contributions to pay for the unemployed. That is the kind of taxation that they endorse. They are willing to see Canadian taxpayers pay more taxes to pay for bigger welfare bills.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Why don't you give us a few new ideas.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are saying we should sit here during the recess and discuss legislation. We should cancel the recess. We should oppose the motion and sit here through the recess so as to bring in new legislation to put Canadians back to work.
There are a lot of things that could be done to put Canadians back to work. The government could bring in a housing bill. It has experts at work in the Department of Urban Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Houses are selling in Calgary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: But who are buying houses in Calgary? Are they being sold to the unemployed, to the ordinary worker, or to the old age pensioner? I do not think so. There is a surplus of housing for some in this country, those who have large incomes, not low or modest incomes. It is the latter I am concerned about. We could dispose of a housing bill very quickly. There is no quicker way to put people to work than to build houses for people of low income.
In addition, the government could bring in a capital works program so that hundreds of millions of dollars could be spent in municipalities to improve services. That would put people to work and give them a sense of purpose. This country is drifting, Mr. Speaker; surely to God we all recognize that. Yet
Easter Recess
the Conservative opposition is not prepared to say to the Liberal party: "Come before the House with new legislation".
There was one more reason why I have to oppose the motion to adjourn the House.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You sound like the last supper.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member says I sound like the last supper. Perhaps I am influenced by the member who spoke before me. I noticed recently that there has been a tremendous drop in farm incomes. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the minister in charge of the Wheat Board are not bringing into the House any new ideas or legislation to stop this slide in farm incomes. They are not even here this afternoon.
StatsCan a couple of weeks ago came out with statistics which I think should shock each and every one of us. From January, 1976, to January, 1977, gross farm income in Canada dropped some 31 per cent. In the province of Saskatchewan there was a drop in farm income of some 38 per cent, as was the case across western Canada. Many members might say, "So what? Farm income has been very high." I think this is another reason why we should not adjourn the House. If farm incomes continue to drop, not only does it hurt the farmers and force more off the land, driving more of them into poverty and creating misery in rural communities; it also means more unemployment for Canadians living in big cities and in central Canada. I say that because there is no consumer of goods who spends as much money as the farmer when he is receiving an adequate income. When farmers do not have income to spend, thousands and thousands of jobs will cease to exist. I refer to jobs in the farm machinery industry, the automotive industry, in all kinds of factories, the steel and rubber industry, as well as the fertilizer industry.
With a little imagination the government could stop that. It should now come before the House with a new dairy policy, which was promised before the end of March. The end of March was yesterday but we are still waiting for a dairy policy. How can I in good conscience agree to adjourn the House for a 12 day recess when the government has not brought in its dairy policy? How can I in good conscience agree to adjourn the House when my cow-calf operators are suffering, when the price of livestock is going down, the price of hogs is going down, and more and more small farmers in my riding are having more and more difficulty? The Minister of Agriculture could do something about this.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board could show some leadership by bringing into effect an international grains agreement which I am sure all of us on this side of the House would be in favour of. If the government would give some leadership in these areas, we in this party would be willing to support the adjournment of the House for an Easter break. I am sure all MPs would unanimously agree.
The budget gave a tax break of $300 million to individuals, which averages about $100 per family. At the same time the big Santa Claus is able to find about $1 billion for corporations, despite the fact that those corporations are already

April 1, 1977
Easter Recess
operating at about 80 per cent capacity. How can we go back and face our constituents with this kind of neanderthal budget, when the government could do so many things to stimulate the economy, such as giving tax breaks to low income earners?
The government could introduce programs to put people in Newfoundland, for example, back to work. I am sure Newfoundlanders like all others would like to work. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, this can be done. But it needs sound, economic planning by a government which believes that to stimulate the economy you start at the bottom by giving people of low income a bigger tax break. People on low income barely live from day to day. They have barely sufficient to purchase nutritious food to feed their families and to send their children to school. If people of low income were given an extra $200 or $500, they would spend that money, which in turn would stimulate the economy and, as the hon. member for Calgary North said, create more jobs. That is the way you do it. You do not do it by giving the oil companies, and the manufacturing companies a few more tax loopholes at the top when there is no guarantee they will spend that extra money on creating jobs for ordinary Canadians.
I cannot vote for the motion. I think it is an affront to the unemployed. I think it is an affront to have this government budget for a million unemployed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Do you want to take a holiday today?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is an affront tq the ordinary person. This country is going to have to pay for those unemployed. The Conservative party, the party of welfare, the party of unemployment, the party of dole, or the party that wants that kind of system can do it if it wishes. Our party believes that all Canadians should be given an opportunity to build up their country and make it a great country.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You spent $10,000 of the taxpayers' money foolishly by having a vote today.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If we had an opposition on this side of the House who were as concerned about this country, where it is going and its people, as the small group in our party, we could do it. It is only going to be done if we have a government with imagination bringing in many of the programs that our party has talked about time and time again. If we do that, we will put this country back to work and make it a better place in which to live for all of us.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. gentleman when he talked about how he would find it difficult in his conscience to vote for the motion which calls for the adjournment of the House over the Easter recess. I listened to him repeat that statement. Perhaps he can explain to me and to the House how he reconciles that statement with the motion of his leader at twelve o'clock, for which he voted. How can he say, in all conscience, that he is against the adjournment of the House?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member who asked the question had more respect for parliament and had been here when I was speaking, he would not have asked that question. That is how I started off my speech.


Paul Wyatt Dick: He did not understand you because you speak in so many circles and never come to the point.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am very glad to repeat it. I know that many Conservatives have very dense heads, but I did not think they were quite that bad. We did that this morning for two reasons. First, it was one of the only devices we had to protest the worst budget this country has ever had. We felt we had to make that protest at the earliest possible opportunity.


Paul Wyatt Dick: And waste parliamentary time?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: By making that type of gesture, which some would call symbolic, this House would have adjourned for only two and a half or three hours. Perhaps during that time there could have been a cabinet meeting where the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues could have gone back to the drawing board and brought forth some policies that would do something for the unemployed.
I know it is very difficult for the Liberals to be serious. Surely we can ask them that on behalf of the Canadian people. I thought the Conservative party would be interested in giving our Liberal friends an opportunity to do some more thinking. The government House leader said a few days ago that the Liberals in Toronto did some thinking, probably for the first time in 17 years. I was just hoping that we would be able to use a few hours this afternoon. With all the momentum they have going in terms of new ideas, perhaps they will come up with some new ideas for the unemployed. That is why I moved the motion today. That did not work, obviously. We did not have the support for that. We are saying now that we are against the motion to adjourn and want to force the government to come back into the House with some new ideas to put Canada back to work again. If the Conservatives do not like that, I cannot help it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt).


Paul Wyatt Dick: I hope he is more brilliant than his predecessor.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will try. I do not want to spend too much time on the by-play between the opposition parties in the House. It is, after all, only five minutes to four o'clock. To spend a lot of time dealing with the sort of criticism each of us is giving the other is not worth while since the Conservative party is becoming less and less relevant in the debate concerning this particular budget. If one examines the reaction of the Conservative critic in this matter, one will see that there are a lot of secret admirers in the official opposition for this particular budgetary paper that we are now considering.
My good friend from Calgary North had a few disparaging remarks to make about the previous government of the prov-
April 1, 1977

ince of British Columbia. I know he is an expert on the province of Alberta. Far be it from me ever to go to the province of Alberta and try to tell him anything about Alberta politics. In terms of the province of British Columbia, at the present time with its Social Credit-Conservative coalition government, unemployment is at an all-time high. It has never been worse. I want to tell the hon. member for Calgary North that business has never been unhappier than it is today in the province of British Columbia, and investment is lower in that province than it was under the New Democratic government that was recently turned out of office. The business community are thinking very hard about the decision they took in regard to that particular coalition.
As I say, I do not want to take a lot of time dealing with the by-play between this party and the official opposition because that is not what we are here to debate today. We are talking about whether this adjournment motion should be passed by the House. Every member in this House wants a holiday. We would all like to have a break. It is just a question of how high you put this rotten budget in your priorities, in the sense of where you should be spending your time as a member of parliament. This House should be in session until the government has taken another look. It can present new bills on Monday. It is not a problem in terms of rethinking some meaningful legislation.
What is most appalling in the budget is the political cynicism that is inherent in it. There is no question that the things the government has done today are going to be reversed exactly one year from now. It has deliberately decided to keep a million people unemployed because it does not want an election this year. That is the effect of this particular budget. What is going to happen is that in March of 1978 we will see an increase in corporate taxes; we will see substantial personal tax cuts at the lower level; and we will see a major capital works program.


John Edward Broadbent: Right on.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The cynicism is that that will be the election budget and it will be fought on the backs of the million unemployed in Canada. That is what will happen as far as this particular budget is concerned. The government has made a deliberate and callous political decision. If ministers were back in their ridings and could see the worn knuckles of people from knocking on doors that will not open at places where there are no jobs, they would not have had the inhumanity-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions, and private bills.
Transport Commission of Inquiry


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order No. 15. Shall the order stand at the request of government?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand at the request of the government.
Order No. 16, in the name of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand	at	the	request	of	the
government.
Order No. 18, in the name of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand	at	the	request	of	the
government.
Order No. 19, in the name of the hon. member for Water-loo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand	at	the	request	of	the
government.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East) moved: that Bill C-220, to provide for the constitution of a federal transport commission of inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the seventh time in the last four or Five years that I brought this matter to the attention of this Chamber. I introduced it first on October 20, 1970 as Bill C-66. It has been in front of the House as that bill, as Bill C-85, Bill C-333, Bill C-109, Bill C-226, and now Bill C-220.
The subject matter of this bill wears well and it is high time the government took the initiative to resolve the principle at stake here, that is, the removal from the investigation of accidents in Canada of every trace of possible conflict of interest. I have a few general remarks to make and I will not be long. As the Chair is aware, we want to deal with this motion fairly shortly, but there are a couple of points I want to
4582

April 1, 1977
Transport Commission of Inquiry
make so that members of the House will be aware of the seriousness with which I approach this matter.
I suggest to my colleagues that they think for a moment of the tragedy which happened in the Canary Islands a few days ago. I ask them to reflect upon the conflict that may arise in the evidence and testimony, in the defence postures, the misleading information, and so on, in the attempt to identify the cause of that tragic runway collision between two jumbo jets. I ask members of the House to think where Canada would stand had that accident occurred at Dorval, Mirabel, Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax. What would the world think if they knew that Canada did not have an independent commission, removed from any possible conflict of interest, to investigate this matter? Let me give the background with respect to this.
No branch of the Department of Transport or other federal agency has over-all responsibility for ensuring that a systematic, comprehensive, and high standard of accident investigation is established and maintained in transportation sectors under federal jurisdiction. Instead, each transportation sector has a separate investigatory body attached to it. The aviation safety investigation division deals with air related accidents. The casualty investigations branch is responsible for marine accidents. The accident and defect investigations branch deals with land vehicles, trucks, buses, and interprovincial carriage. These are all independent, separate bodies, but they are also part of the Department of Transport, or Transport Canada as we call it now. Rail accidents are investigated by the rail safety and standards branch of the railway transport committee. Breaks in federally regulated pipelines are investigated on an ad hoc basis by the engineering branch of the National Energy Board.
Ordinarily, serious accidents which occur to aircraft, ships and vehicles used by the Crown in right of Canada would be investigated, or not as the case might be, by the above authorities. One exception, of course, has to do with accidents to military transport, and these will not be investigated by the above authorities unless a civilian vehicle, aircraft, or other mode of transport is involved in the accident. The point I am trying to make here is that we have a multiplicity of investigatory teams working for the same authority that is responsible for the regulatory aspects of the legislation.
For several years not only I but other members of the opposition, and people in the private sector, have been pressuring the government to establish an independent, and particularly an impartial, commission to investigate transportation accidents which fall under federal jurisdiction. That pressure has apparently had some influence. The Speech from the Throne of September 30, 1974, referred to the establishment of an independent accident investigation board as one of the new transportation initiatives. The government of that day was prepared to undertake-and I might add, undertake immediately, in their own words-the establishment of that board. When questioned in the House about the progress of such legislation, the then parliamentary secretary to the minister of transport advised the House that the government proposal was based on a study done by General A. MacLean who had studied existing federal organizations for the investigation of
[Mr. Forrestall.)
transportation accidents and the promotion of transportation safety.
In May of 1975 the then minister of transport assured the House that his department was "exercising pressure on the government House leader to bring in legislation as soon as possible". It was suggested at the time that legislation was in fact prepared. If such was the case and for some reason the government decided not to proceed, I would personally find that to be a matter of some regret. However, late in October of 1975 the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who had just assumed his responsibilities, said in response to a question in the House that the work on the legislation was "going forward".
Again in December he assured the House that he had every intention of introducing it. Mind you, he did not give us any specific date. He did suggest at the time that the subject matter of government legislation would be somewhat broader in scope than what was proposed by me in Bill C-220. Apart from extending the authority and responsibility of such an independent board to areas of provincial jurisdiction, I find it difficult to understand, for example, how it could have been much broader than mine because I covered everything that moves under federal or provincial jurisdiction. But I welcome the broadening of the act under provincial jurisdiction and the broadening of my bill to permit consultation with equivalent foreign authorities in pursuit of their investigative work. Perhaps authority could be given to name commissioners from time to conduct public inquiries of high concern such as, for example, the tragic accident in Tenerife a week ago. The point is that whatever he intended to do in 1975, he has not done much about it. This is something we regret.
During the December 2, 1976, meeting of the standing committee we again came back to this area. The standing committee had in front of it the deputy minister, Mr. Cloutier, of the Department of Transport, who said that the matter of an independent accident investigation board was still "under study within the department" and that a memorandum to the cabinet should be ready within six to eight weeks, in other words, by the end of January, 1977. I hope that that memorandum is in front of the cabinet. In his testimony Mr. Cloutier gave a hint as to why, despite the lapse of two years, neither the Department of Transport nor the government has evolved a firm and detailed policy. It might be useful if I read his testimony:
There are several alternatives possible. On the one side the present arrangements could be continued with an independent board which would, in effect, monitor, review and assess the work of the accident investigators that exist now, and that such a board could be given powers overall the loans.
That is how it appeared in the published report of the committee proceedings. The word should have been staff. It goes on to read:
Indeed we have already set up within the air administration such a board to which accident reports would be referred to. That is viewed as a temporary mechanism, if you wish, until the larger question is examined and decided upon. But the concept of such, if you wish, after-the-fact board is an alternative.
April 1, 1977

At the other end of the spectrum you could have a totally independent board-
That, incidentally, is what I am recommending.
-which would, in effect, absorb the investigators that exist in various agencies. This would have, in my view, some disadvantages. It would have certainly the advantage of removing any possible claim of conflict of interest, and that basically is at the root of the desirability of setting up such a board ...
There are some alternatives in between.
There are alternatives and mixes in between those two particular extremes. However, what concerns me is that nothing has happened. There are indications that one reason a decision has not been forthcoming is that the department has been internally divided on these alternatives. Generally speaking, opposition to a fully independent and separate accident investigation organization does not seem to be substantial at the departmental level, which is responsible for conducting accident investigations. Rather, this level seems wary of the proposal to establish some form of accident review board which, while not guaranteeing investigators complete independence from the department as a whole, would sit, as it were, in judgment on the work and on the reports of the department.
I go back to Mr. Cloutier in December of 1976 when he spoke in the committee. He referred to one drawback of a fully independent accident investigation board and said the following:
On the other hand it would have the disadvantage of removing from the inspection and certification specialists a concern, and I mean concern both in the intellectual as well as emotional and professional contexts-a concern for safety-that I think is of great value in the operating of a certification mechanism.
From the regulatory and enforcement standpoint such a board would have a number of other disadvantages; I recognize that myself. It might, for example, be more harsh and public in its criticisms of the regulatory and enforcement policies of the department as they pertain to the causes, direct and indirect, of accidents, and more persistent and demanding in pressing for changes related to safety.
I recognize that there are people who see in that a disadvantage to a fully independent board, but that is what we are here for. That is the purpose of this legislation. It is to remove once and for all any question of conflict in these very important matters. I am not blaming the department alone-as what I have been saying might indicate-for the excessive delay in developing proposals for a new accident investigation organization, although that is the exclusive responsibility of the department. There are a number of outside agencies and factors involved. Interdepartmental committees have difficulty ferreting out and establishing relationships between departments as they would relate to such an independent board. On the other hand, this matter has been before them for over three years now. I have been bringing this to the attention of hon. members since the winter of 1967-68.
This matter has been in bill form on five or six occasions. There has been agreement among the successive ministers of transport that there is a need in this country for such an independent board. There are indications from hon. members
Transport Commission of Inquiry on the government side that the cabinet approves of this idea, its concept and its principle. We understand from evidence given to us that documentation has been prepared, and possibly that draft legislation is part of the present scope of things.
If this is true, I am pleased. I hope somebody from the government side can fill us in with respect to that legislation so that we might move this bill to the committee stage, which I would prefer, or at least its subject matter, so that if the department needs further guidance it can come from witnesses who could be brought before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. If we could get the bill to that point, those witnesses would cover the industry in all aspects. They would cover pipelines, rail, air, interprovincial busing, marine movement, and the total scope of it.
I commend the principle of this bill to those who are concerned about transportation safety and about conflict of interest which arises when the regulatory body and the investigative body have the same bosses. We all saw the rush of officials of KLM to protect one of their own. I suggest that this in fact happens because that is human nature. Over the past six, seven or eight years I have cited a number of instances where there were clear conflicts and where the department, in my judgment, was at fault. Those reports and those investigations have not yet been completed. One of them is four or five years old. They will not be brought to a conclusion because the moment that is done there will be an admission of error, and friends will be responsible for the not very attractive fate of other friends. That is not good enough for a country such as Canada. It is not good enough in an age in which travel is as sophisticated as we all know it to be. We need a truly independent body which would have a priori right.
I will close my remarks this afternoon by briefly going through the explanatory note which accompanies the bill. The explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a permanent and impartial commission of inquiry to investigate transport accidents that are within federal jurisdiction. Under present laws, many of these transport accidents-perhaps resulting in loss of life-are investigated by the federal body that is responsible for making and enforcing the rules under which the transport operated when the accident occurred. There is an obvious conflict of interest in such case.
The commission hereby proposed would have exclusive, but selective, authority-as against any other federal body-to investigate all accidents resulting in death, injury, or property loss occurring on any transport under federal authority. However, the commission need not exercise this authority where it felt the public interest would be sufficiently served through an investigation by the appropriate federal regulatory body; that is, where the federal body would not be impeded by a conflict of interest in its investigations.
The commission would also have authority to investigate safety standards and practices and to recommend changes.
The commission would report its findings and recommendations, if any, to parliament to provide opportunity for public debate.
Provision is also made for any person whose conduct or judgment becomes an issue during the investigation to appear and be heard; and, in the event of his death or other disability, to have his interests represented by a person appointed by the commission.
I commend the subject matter of this bill to the thinking of hon. members. I suggest that in 1977 it is time we remove any appearance of conflict of interest from the conduct of the investigation of accidents.
80012 - 1214

April 1, 1977
Transport Commission of Inquiry


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his parliamentary secretary I have been asked to act in their names.
At the outset I wish to thank the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for his patience and co-operation with us in dealing with this bill concerning the creation of an organization for impartial investigation of transport accidents. He must be setting a parliamentary record of sorts as this is, I believe, the sixth time the bill has been considered at private members' hour. However, unlike many other bills that are presented, the objective of this bill does command broad support from all parties, and we wish it to receive further consideration.
The government has spent a great deal of time over the past few years attempting to devise a structure which would have sufficient powers to deal effectively with accident investigations in the transportation field and yet be free of any charge of conflict of interests with existing regulatory and investigative bodies. Considerable progress has been achieved and it is expected that a recommendation to cabinet will be submitted within a matter of weeks.
The hon. member is aware as well that the government has reservations concerning some of the details of Bill C-220. One important area is the scope of activities of a commission and, of course, the funding provisions.
It is the government's intention to introduce shortly a comprehensive bill on this subject matter. I think the hon. member
for Dartmouth-Halifax East will feel some measure of satisfaction when this occurs.
In view of the circumstances, I wish to thank the hon. member for agreeing to withdraw his bill on the understanding that its subject matter be referred to the standing committee for further consideration.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis):
That all the words after the word "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor: Bill C-220, an act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents), be not now read a second time but that the Order be discharged, the bill withdrawn and that the subject-matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)) agreed to.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 4.25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 4, 1977