1977-10-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. Having regard to the government's commitment to place before the House a bill ratifying an agreement between Canada and the United States respecting the construction of the Alcan pipeline, and in light of the fact that there has been no study of any kind of the socio-economic impact of the pipeline project on the area of northeastern British Columbia, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the House issue a reference for the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to study the impact of the pipeline, particularly as it relates to federal jurisdiction such as the portion of the Alaska Highway which lies in British Columbia, native affairs and questions relating to the environment.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of reports that Brian Flemming, the principal adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on domestic policy is renting his Halifax home for $800 per month to a youth group called Katimavik, which is wholly supported by federal funding, and in view of the fact that Mr. Flemming obtained advice from the Prime Minister personally and what was referred to as a conflict of interest group in the Prime Minister's office, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to make a statement on motions detailing the composition of any conflict of interest group in his office, the terms of reference of the group and the basis upon which the group and the Prime Minister concluded that Mr. Flemming had no conflict of interest in the rental of his house to Katimavik.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It concerns an announcement by the Alcan Corporation, made clear in a headline in the press concerning their profits which were up some 500 per cent, precisely at the time the Alcan Corporation is laying off hundreds of workers in the community of St. Lawrence in Newfoundland. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House urges the government of Canada to request Alcan to rescind its closing of the fluorspar mine at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, until alternative strategies can be worked out or face the cancellation of its tax concessions and the possibility of the imposition of higher tariffs on fluorspar imported into Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



ORDERS AND DECORATIONS


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to all those who will receive tonight the high honour of becoming members of the Order of Canada, especially to Mrs. Judith Richard, the only House of Commons employee to receive such outstanding

October 26, 1977
Orders and Decorations
distinction. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House extend its special congratulations to Mrs. Judith Richard on her appointment as Member of the Order of Canada in recognition of her services to the country as the executive secretary of the late Real Caouette, ex-leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, and the great Canadian as he was known by all the members of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House.

There appears to be some difficulty with the sound system. Is the sound system functioning better now?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion presented by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) reads as follows:

Is it gone again? There is of course no possibility of asking for consent unless hon. members have heard the presentation of the motion. Is it working now? The hon. member for Richmond.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I hope the procedure will be simpler. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to pay tribute to all those who will receive tonight the high honour of becoming members of the Order of Canada, especially to Mrs. Judith Richard, the only House of Commons employee to receive such outstanding distinction. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House extend its special congratulations to Mrs. Judith Richard on her appointment as Member of the Order of Canada, in recognition of her services to the country as the executive secretary of the late Real Caouette, ex-leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, and the great Canadian as he was known by all the members of this House.
(English ]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have in the past expressed reservations about the use of this Standing Order for the expression of congratulations because, of course, it invites repetition. However, in this case, I will put the motion. It can be accepted for discussion only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Beaudoin.1
[ Translation]


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion.
Considering the untenable situation in which fluid milk producers find themselves because the government refuses to pay subsidies agreed upon on the percentage of their production to be used in industrial milk; considering that the government thereby does not respect the agreement of last April between the Federation of Fluid Milk Producers and the Canadian Dairy Commission; and considering that this refusal is tantamount to a kind of blackmail exerted by the government against fluid milk producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the Minister of Agriculture be urged unanimously by this House, with the hopeful support of the 60 members from Quebec on the other side, to send immediately to fluid milk producers the amounts that are legally owed to them.


Mr. Beatty:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been no English translation of the last two motions and it has been impossible for those of us whose mother language is English to understand the motions which are being put. 1 wonder whether the fault could be rectified before we proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: Immediately it was evident to me there was some defect in the sound system we initiated an investigation into it. I would hope that for the time being we could carry on functioning as best we can. The motion by the hon. member for Joliette says, basically, that the Minister of Agriculture be urged by the House to notify immediately milk producers in the Province of Quebec and give them money which is rightly due to them.
The introduction of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent, of course. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!



TRANSPORT


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the people of Newfoundland, especially those living on the south coast of the province, are very worried and concerned over whether or not adequate safety procedures are in effect for seamen and fishermen at sea along the south coast of Newfoundland and as to whether adequate coastguard facilities exist, which concern and alarm is increased by the loss of



October 26, 1977

the 132-foot sidetrawler Cape Royal with her crew of eight men; at some time after 6 p.m. on August 9 she left Burgeo to proceed to Marystown for ship refit and was expected to arrive in Marystown at 10.30 a.m. on August 10 but was not reported missing until mid-afternoon on Friday, August 12, some two and a half days after she left Burgeo. 1 ask members of the House for unanimous consent to introduce the following motion and I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to proceed immediately to meet the requests of the people of the south coast of Newfoundland for the appointment of a public commission of inquiry into the loss of the sidetrawler Cape Royal and her eight man crew and into the adequacy or otherwise of safety procedures and regulations governing transport by sea on the south coast of Newfoundland, such inquiry to commence its work immediately and to report its recommendations as soon as humanly possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion put forward. Unanimous consent is required before it can be considered. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This would normally be the time at which we would begin the oral question period but I see there are still one or two members who wish to put forward motions pursuant to Standing Order 43. Unless we are satisfied that the translation sound system is functioning correctly, 1 propose to use a few minutes to allow them do that and then we will examine the situation at that time.



PERFORMING ARTS


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move an important motion. In view of the fact that recent bankruptcies in the Canadian film industry testify to the fact that our film makers are still facing unfair competition and are still restricted in gaining access to foreign controlled movie theatres to show Canadian films, and in view of the fact that American films earn $200 million in the Canadian box office annually and that profits continue to flow to the U.S. rather than a portion remain here to support Canadian film makers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) now implement the policy recommendations presented to this House in a petition on June 16, 1976 by the Canadian Council of Film Makers.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Canadian economy is experiencing a full slump, that inflation is constantly eroding the purchasing power of the Canadian people, and also that a very high level of unemployment exists in the main areas of our country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House consider immediately the possibility of setting up a universal guaranteed income program, without discrimination for the purpose of ensuring the financial security of all Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The sound difficulty originates in the English translation booths and technicians are in there working on it. For the moment, perhaps I can try to relate to the House the contents of the motion of the hon. member for Rimouski. I understand it is now working.

Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, we are only one week into the third session of the thirtieth parliament and I see that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport are absent. My question is to a minister who is in the House, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and it concerns the economic devastation that is occurring in my constituency and in Sudbury as a result of the INCO lay-offs. Now that both labour and management have shot down the minister's idea of "fair shares of misery", policies of work sharing, will he tell the House what further steps he has in mind to make sure our communities can stay on their feet?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when a problem such as this

October 26, 1977
Oral Questions
exists, it seems to me inappropriate not to examine all of the avenues which might be of assistance to those who are affected by the lay-off. That is precisely why we held meetings yesterday dealing not only with the Sudbury, Ontario situation, but also that in Thompson, Manitoba, the idea was in fact not shot down. They indicated that the problem was not of a temporary nature, knew that the work-sharing program would not be applicable on a long-term basis, and therefore not too much time was spent on the work-sharing aspect.
We indicated both to management and to union the full resources which would be available. The union leadership were of a mind that we were jumping a bridge too soon, if you will. They wanted to pursue with management the avenues that might be open to head off, or at least to ameliorate, the lay-off. I think that should be encouraged in order to see what can be done on a union-management basis. In the event that that is not successful or totally successful, then I think it is incumbent upon governments at both levels to do what they can to ameliorate the situation so far as those who are laid off are concerned.


LAY-OFFS AT INCO-REQUEST THAT MINISTER ATTEND MEETING IN WINNIPEG
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. It is my understanding that a minister of the cabinet was not at the meeting in Toronto. It is also my understanding that a meeting is being convened in Winnipeg on Thursday, October 27, with union representatives and INCO officials in the province of Manitoba, who I understand were not represented at the Toronto, Ontario meeting yesterday. Will the minister give this House his assurance that he will personally attend this important meeting in Winnipeg on Thursday and provide some answers for the mining industry, management and labour of this country?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has to make up his mind. In one breath he complains about ministers not being present in this chamber when they are out performing other duties-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not wish to be unduly critical. I know the hon. member has a concern about those in Thompson, Manitoba, as I have myself. I did not attend the meeting in Toronto yesterday. However, I was available in Toronto to my officials in the event that they needed some back-up information or some policy direction. At the same time I offered to meet with management and labour. The management people took me up on it. The union representatives had made other arrangements, other engagements, and could not meet. They undertook to discuss with my regional director general, Mr. Boyd, some of the concerns they had.
As far as Manitoba is concerned, we were in direct contact with the premier of that province and the deputy minister to

indicate that we are prepared to discuss with them the same services we are prepared to make available in Sudbury. However, we do not want to usurp the roles of union and management. They want to ascertain if there are avenues which can be followed, before they give consideration to using the facilities of my particular department and the resources which are available.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I think they should be encouraged in that. We do not need snide remarks from the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We should be more interested in seeking solutions than the bombastic responses we have had from the NDP


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Those workers who have been laid off can take little comfort from the fact that this government's only answer to people who are willing to work is the dole. Will the minister tell this House whether he will designate Thompson as an area eligible for DREE assistance, and in addition, when he intends to consult with the Thompson town council about projects under this problem?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if my memory is correct-and it usually is-the area mentioned by the hon. member is already one of the designated districts of Manitoba which come under DREE subsidies. The city of Thompson, Manitoba, as a designated area in this province is entitled to assistance from my department as long as it is requested by industries willing to expand or create new branches.
With regard to other federal or DREE programs, all I can say is that we have a very substantial agreement of over $100 million for northern Manitoba within the next five years. Pursuant to this agreement which has been effective for one year now, four federal departments have been joining their efforts to further development in northern Manitoba.
October 26, 1977


RESOURCES
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) are absent, I shall direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
In the light of the experience we are living in the mining industry and considering the concrete proof of the lack of a long term industrial policy, and given that, as confirmed today by the company, Noranda Mines will have to invite its employees to take a prolonged holiday during the Christmas period, which causes some concern to the mining industry in Quebec, would the minister be in a position to tell what kind of communication he had with this Quebec mining company and can he assure the House that we shall not have the kind of lay-offs we have just experienced in Ontario.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not received any recommendation from the chairman of Noranda Mines. However, if he communicates with me, I shall be pleased to talk with him. Of course, if he is forced to invite his employees to take a long holiday at Christmas time because of the conditions on the market, I hope that this will be a very temporary situation.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed with the answer by the Minister of Finance who does not seem very concerned with what may soon happen in the mining industry.
Could I ask the minister whether his government intends to implement a real long term industrial policy in order to protect the mining industry? This could reassure the province of Quebec particularly in view of the experience we are now going through. Given the absence of the responsible ministers, I apologize for having to put my question to the Minister of Finance.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are looking very closely at the situation. Of course, the performance of mining products on the world markets is very weak at this time, i.e. prices are low and demand is slack.
However, perhaps the hon. member could recall that in 1972 we took steps to stabilize uranium prices, and save Canadian jobs but ever since that time the opposition has been blaming us for having acted in that area.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, on a final supplementary.
I said I was disappointed, but once again the minister has proved, Mr. Speaker, that he does not want to do anything. Can he tell the House whether he intends or not to introduce legislation that can give Canadians the stability they lack?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the hon. member that the world situation is very complex, that ore prices are soft at this time, that demand is weak, that those are facts of life we have to learn to live with and that there is no
Oral Questions
magic solution to the problem. However, I say to the hon. member that we are watching the situation very closely and that we will do everything in our power to stabilize the situation. I urge the hon. member, when we intervene to stabilize ore prices as we did in the case of uranium, to ask his colleagues to support the position of the government instead of asking questions month after month.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The government, by its hundreds of millions of dollars of giveaways to INCO, having done all it could to ensure that the company gets the profits and the miners get the shaft-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is aware that at the meeting which took place yesterday INCO said that not only will it proceed with its announced layoffs but that, quite possibly, there would be further layoffs early in 1978. I would like to ask him why the government does not take up our constructive proposal from this side of the House that the government take immediate steps to form a stockpile of nickel, having done it in the past for some seven years with uranium, in order to preserve these jobs instead of having the taxpayers continue to pay some $22 million which they will have to pay in unemployment insurance if they do not preserve the jobs?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we explored that possibility last Wednesday with the company. One of the problems is that they have stockpiled nickel for a long period of time and now they have a reserve for seven months. If we were to keep on stockpiling, we would be depressing the market even further and would be adding to the problem. We have not rejected that possibility; we have discussed it with the company, but at the present time this does not seem to be the solution to the problem.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I say with respect that I do not see the logic of the minister's argument. Our experience with uranium has made it obvious that far from depressing the price, it went up by several hundred per cent and a substantial gain was reaped from stockpiling. Is the government now seriously proposing to the company that it consider stockpiling, and if so, would the minister confirm that in unequivocal terms because I understood from the minister responsible for employment that the government has decided, now that its work-sharing proposal has been turned down, that it would just leave it to INCO and the union to look after their own situation?

October 26, 1977
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that we have discussed with the company the possibility of stockpiling, but this option did not seem at that time to be the proper solution.


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because it will not bring about the proper solution. However, we are still considering that.


John Edward Broadbent: Why?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Because I have said that they already have too many stocks in reserve. I would like to refer again to uranium. The hon. member has created the impression that uranium prices went up because we have stockpiled. That is not the reason. The reason is that uranium is a commodity-


Mr. Stevens:: It is because of the illegal cartel.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No. The reason the price of uranium went up is that after the oil crisis uranium was an energy commodity which became more sought after in the world market. That is why the price of uranium went up, not because of stockpiling.


John Edward Broadbent: I am well aware of the complexities which cause prices to go up or down. The minister's simple-minded single cause argument that stockpiling will cause the price to go down does not make any sense at all, and I think any independent economist would agree with that. I repeat to the minister that if uranium has been stockpiled for seven years and if we have only a seven month supply on hand why is it irresponsible for the government to propose another year-a limited period of time-of stockpiling? During that period of time a longer range solution to the problems of the miners in Manitoba and Ontario could be worked out.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is insisting, and that is all right with me, but we have discussed the problem, and that proposal does not seem at this moment to be the solution. Perhaps that proposal would just postpone the problems for a couple of months. If it is the right way to solve the problem, we are willing to consider it, but at this time we do not consider that as the proper solution to the problem.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Yesterday rumors seemed to hint at a possible conflict between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the President of the Treasury Board whereby the indexation of old age security pensions and family allowances to keep up with the rising cost of living would be abolished or suspended for a

determined period by the federal government. Could the minister say to the House how her talks with her counterpart are coming along, and whether the people affected will soon be reassured in that respect?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that as Minister of National Health and Welfare it is my duty to make sure that 1 always stand for the interests of Canadian families, particularly poor families, and to ensure the redistribution of incomes for all those who are entitled to it and need it, which is the position of this government.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
The minister has not answered my question at all. I asked whether talks on a possible suspension for a time or forever of the indexation of old age pensions and family allowances to keep up with the rising cost of living were going on between her department and the Treasury Board. I would like to know whether that was discussed or is being discussed at the present time.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who has been in this House for a lot longer than I and who is a politician knows quite well that whether or not that is being discussed among government officials does not change absolutely anything to the legislation this Parliament voted, and if it is being discussed in the cabinet I am not at a liberty to tell you.


FINANCE
Mr. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Since it now appears that the government has turned down as an option the possibility of protective tariffs on imported fluorspar in order to protect the 400 jobs at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and in view of the failure of the government to consult with the Newfoundland government on this very important matter, the future of the town of St. Lawrence, what steps does the government intend to take to save this single industry town and the people who are dependent on it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the government of Newfoundland has contacted one of my colleagues, but I myself have received no communication. However, if one of the ministers of that province wants to telephone me to discuss the matter, I will be pleased to talk to him.


October 26, 1977


INCOME TAX
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. I want to congratulate him on the achievement of that portfolio.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the minister will be successful. Having regard, however, to what happened recently in Manitoba, I think his tenure will be very short.
My question arises out of a general feeling in all parts of this country that income tax returns are not secret within the meaning of the Income Tax Act and that there are occasions, and have been recently, of leaks to other departments. I ask the minister whether he will now give the assurance to the House and to the country that never again will there be any leaks from his department or to permit the use of leaks by other departments, to the detriment of the taxpayer.


Hon. Joseph-Phillippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the right hon. member for his wishes and then tell him that his predictions concerning Manitoba are not always concrete and not necessarily always true.

With regard to the question 1 would like to tell the right hon. gentleman that under section 241, in brackets (4) of the Act-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I can underline it in blue, if hon. members would rather have it that way. Of course, I take into consideration the fact that the right hon. gentleman is a very prominent lawyer. However, I suggest that he look at that particular section of the Act, and possibly that will answer the question he has put to me.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister that it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to follow the peregrinations of his department and the manner in which income tax revelations made in returns have been revealed to individuals who are not legally entitled thereto, and I would like the minister again to look up section 241 in brackets subsection (4).


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


ALLEGATION DEPARTMENTS CIRCUMVENTING GROWTH GUIDELINES
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On Monday of this week the hon. member for Hamilton West questioned the minister about the growth of the civil service, and the minister made the commitment that the growth would be held to less than one per cent. However, is the minister aware that all his cabinet colleagues are hiring additional employees through private employment agencies? For example, 16 departments have taken on an additional 4,500 employees, and the Minister of Transport spent $600,000 more in 1976 than in 1975 for hiring from private employment agencies. Are the minister's colleagues circumventing his guidelines with regard to civil service growth?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: No, Mr. Speaker, an unequivocal no.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be another method of getting around hiring. I have figures for 29 departments and Crown corporations which show that 3700 additional people are under contract, and this cost the taxpayers an additional $130 million in 1975 and 1976. The civil service publication Argus-Journal has stated that the government is misleading the public on Public Service growth and gives some very devastating figures which show that contracts are on the increase. In 1973 and 1974 four departments were awarded 8351 contracts, and in 1974 and 1975 the number of contracts had increased to 73,096.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, 1 would want to examine the premise of the hon. member's question and the details he is quoting in considerably greater depth than he could describe in the question period. I repeat my answer to his previous question. There is no attempt on the part of the departments to get around this. I believe it is a wise practice on occasion to enter into short-term contracts rather than creating permanent man-years and a permanent growth of bureaucracy. I can assure the hon. member that the authorized man-year growth of the Public Service for 1977-78 will stay within the commitment made in this House. It will be less than one per cent.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like the President of the Treasury Board to check the charges made in the October issue of the Argus-Journal which stated that contracting out is just a great government cover-up.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The minister and his

October 26, 1977
Oral Questions
colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have responded to questions in the House with respect to the proposals for a new beef import law for Canada. Can the minister tell the House if we are right to presume that the primary thrust of any new beef import law would be directed toward offshore beef so that we could preserve our access to United States markets which are of particular importance to beef producers in Saskatchewan?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I think any legislation we would bring in along the lines the hon. member suggests would be non-discriminatory.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDING SECTION 11 OF GATT AGREEMENT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. It seems that one way to get a good meat import law would be to make an amendment to Section 11 of the GATT agreement currently being negotiated in Geneva. Has the minister or the Minister of Agriculture asked the negotiators to look into this aspect of getting an amendment to Section 11 of the GATT agreement so that we may have a meaningful import law in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the question is being examined at this time. I would be very pleased to convey the representation of the hon. member to the representatives in Geneva.


SUGGESTED EMBARGO ON IMPORTATION OF NICKEL CARBONATE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing importation into Canada of nickel carbonate from Japan and Australia, which are certainly not Third World countries, in view of the fact that the latest importation involves 1,820,000 pounds of nickel carbonate last weekend destined for the Sherritt-Gordon Refinery at Fort Saskatchewan, and in view of the fact that we have nickel carbonate stored in bags coming out of our ears in Sudbury, can the minister inform the House whether, as an emergency measure, there will be an immediate embargo on the importation of any raw nickel from overseas to Sherritt-Gordon and other refineries?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question. I was not aware of this particular aspect.


MANPOWER
John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of information in the letter dated April 19, 1973 written to me by the former Minister of Manpower and Immigration to the effect that his departmental officials had a good working relationship with INCO and other such companies, and that it is an ongoing one, to enable them to stay on top of the situation, in view of the fact that last Friday the minister told the House he was informed of the layoff the night before the layoff, can the minister now tell the House whether there will be a parliamentary investigation into the mineral industry in Canada with particular reference to the way in which his officials have had this close working relationship and were on top of the situation, specifically with respect to INCO and Falconbridge and their actions in the last few weeks regarding the people of Thompson, Port Colborne, and Sudbury.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a position to state that there will or will not be a particular committee set up to investigate that aspect of it. As the hon. member has said, I as minister and others were notified the night before of the press release. That release did not indicate that the individuals would be laid off the next day, however. It indicated that pursuant to the law they had to be given 16 weeks' notice, which was done.


John R. Rodriguez: That is shameful.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member says that is shameful. It is conceivable that the period should be extended and we can debate that question at another time but the company did in fact give 16 weeks' notice, Mr. Speaker.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Finance. In his answers so far today regarding the problems of International Nickel Company and its employees he has been very straightforward and positive in outlining to the House what he considers not to be the solution. Would he now be equally positive and straightforward and take the House into his confidence and let us know what he thinks may be the solutions to this very serious problem?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this question in the House for a couple of days. We are in communication with the union and the corporation to find an appropriate solution. Of course, we are very concerned about this problem. I said today that some
October 26, 1977

options are not really open but we hope to find others in the next few weeks. It is good that we have at least 14 weeks before the lay-offs become operative.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs who has indicated a number of times that corrections to veterans legislation are imminent. Widows of veterans are still being discriminated against, however, as they have for many years because they are denied a pension where a veteran husband died who was in receipt of less than a 48 per cent disability pension. When is the minister going to introduce corrective amendments to the legislation?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the pension applies to widows of veterans who received disability pensions of 48 per cent or more. This matter is always before the government for consideration but I have no specific answer at this time.



POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN BASIC PENSION

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Another inequity in the legislation is that the formula for the basic pension is that it shall comply with the five lowest categories in the Public Service. In view of the fact that the precedent has been set of veterans falling behind those categories of the Public Service at a rate of $536 per year, when is the minister going to correct that inequity by introducing amendments to the legislation to correct this very serious fault?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House many times, the department has had the basic rate under consideration. I must tell the House, however, that the government has looked at this very seriously and decided not to increase the disability pension at this time but recipients will be able to enjoy the cost of living increase effective January 1 and each year thereafter. I know this is a disappointment to veterans organizations, but good Canadian citizens that they are, I am sure they will realize that this is a year of restraint and we will not be able to introduce improvements until our fiscal position improves.
Oral Questions



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS POSSIBLE DISCUSSIONS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ALCAN PIPELINE

Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. In connection with the government's proposal to place a bill before the House respecting the construction of the Alcan pipeline, has the minister had discussions with the province of British Columbia regarding this government's responsibility in northeastern British Columbia for the socio-economic impact the pipeline will have there? I ask this in light of the millions of dollars spent studying the impact on the Territories and the Yukon and the special responsibility the federal government has in northeastern British Columbia because of the highway.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from British Columbia have raised this issue with the cabinet. The matter is being considered very carefully at the present time. Discussions are taking place with the government of British Columbia. I suggest that the hon. member raise this question with the minister directly responsible for this project when he returns to the House.


Frank Oberle: Is it the intention of the government to fulfil its commitment and carry out a study on its own, studying the impact on the native community in the area which is as significant as it was in the Mackenzie Valley and the Yukon and the impact the pipeline construction will have on the Alaska Highway which is entirely under federal jurisdiction. Is there going to be a study of that area?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the hon. member that he address this question to the Minister of the Environment.


Mr. Alexander:: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


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


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, or will I be next?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



WHEAT-REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN UTILITY GRADES

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of weather conditions in western Canada which resulted in the downgrading of wheat to three utility, and in view of the widespread dissatisfaction among growers with the spread between three red and three utility wheat and also the varying qualities put in
8002 5-191/2

October 26, 1977
Oral Questions
this grade, has the minister discussed this problem with the Board of Grain Commissioners as to the possibility of revision in grades in this area, which would be more fair and with a better price differential for the wheat. This involves many millions of dollars.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed the problems of the low grade grains, the utility grains. The commission wants to put together the complete story on all the grains and the harvesting. According to a report I have on my desk, harvesting is practically completed in the west. A lot of grains are coming through with better grades than we had thought, and we will be in a much better position to supply the market than we thought. 1 am sure the hon. member is aware there is a demand in the world market for utility grain. It is too early to say whether it will be that costly, whether it will involve millions of dollars. We will be much better off as a nation because of the ability of the farmers to harvest the crop in as good a condition as it is when we consider all the elements with which we have had to contend.


William Gordon Ritchie: The minister did not quite answer my question. Is he considering bringing three utility grades into one or two more grades which will be more fair and give a better price differential for all the grain put into this grade by the present grading system?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the grades.



HOUSING


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The housing issue is of national interest and despite all efforts made by this government, several thousands of people are at grips with housing problems, particularly in my riding. In view of this fact, could the minister first of all specify what use has been made of the amount of $90 million provided to the Quebec government by the federal government in order to conclude various agreements likely to meet its citizens' needs in terms of housing? Second, what steps does the minister favour to help lower rent costs for those who want to find proper housing conditions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, 1 can inform him that since it was announced that a part of the funds the government of Canada intended to spend in the province of Quebec for housing purposes had not been used yet, we have received a few requests from the Quebec government. It is to be hoped therefore that within a few weeks we shall be able, in co-operation with Quebec authorities, to launch a few housing projects for elderly people or low income people.

Unfortunately, the requests we expected to receive from the Quebec government are not quite specific and numerous enough to meet all our expectations and the amounts we would be prepared to spend in Quebec may not be spent this year because of the Quebec government's carelessness.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would he be in a position to inform the House whether any progress has been made as regards the establishment of the ferro-silicone plant in Rimouski?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must inform the hon. member that as far as I know there has been no development in this regard and until further notice we must be patient and wait.



REASON FOR REMOVAL OF PFRA OFFICE FROM LETHBRIDGE

Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the fact that Fort Macleod is the most central location for the PFRA offices dealing with water development in the Lethbridge constituency and has been for over 30 years, and in view of the fact that Fort Macleod has ample office space, storage space, plus a large parking area for farmers and ranchers, will the minister inform the House why he is proposing a move of this office and will he assure the House that he will put an immediate stop to this ridiculous action?
[ Translation]


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I was not aware of that decision or that a recommendation had been made recently in this regard. I will check this whole matter and reply later to the hon. member.



FISHERIES


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, I will direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. The minister is familiar with the fact that on August 9 the vessel Cape Royal left Burgeo to go to Marystown, a 13 hour run. Two and a half days later it was discovered that this sidetrawler had sunk with all her crew.
October 26, 1977

Will the minister listen to the requests of the people of the south coast of Newfoundland and have the cabinet order a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, or whatever statute is proper, into that sinking and into the question of whether safety regulations and procedures are adequate on the south coast for mariners, fishermen and others who travel at sea.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I understood all that the hon. member was asking because there was a sound problem. The matter which he raises is very serious. In this instance, a ship which was supposed to dock, if I remember correctly, after 12 or 14 steaming hours had not reported for two and a half days. We have asked the fishing companies to improve the procedure whereby fishing vessels report. As the hon. member well knows, fishing captains are loathe to report too frequently because it can indicate their position. They are very competitive with each other. However, for safety reasons and search and rescue, it would be better if we could devise a system whereby the vessels do report to their home base or use some other system. I might say to the hon. member that in this case reporting earlier probably would not have helped since all search efforts under the competent personnel of my colleagues the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Transport, did not find specific reasons for what happened. I am sorry to be so long but this is a very serious question. With regard to the matter of an inquiry, I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Transport. Such situations are usually examined under his jurisdiction.



POST OFFICE


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: In the absence of the Postmaster General, I will direct my question to the acting minister. Is the Post Office Department concentrating on selling the remaining inventory of the Royal Canadian Mint product, coins and coin sets, at the main philatelic depot in Montreal and has a recall order been sent out to all the post offices in western Canada to return to the Winnipeg philatelic depot all of these products for furtherance to the Quebec philatelic depot?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to bring this to the attention of my colleague, the Postmaster General.


George H. Whittaker: I have a copy of a letter which was sent to post offices in western Canada. Does the minister agree that this is discriminatory against all other parts of the country?
Oral Questions FOREIGN INVESTMENT



POSSIBLE ENTRY INTO CANADA OF UNITED PARCEL SERVICE

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Transport, I will direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Is the minister aware that United Parcel Service Incorporated, a giant U.S. corporation, is making every effort to expand its operations into Canada? If so, is the government aware of the effect this will have on employees of CN Express and employees of the post office? What is the government doing to prevent this American outfit coming into Canada which will result in the profits being shipped back to the United States and will create more unemployment for those in the post office and CN Express?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I thank the hon. member for that question. This is a situation where the Postmaster General and the union can work in concert to provide better service and the kind of competition which would be effective in coping with those circumstances. In addition we shall, of course, be looking at other avenues which might be more effective to prevent an operation of that kind taking place.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before granting the hon. member a short supplementary I would remind the House that because of the technical difficulty we had at the beginning of the question period we should extend the allotted time by another four or five minutes.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.


Robert Muir: Is the minister aware that the Foreign Investment Review Agency has stated that Canada would not benefit if UPS bought into Genobele Delivery in Ontario? Can any steps be taken by the federal government to prevent this giant corporation coming into Canada and creating more unemployment?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: One of the terms of reference of FIR A is that when they make a decision in a positive way there must be significant benefit to Canada. The hon. member has indicated that FIRA has not found that to be the case in the past and I would assume they would have to go through that particular regimen again. I do not wish to prejudge what Fira might do but the hon. member has certainly made his position clear.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I should like to ask whether home insulation grants made to senior citizens will have any effect on guaranteed income supplement ben-

October 26, 1977
Oral Questions
efits. Will they be deducted and, if so, what are the reasons and possible alternatives?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the grants for insulating homes will not be considered additional income or assets to old age pensioners and will therefore not interfere with the receipt of supplementary benefits.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to his press conference and the subsequent press release dated October 20 entitled, "A New Look at Agriculture Canada" which has to do with the reorganization with the hon. gentleman's department. I would ask the minister to give us some assurance that the changes described will, in fact, result in a greater flow of public information to Canadian consumers and to people in the food industry.


Eugene Whelan: If the hon. member has time this afternoon he will find I shall be elaborating later on that subject in the debate on the Throne Speech.


John Wise: The minister's answer sounds more like an excuse than an explanation. Will he now acknowledge that what in reality is happening is that the director of the Food Services Division is no longer with his department and that he has been transferred to another department? Is it not true that the Food Systems Branch has been dissolved and that the remaining staff have been integrated throughout the department with the result that there is no longer a Food Services Division within Agriculture Canada?


Eugene Whelan: If the hon. member has read the press release and any of the articles written about it-and those I have seen have been fairly accurate-he will find they show that Agriculture Canada will be in a position to show greater leadership in the whole of the food sector than ever before. The Department of National Revenue will benefit from the presence of Dr. Hanna in that department because there will now be one person in that department who has a knowledge of agriculture; this will be of benefit to the agriculture industry as a whole, since we work with that department very often. These people are being absorbed into other branches of the department to the great advantage of those other branches, the great advantage of the farmers and of the consumers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is his department planning a move of the architectural and engineering offices from Saskatoon to Regina and does he plan to complete this move by July, 1978? If so, why is the department concentrating in the Regina area, where there are already provincial offices, instead of fanning out all over the country in accordance with the government's decentralization plan?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I have no knowledge of such a move. I will make further inquiries and report to the hon. member tomorrow.


Stanley James Korchinski: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have knowledge of that move. While the minister is making inquiries I should like him to inquire why such a move is contemplated in view of the fact that there are only about 1,000 Indians living on reserves south of Regina and that 40 per cent of the Indians in the province live north of Prince Albert. Would it not be far better to leave the office in Saskatoon, nearer to the people who are to be served?


William Ross Milne: That seems to me to be a repetition of the first question, and the answer is the same.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture who has just articulated a most incredible proposal. I want to be sure he is saying what I heard him say. Is it the position of the Minister of Agriculture that the Department of Agriculture becomes more effective as more of its functions are transferred to other departments?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition misinterpreted what I said. That is not what I said. That is not what I intended to say. I am sure the hon. member for Elgin heard what I said. If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to stay this afternoon I shall be elaborating further and telling him just what we intend to do. Agriculture Canada is the envy of the world and he will find out-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a question of privilege.
October 26, 1977


John Edward Broadbent: My question of privilege concerns the Prime Minister. I see he is not in the House, so I shall let it go.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can get through this on a point of order. It does relate to my present condition, the condition of my fragile body. It is a matter which verges on a question of privilege as it affects the operation of this House.
I know that with the introduction of television into the House we shall find some unusual observations and points of order raised. The point of order which I raise is one on behalf of all hon. members. Since we have had television in the House I have received complaints from members on all sides about the level of lighting in the chamber. As far as some people are concerned the lighting has affected their eyesight and they are required to wear dark glasses. For others, the heat of the lighting is causing some discomfort, and when we go back to the lounge we find that the air conditioning is adjusted proportionately to accommodate the lighting, bringing upon us 'flu and some inconvenience. Since you are in charge of all this, Your Honour, I should like to know whether or not anything will be done.
We were told at the outset that it would be cool lighting and that members would not notice the presence of television in the House. Perhaps Your Honour would take this matter under advisement and let us know whether something can be done about the level of lighting.


Mr. Speaker:: I can inform all hon. members that the reconstituted Special Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting met yesterday. One of the subjects under extensive consideration was the level of the lighting and the temperature in the Chamber. There was anxiety on the part of all hon. members that we begin the introduction of this equipment with the resumption of the sittings of the House, which was done. This did not allow for an extensive period of trial and experimentation.
We are within that period now. The engineers are constantly re-examining the performance of the lighting and the requirements of the lighting, and at the same time the temperature control. Of course the temperature control is a much easier factor because the lighting may remain constant, and some additional equipment may be introduced into the system to alter the temperature. The lighting raises some more technical problems in terms of control because, in addition to experimentation each day, it will be necessary before any substantial adjustments are made that we come to a recess of the Chamber for two or three days in order to permit scaffolding to be put up to alter the lighting. There are things of that sort of an ongoing nature. However, I do want to assure all hon. members that the matter is under careful scrutiny every day.
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say, in view of the question of the leader of the NDP, that the Prime Minister is not here this afternoon because he went to the airport to welcome the Prime Minister of Guyana, Mr. Forbes Burnham.



PRIVILEGE


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to an answer given to a question this afternoon by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). The Minister of Finance was asked by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) whether the government is going to take action on a request which it had from the government of Newfoundland to impose a tariff on imports of fluorspar into Canada because of a decision by Alcan to close the fluorspar mine at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland. As I recall it, the minister said that he had received no such letter or request, but that he would consider it if he did receive such a letter.
That is a misstatement of fact, I believe, Mr. Speaker, inadvertent I am sure. I raised this question last night. On July 21 a letter was sent to the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, the present Minister of Finance, by the government of Newfoundland requesting that either a tariff be imposed on imported fluorspar or quotas imposed. That letter was not answered. On October 11 a follow-up letter was sent to the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner).
This matter was debated last night. As reported at page 276 of yesterday's Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Loiselle), replying to me last night, said this:
I should also like to advise that the question of the imposition of a Canadian tariff on the importation of fluorspar is a matter for the consideration of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). In that regard, my minister sent him a copy of Mr. Hickman's letter and his reply for his review.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since July 21 or a few days thereafter, unless the post office has failed completely, or since October 11 in any event, this request has been before the Government of Canada. I bring this matter up because I think the minister has misstated the facts, and would he clear it up for me?


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have to say to the hon. member that I did not want to mislead anybody on this. I have not been seized with the problem as yet, but 1 will be looking into it this afternoon. If I can provide an answer to both hon. members I will do so tomorrow or the day after.

The Address-Mr. Breau



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), the first annual report of Loto Canada, in the two official languages.


CORPORATIONS AND LABOUR UNIONS RETURNS ACT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multicultural-ism)), for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, moved for leave to introduce Bill C-7, to amend the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dawson for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to the speech at the opening of the session; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Malone (p. 226).
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, to conclude my remarks from last evening, I would simply suggest that for a number of people, and especially for members of Frenchspeaking minorities outside Quebec, the most significant proposal in the Speech from the Throne, as read by Her Majesty, certainly was the government's intent to amend the BNA Act by enshrining linguistic rights in the constitution. The only language rights of sorts that have been included in the constitution since 1867 are those of the English-speaking minority in Quebec. And ever since 1971, this government's position has always been that our constitution should be amended to include language rights as well for the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. Because since Confederation, when the existing agreement was prepared and enacted by the British Parliament, French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec have not really had an opportunity to participate in the preparation of that agreement. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the government's intention to introduce such amendments to the Constitution. This in my view is a matter of basic justice. Francophones outside Quebec have a right to such a constitutional guarantee. In my province, there is a statute on official languages but it is only an act of legislature. To us the significance of having that written into the Constitu-

October 26, 1977
tion would be a basic thing, and I hope the government succeed in getting such a constitutional amendment.
I would repeat that this position was not taken by the federal government on November 15 last or after the enactment of Bill 101 in Quebec. Rather, it has been the position of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the federal government since the Victoria Charter in 1971.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, firstly I should like to compliment the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. I thought they did a remarkably fine job and I would hate to put them down or let them feel dismayed by the remark which is often heard around this House, that a person's maiden speech is frequently the best speech they ever make. It would be hard to improve on the ones they made. A maiden speech is one that a person sometimes spends half their life preparing to give. I know as a fact that after I made mine I wondered where I had found those wonderful phrases which I had in that speech. I heard some of them the other day. They were very fine speeches indeed.
I should also like to pay tribute to Her Majesty who lent the throne speech a distinction and attractiveness that it had in no other respect except in its reading.
As a defence critic for the official opposition I do not get many opportunities to speak on defence, and I usually take advantage of the throne speech or the budget speech to set out the party's views about our defence forces. However, the speech given the other night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) appeared to be a budget speech in every regard except that it did not allow six days' debate. In every other regard it was a budget speech. He was aware of the fact that there should be six days of debate. Therefore he sneaked it into the middle of the throne speech.
Canada is unfortunate in that the government assumes no responsibility for reporting to the House or for reporting to Canadian people in regard to what it is doing with taxpayers' moneys, and its future plans. This is particularly the case in regard to the Department of National Defence. I can hardly recall the last speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) on defence. It has been at the instigation of the opposition that there have been debates or major speeches relating to defence. There was one exception to that, and that is when the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) made a statement on motions concerning the long-range patrol aircraft. That led to a lively afternoon of debate. Unfortunately this is the way it is in the Parliament of Canada governed by Trudeau liberals.
If the government is unwilling to explain what it is doing and what it proposes to do in these areas, then it is up to the opposition to force the government to explain itself. That is why I am taking this opportunity to talk about defence. The cornerstones of Canada's defence are alliances. Canada is not
October 26, 1977

very large, and there is already one Switzerland in the world. Therefore, we must have alliances or we cannot maintain neutrality. Even the New Democratic Party would agree that any country in this world today either needs to be well armed or it needs to have alliances. We are fortunate in our alliances.
I miss the NDP defence critic who was in the last parliament. He was defeated, but he seemed to have an interest in defence. At the present time that party has alternating critics who show up at defence committee meetings. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) thinks we should withdraw from NORAD. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) thinks we should withdraw from NATO. The hon. member who most often shows up thinks we should withdraw from everything. Given that type of input from a political party, they are not normally missed. The NDP party has no interest in defence, but its former critic kept the party honest; I would like to see them appoint someone permanently as their defence critic soon.
Our alliances are in relatively good shape, although NATO has a considerable amount of difficulty in regard to the standardization of equipment.
At this point I should like to return to the Minister of National Defence who has recently completed a trip to Norway. I would have liked to have seen an official press release from the minister's office on this subject, however, all we seem to receive from the minister's office on these trips is trivia. There was one exception to that in regard to the Norway trip. I understand the minister commented upon the difficulty of fulfilling the role of the ace force in Norway. Norway is unwilling to allow the basing or prepositioning of troops on her soil in peacetime. The Minister of National Defence has finally discovered this situation and realizes now that it is unlikely Canada would be able to land a force there and supply a force with any expectation of overcoming any opposition whatsoever.
At first the minister thought we might be letting our troops in for another Hong Kong experience; but I expect the bureaucrats, who make so much of the defence policy for Canada, convinced him that that was not the party line and he agreed with this rather foolish setup which is in existence at the present time. This forced the minister into another step, and that was asking Norwegians for naval assistance in order for us to get equipment over to our forces which, in the outbreak of war, would be marooned in Norway. Why do we not have our own ships to take our supplies, if that ever comes about? The truth is that, under the Trudeau government, supplying ships for our navy was considered to be a waste of money. Since the days when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) first took office, there has not been a single keel laid down for a major Canadian vessel. We have had four vessels finished during his tenure, because he could not do anything to stop it. They have gone into service with the fleet.
It will be many, many years before the St. Laurent class of destroyer can be replaced. If the government started right now to move toward replacing the St. Laurent class of ship, that ship will be 28 years of age when replaced. It is a miracle to
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
the world that a Canadian vessel could last for 28 years in service. I recall someone saying that that class must have been a good class. We need a replacement for the St. Laurent class, but not as badly as the government needs a replacement of the St. Laurent class of Liberal politicians that we used to have.
I should like to refer to modern weapons. It is unfortunate we hear nothing about them from the Department of National Defence. The Minister referred to one such weapon yesterday as an enhanced radiation warhead and not a neutron bomb. One would expect an advertising agency to come out with the notion that increasing the radiation of a warhead enhances it somehow or other. Yesterday the minister waxed quite lyrical about the fact that it was a beautiful, enhanced radiation warhead! Combined with the cruise missile it is a weapon similar to the B-ls of World War II. It is very cheap, flies at a high speed, and with terrain guidance systems it would be almost impossible to shoot down or to knock down in any way. It can come in under radar, and our allies in western Europe are keen to have it.
If the neutron bomb is put on a cruise missile, one can understand what would happen. The cruise missile would fly under the radar and drop the neutron bomb, with its enhanced radiation warhead. This bomb can destroy people without tanks and within houses. It kills people, and it does not kill them in a very clean method. It is not a weapon we are particularly fond of, and the biggest danger about the neutron bomb is that it will lower the nuclear threshhold in western Europe. Perhaps some featherheaded person, or a person who might not keep cool under stress, might not consider the fact that the weapon he is using is a nuclear weapon. If he attempted to use such a warhead, that might inadvertently start a nuclear war. That is what 1 meant by lowering the nuclear threshhold.
Our allies in western Europe have asked the United States not to bargain away the cruise missile as part of the plan to get a Russian agreement as to the limitation of arms.
As has been well publicized, we have rented some tanks from the Germans. This will increase the fire power, the credibility and the mobility of our troops which were withdrawn from the central front in Europe and put into the reserves several years ago. I would appreciate a statement from the minister in the near future as to whether we are likely to move our brigade forward again now that we have some modern tanks.
At this time I would like to say something about the bad habit which the minister and the department have of making their very best case for the present situation at every opportunity. I attended a meeting of NATO parliamentarians recently and found, as I read over the general report on the security of the alliance, a section where Canada was mentioned in rather glowing terms. 1 knew that NATO would be pleased that the Liberals have adopted the Conservative suggestion concerning the re-equipment of our forces for which we have been plugging for so long, and have started to plan the re-equipping, but
294

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. McKinnon
they tend to spoil it for me when they use puffery to express what is supposed to be a factual statement. I found the following statement in the general report of the alliance concerning Canada. It says:
The decision has been taken to re-equip the Canadian forces with 128 German Leopard C-I main battle tanks. By mid 1979, the armoured strength of the Canadian Forces in Europe will have been increased from two tank squadrons to three with a total of 57 gun tanks and 8 specialist tanks.
That sounds pretty simple. It sounds as if we are going to put in 128 tanks and that we will increase our forces from two squadrons to three. That is what it says. I went to see the person who wrote this and said to him, "Thank you very much for your kind remarks about Canada. It was very heart warming to read them. Who wrote this?" He said, "Well, as a matter of fact, it was your Department of National Defence". So I started looking for the fine print. I had not realized that they would tell them that we would re-equip the Canadian forces with 128 German Leopard tanks when what we are talking about is tanks for both NATO and Canada. The three squadrons that they talk about will not be three squadrons in Germany, despite the fact that the statement says that the Canadian Forces in Europe will have been increased from two tank squadrons to three. They will have the reserve tanks for an extra squadron put into Germany and left there.
The truth of the matter was explained by General Dextraze, the recent chief of defence staff, on January 13, 1977, when he spoke at the Conference of Defence Associations. He said:
... A third squadron of tanks and a fourth battery of Mt09's will be located in Europe. Personnel to man these will come from Canada annually, for certain training exercises and in time of emergency as part of the Canadian Forces Europe augmentation plan.
The current thinking in NATO is that there will be no augmentation, that the only likely enemy there, the Warsaw Pact countries, are not likely to have a build-up before they move and we will have no time for augmentation at all. That is the modern thinking about it. Canadians are trying to con them, as this government does so often, that they will put more over there than in fact will be the case.
I should like to talk for a few minutes about standardization and the desperate feeling that many of us who have the interest of NATO at heart have about standardization. I knew well a general who was placed in charge of standardization in Brussels. He said it was the most discouraging job he had during his entire service, to try to make effective the standardization plans for NATO.
A startling example of this was last summer when the Germans and the Americans decided that they would standardize their main battle tanks and they would have a competition to decide which tank was the better tank, following which both countries would accept that tank. The Germans put up their Leopard II, the one that the government did not seem to realize was going to be produced when they ordered the obsolescent Leopard I. The Leopard II was sent to the United States for the competition and, according to most neutral observers, it emerged as the superior tank. All of a sudden what was thought to be an iron clad agreement became loose and we heard about a compromise solution. They would take

the Leopard II tank and the American gas turbine motor, which appeared to be a very good motor.
Things went on a little farther, and finally the word came out, I think it was in August, that the entire deal was off. The Americans were going to build their tank, the Germans were going to build their tank, and they would not have the same gun, the same motor, the same armour, or anything that was the same. What this means to a country that is out shopping for equipment, as Canada is, is a disaster. If we buy the German, which we are going to do-and unfortunately we are buying the one which will be replaced by the Leopard II some three or four years from now-we will be limited to working in that sector of Europe where maintenance is possible for Leopard tanks. It will not be in the American sector, it will have to be near the Germans or near the other nations which are buying the German tank as their main battle tank.
We are trying to rush through our speeches today to make room for others. I have a great deal more that I would like to say, and there are some things that I simply must review in general. We will soon be buying new fighter aircraft. The argument is just starting. The Canadian government has asked for applications from six different firms. I would only submit that I hope they have kept their options open to the possibility of buying two different types of aircraft. Our roles demand it. One is for aircraft to support NORAD, which is totally different than the other to support our ground support role in Germany, which the F-104 is doing at present.
If we end up with a single aircraft, we will have to apply to NATO to have the role of our airforce in Germany changed, because certainly an aircraft that would be able to carry out the NORAD role in North America could not begin to carry out our support role in Germany. That, unfortunately, is what we did with the F-104. It is a 1,500 mile an hour fighter that we put into a 600 mile an hour job. Having an F-104 in a support role is not cost effective, but that is what happens if you do not know what you are doing when you start out to buy aircraft. I hope that with regard to this aircraft the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will not have everything to say about it. I know that offset work is important to Canadian industry.
Something that is very important to Canadians is that there be a good component of defence requirement in the fighter plane that is eventually chosen. We ended up with the F-5 because the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce wanted it, not the forces. We do not want that to happen again. I will only say one other thing about fighter aircraft. I am baffled how we managed to get the French to try to get our contracts when the know how much we want offset work. I have never heard Dussault or any other French company from France offering anyone offset work on fighter aircraft, and I would be amazed if they offered it here.
I would like to run over quickly what will happen with our equipment under this minister, who I think was rather lucky when he came here after the hon. member for Winnipeg South had managed to get the increased equipment budget. The new minister came along to spend it.
October 26, 1977

We will have the first long range patrol aircraft, about which there was a great deal of dispute a year ago, in May of 1980. The Leopard II tank is the first piece of new equipment to come as of July, 1978, a year from now. The new fighter aircraft will come in 1981, four years from now, and while we may want 125 to 150 of those, we will get ten or 15 a year. The program is to run for ten long years, so the airforce should not think they will be flying new aircraft early in the 1980's because the last ones will be arriving only in the 1990's. As for ships, we have a press leak from the minister's office which mentions 1985, but I am rather skeptical that we will have any by that time.
I will only say to our friends in the services that I am glad that we are moving in the right direction and that re-equipment has started, but this government has left us so far behind before it made a move that, despite the fact that two years ago it started to re-equip the forces, the only evidence of it in the hands of the troops in the major equipments of tanks, ships and planes, is that we have 35 tanks, rented from the Germans.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in the past few days we have been speaking about changing circumstances in Canada, changes in the economy and changes in the lifestyles and attitudes of Canadians.
We have talked about the need for a new spirit among Canadians in order to reach a shared appreciation of our current problems and to reach a shared agreement on how these problems should be attacked. We need this co-operative spirit to deal with national unity. We need it to deal with unemployment. We need it in connection with crime and social problems. We need it to manage our energy resources and to make the best use of our food and agriculture resources.
I believe this is a crucial time for Canada's food industry. The past 32 years since the end of the Second World War have brought great changes to every sector. With the changes in the food and agricultural industry have come uncertainties. Consumers wonder what will happen to food prices next year. They wonder about nutrition and food additives. Food processors and retailers wonder about what will happen to their labour costs, what new technologies they will have to adapt to, and whether Canadian eating habits will change appreciably. Farmers wonder whether land prices will continue to rise and whether the prices for their commodities will justify paying more for farmland and for farm inputs.
Everyone wants to know what direction further changes in the food industry will take. But I believe we must take another approach to this uncertainty and concern. We must ask ourselves not only what direction developments in the food and agricultural industry will take, but also what direction we want them to take. We need to shape our agricultural policies with a clear idea of the potential of the industry and how that potential should be employed.
It is this approach that the government is taking in developing a food strategy for Canada. We are not saying that our
The Address-Mr. Whelan
current policies are not doing a good job. We are saying that we need a longer term plan for the food and agricultural industry. In making this plan we are asking for co-operation from everyone involved. The government has taken the lead in setting out the basic principles of the strategy. We are undertaking discussions among the federal departments and provincial departments and agencies to find ways to improve our services to producers and consumers and to build a stronger food industry.
In addition, as I announced last week, we have invited a number of major organizations within the industry to submit briefs on their responses to the white paper, "A Food Strategy for Canada". National organizations representing farmers, fishermen, processors, distributors, retailers and consumers will be presenting their opinions in December to a panel of ministers, including myself, who are working on the food strategy. We are looking forward to a frank public discussion with these organizations. While time and space have limited the number of groups invited to the December meeting, we are inviting all groups in the industry to make submissions. The government will consider the additional submissions at the National Food Conference which we will be holding next February.
Last week I announced some majors changes in the organization of my department. These were not changes just for the sake of change. It is a new look for the Department of Agriculture. It is also a new feeling about how the department can best do its job and how it can efficiently serve the total food industry, from the farmer's field to the consumer's dinner table.
All the attention which has been directed toward me as a farmer advocate, and all the department's work to assist the farmer seem to have blocked out in many people's minds the fact that the Department of Agriculture works for the consumer too. All the unheralded work we do with grading, inspection, food research, consumer advice on nutrition and so on, serves the general public. Our efforts to stabilize farm income and provide new technology in improved farm management benefits the consumer, and much more than he realizes.
As I said earlier in this House today, the research people in the Department of Agriculture and the farmers of Canada are the envy of the world. We farm in the northern hemisphere, and no other country in the northern hemisphere is as productive per man. We export much of our produce on the world market. In cereal grains alone we produce enough for our 24 million population and our livestock industry, which in turn in dollar volume is greater than the grain industry. We export enough for another 80 million people. No other country in the world exports such a high percentage of its production of cereal grains, which is close to 74 per cent.
On the subject of reorganization, hon. members will recall that the Speech from the Throne promised that the views of producers, consumers and processors will be adequately represented on marketing boards and agencies so that they can operate more efficiently. In this regard I will be making an announcement in the near future concerning changes in the
80025-20V2

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Whelan
make-up of the National Farm Products Marketing Council. These changes will be in harmony with the commitment of the government to ensure fair and equitable representation of all viewpoints in the supervision of national marketing boards.
Some of the changes which have been made have made farmers more efficient, but they have also left them more vulnerable to forces beyond their control. That is why farmers are concerned about the instability of prices. Farmers are not the only ones who suffer as a result of instability in agriculture. What about processors? What happens in the meat packing industry when the number of hogs coming to market drops by 20 per cent in one year? The instability of farmers' incomes is also quickly transmitted to those Canadians who supply farmers with building materials, machinery, fertilizer, and a long list of other goods and services. This is what has happened in the hog industry in Canada. Because there have been no government programs, farmers decided over a period of a year and a half or so that they should discontinue producing hogs. This year we will not be self-sufficient in hogs.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Shame!


Eugene Whelan: We will be a net importer of pork this year. Some people would say that that is because of marketing boards, but the province from which the hon. member who is yelling "shame" comes has no marketing board and no supply management, and that province has decreased production. That decision was made in that province. We know what happens when that takes place. We know that packing plants close down and jobs are lost. However, that is the decision the farmers themselves made. For the last nine years farmers have made money out of pork production in Canada. There has never been a year in which they have not showed profit.
They made a decision which caused the closing down of packing plants, and we are now importing pork from the United States. We are still fulfilling our export orders and the commitments we have made to such countries as Japan. The producers signed contracts. They knew what they were going to get.
The hon. member who is making comments would be interested to know what Mr. Child, the manager of Burns, said yesterday in Montreal and what he said a week ago in Edmonton. He said that pork producers in the province of Alberta should look to the dairy producers in that province. Modern plants have been kept up to snuff, and dairy producers are getting a proper return. Mr. Child concluded by saying that they have a supply management system in the fluid milk industry in the province of Alberta which is superior to anything in the hog industry. All the plants are flourishing and are as modern as can be. They are going full speed ahead, but in the pork industry packing plants have closed down, and not because of anything the government has done. The consumer has been affected by this. Fluctuations in bacon prices have taken place. Packing plants have not been modernized, but the opposite has been the case in the dairy industry.
I think we must be realistic and recognize that, when prices are high, producers expand their operations and new farm
{Mr. Whelan.]
enterprises start. In periods of lower farm incomes producers are forced to cut back or perhaps even to get out of the business. This movement of physical and human resources in and out of food production adds to the cost of producing food. Ultimately the consumer pays the higher cost. We must also consider the cost of unused capacity or adjustment which is needed at the food processing level.
The whole food and agricultural industry stands to gain from increased stability down on the farm. That is why stabilization has been a priority policy of this government. We have supported the concept of marketing boards. We have amended and updated the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Since the Agricultural Stabilization Act was revised in 1975, we have paid out $100 million to improve producer returns.
We have set up the western grain stabilization program. There is every indication of a substantial payment to western grain farmers this year under this program. Just last session we presented the Advance Payments for Crops Act which stabilizes returns on storable crops by helping farmers even out their marketings throughout the crop year. That is something new that farmers who produce cash crops in eastern Ontario have been able to take advantage of.
There is a long list of programs that support and stabilize the Canadian food and agricultural industry. The federal government spent more than $56 million last year on crop insurance. This year our contribution to crop insurance is expected to reach $75.5 million. Under the domestic feed grain program, we have set up a $14.5 million budget in Ontario for feed freight adjustment programs that encourage farmers to build permanent on-farm storage for grain and silage, and to instal grain handling and drying devices and feed preparation equipment. Ontario has signed that agreement. We are working with the province of Ontario and many farmers from Elgin County, for instance, have taken advantage of this program. At least 50 farmers in the community around that of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise) have taken advantage of this. He must have done a good advertising job of the wonderful program we have developed for farmers in the area.
We are working hard with the Quebec government which has been reluctant to sign this agreement. They have dilly-dallied. The Minister of Agriculture for Ontario signed it months ago, but Quebec is blaming us for not going ahead. We have been funding forage transportation assistance programs in co-operation with Ontario and Saskatchewan to help livestock producers who have suffered unusual crop losses because of bad weather.
Canadian farmers operate in the toughest climate in North America. We make the comparison with the United States so often and so easily, but I must tell you that other countries in the northern hemisphere come here to learn how we produce so much food in this northern, cold country called Canada. They know our extreme climatic conditions, yet none of them approach our productivity. Our programs have to be as good and in many cases better than those of our neighbour to the
October 26, 1977

south. The United States enjoys an ideal climate for food production. An examination of the programs we have put in place shows we have provided superior programs when they were needed to give assurance of adequate supplies of wholesome food from farms that must contend with problems posed by our northerly climate.
The former secretary of agriculture of the United States was in Ottawa the day before yesterday. He withdrew a lot of programs, and now the present Secretary of Agriculture has been forced to put them back because of threats of strikes etc. by farmers as a result of their losses.
A United States team is in Canada at present studying our crop insurance program because United States farmers do not enjoy the kind of protection our farmers have. They do not have the tremendous Western Grain Stabilization Act that protects our farmers. As I said already, it appears there will be a substantial payment under that program. Through our Agricultural Stabilization Act we can cover any commodity as required, including grains grown outside the Canadian Wheat Board area and livestock across the country. The United States has no stabilization plan like this to cover livestock production and give the livestock producers the protection they need in world markets, and they are under tremendous pressure to introduce programs such as we have in this country.
The federal dairy policy recognizes the challenge faced by dairy farmers through short summers and long winters. No other country in the world houses its dairy cattle as long as we must. We have overcome this problem through the application of science and such things as genetic breeding. We have some of the best dairy cattle in the world, and other countries come here to study our methods. Cattle are the best producers of highly nutritious food, particularly the Holstein cattle in Canada. Let no one say that any dairy policy, provincial or federal, has caused inefficiency in the dairy industry.
The two-price wheat system in this country protects both consumers and producers in a way not found in the rest of North America or maybe even in the world. However, there is more to be done. Our first priority now is to reach an agreement with the provinces to harmonize all the stabilization programs for various commodities that are produced and marketed nationally.
The danger exists that some provincial stabilization programs may lead to production shifts against the comparative advantage of producing commodities in one area of the country over another. Recently the Minister of Agriculture for Brazil was here and he told me he was concerned that if one commodity goes down in price while he has made commitments to world markets and, as a result, producers switch to another crop on their own, he has to be able to stop such a switch.
In western Canada pork producers reduced production by 46 per cent on their own. They were still making money, but it was easier to sell grain than to take care of hogs. I realize that, but it does not help the packing industry or employment in different parts of the country. It does not help our balance of trade either to spend more money outside the country for pork
The Address-Mr. Whelan
than ever before. We have to import pork because we are not self-sufficient.
I have no problem with eggs, Mr. Speaker, and I have no problem with dairy products or anything else. Bankers tell me they have no problems with producers in those organizations either, whether provincial or federal. We have done a better job than any other country in the world. In turn this may lead to unproductive competition among provinces.
We must have harmonization of the stabilization programs. There may be restrictions on agricultural products moving within Canada, and difficulties in international trade if some price support levels are judged unfair by our trading partners. As I said earlier today, we must remember that we are one of the largest exporters of cereal grain in proportion to our production. On average, 74 per cent of it goes to world markets. No other country exports such a high percentage of production.
I do not expect an overnight success in reaching harmony among provincial and federal stabilization programs. We have had long discussions on the subject at our federal-provincial meetings in the last two years, without reaching agreement. However, the provincial agricultural ministers are as concerned as I am about the problem, and as anxious as I am to find a solution.
In fact stabilization will be high on the agenda at federal-provincial agricultural talks being held in Ottawa tomorrow and Friday. I can report to the House that Agriculture Canada will be going into these meetings with some new thoughts for a workable compromise.
One of the reasons I am confident we will be more successful in our discussions at this time is that we will not be talking about stabilization in isolation from other problems. Harmonization of stabilization is just one aspect of agricultural development. We will be discussing all our agricultural development programs with the provincial authorities in the months ahead.
In the Speech from the Throne the government stated its intention to work out a more co-ordinated approach to agricultural development. Agricultural development is a cornerstone of the over-all food strategy. My department will be taking the lead in building the new agricultural development strategy. I would like at this time to outline more fully for the members of the House what we will be doing about it.
First, though, I want to dispel the idea that agricultural development is something that affects only farmers. It is a vital matter for each and every Canadian. The strength of the food and agricultural industry affects employment. One in every four Canadian workers owes his employment to the food chain-whether in production, processing, transporting food, retailing, or in industries that supply machinery, energy and other inputs for the food industry. Agricultural development also affects food prices, food quality, and the security and dependability of our food supplies. It affects our international commitments and moral responsibility to supply food aid to areas of the globe less fortunate than ourselves. The decisions

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Whelan
we make about the future directions for our food and agricultural industry will also affect the quality of life in Canada, particularly the sort of life people will lead in our rural areas.
The aim of the government in establishing a strategy for agricultural development is to tap the full potential of the food industry to contribute to the growing Canadian economy. How can we reach this goal?
To begin with, we must set specific objectives. Then we must co-ordinate our efforts to achieve these ends. This means consultation among all the federal departments that have programs to encourage agricultural development. Agriculture Canada will be taking the lead in this consultation process. We will be evaluating all the current development programs. In co-operation with the other federal departments involved, particularly the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we will assess the impact of current policies on agricultural development. We will see if we need to make changes in these programs and their funding.
Agriculture Canada will then take the lead in meeting with provincial officials to get their response to the federal government's agricultural development goals, and to discuss what separate and joint programs can achieve the best results. Other departments currently negotiating aspects of agricultural development with the provinces will either be turning over these negotiations to Agriculture Canada or involving the agriculture department in joint negotiations or accepting Agriculture Canada's co-ordination input.
One of the most important aspects of the agricultural development strategy is that it will be an approach team with various federal and provincial departments co-operating on development programs. Producer, consumer and industry organizations will also be on the team and will have an important input into these programs. As Minister of Agriculture, I accept my responsibility to be leader of that team.
I have said that our over-all objective in agricultural development is to assist agriculture in realizing its full market potential. Perhaps I should elaborate a little on this theme. There are eight specific objectives we want to achieve.
First, we will aim for increased production efficiency in the Canadian agricultural industry. As you know, Canadian farmers are among the most efficient in the world today. But, we have room for improvement. We could make significant gains in production efficiency if we could increase the rate at which proven technology and management practices were made known to farmers. We may need an on-farm demonstration program to show farmers new equipment and techniques at work. Or perhaps we need some direct assistance to farmers for adopting proven managerial and technical methods in agriculture.
A second objective is to maximize the contribution of agriculture to the Canadian economy by ensuring that our resources are devoted to the commodities with the best market potential. 1 have always been honest with farmers. I am going to tell them if they should be shifting from one commodity to

another. I want to give full information to others in the industry as well, agribusiness and extension workers, for instance, so that they can play a part in helping the industry make necessary adjustments.
Our third objective is to help low income farm families to make a better living in agriculture. Improving farmer efficiency and using agricultural resources to produce the right commodities will no doubt help low income farmers. However, this group has some special problems and we need to make a special effort to overcome them. Maybe the answers will include special training programs, or a program to intensify production on these farms without expanding the land base, or efforts to include part-time farmers in programs that now exclude producers who also work off the farm.
A fourth point we must consider is the conservation and improvement of national agricultural resources. We are already working on a national land-use policy as part of the food strategy development. And we already have programs under PFRA and ARDA to encourage soil and water conservation, drainage improvement, and community resources such as community pastures. But, obviously, these programs can be reviewed and strengthened.
Along with increased efficiency at the farm level, we need increased efficiency in the marketing system. Much is possible in this area. Let me give just a few examples of recent actions by the federal government to improve marketing efficiency. In the area of markets information, Agriculture Canada has evaluated all of its current services and is changing them in response to ideas from users in the industry.
Among the changes introduced, we are offering, starting November 1, a free phone-in national livestock market report, updated daily. Farmers and others in the industry can get this report by calling a Zenith number. Our recently announced program for storage assistance for feed grains in feed grain deficient areas is another example of a service to improve marketing efficiency. Improvements in marketing efficiency will also include initiatives for improvements in the processing, distribution, and retail sectors.
Our sixth specific goal is to protect farmers against income instability and the natural hazards faced in agricultural production. I have already talked about our stabilization policies. However, we must also consider the results of instability on world markets. I think immediately of the beef industry and the beef trade problems we have had to grapple with in the past two years. At the present time, I believe we have the beef trade situation in hand. However, if warranted, we may consider legislation to set up a national meat authority with powers to control exports and imports.
If necessary, I have been authorized by the government to look at the possibility of the passing of a Meat Authority Act, provided I could be assured of the very close collaboration of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 26, 1977


Eugene Whelan: You said you wanted it. There is the challenge for you to accept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The horticultural industry is another sector greatly affected by prices and production levels outside Canada. We are studying the whole horticultural sector with a view to improving tariff protection and other assistance that may be necessary to build viable domestic fruit and vegetable industries. Not every fruit and vegetable crop can be produced profitably in Canada in the long run, but we are looking at which ones deserve protection and assistance to reach their potential. This is our seventh specific objective, to provide longer term protection against foreign competition for selected commodities.
The eighth specific objective is to improve access to foreign markets for Canadian agricultural commodities. We can produce more food in this country than we can consume. But we need to be sure of international markets before we produce food products in excess of our domestic requirements. Agriculture Canada, as well as Industry, Trade and Commerce, will be looking at possible new initiatives to promote our agricultural products abroad. The current round of multilateral trade negotiations provides us with the opportunity to improve our over-all access to a number of foreign markets. We have consulted with the various sectors of the food and agricultural industry in developing our negotiating position. Those consultations are still going on.
In working to meet all these objectives, we must keep in mind the significant differences among the various agricultural regions of Canada. They differ both in potential and in problems and we must accommodate regional objectives along with these national ones, as much as possible.
The federal-provincial co-operation on agricultural development and harmonizing stabilization programs will have a considerable impact on national unity. I am confident we will be able to reduce friction between provinces on the stabilization issue. Our new agricultural development strategy will be forged in the interests of the whole nation without overlooking regional problems.
Our efforts to define further the agricultural development strategy will follow the same co-operative process being used to create a total food strategy, that is, the federal government is counting on participation and input from farm organizations, consumer groups, food retailers, the processing and distributing industry and all others involved in the food chain. In addition, the provinces will have a large role in determining the shape of agricultural development programs for the future.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if he would permit a question. In the mini-budget of Thursday, October 20-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Will the minister accept a question?
The Address-Mr. Whelan


Eugene Whelan: I am practically finished, Mr. Speaker. I will end by saying when I compare programs that we have for agriculture today, I compare the health of the producers within those programs that we have worked so successfully with the provinces to provide. When I compare them with programs which they either do not have in the United States or which they did have at one time which compared slightly with the ones we have at the present time, I find our programs supersede theirs. I do not have the tremendous worry for those producers within those organizations as I do for those outside of an organization, whether it be federal or provincial. These programs work for the security that agricultural producers need, that kind of production program we need to keep them the most productive people in all of Canada.
Our producers are protected. The loan institutions know that those farmers who are borrowing money have a program with marketing boards or marketing associations, call them what you will, which provide some kind of security. The program we have now for advanced payments of storable crops provides some kind of guarantee. It supersedes any in the world.
Our dairy farmers are better off than any in the world. Our poultry producers are better off than any in the world, as are our egg producers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: The farming industry is not in that bad a shape. I am not saying it is in as good a shape as I would like it to be, but I challenge members opposite to name any other nation that provides more security for farmers than we in Canada through the Canadian government and the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister's time has almost expired. 1 am ready to allow a question if the minister is ready to accept it.


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Kenneth Earl Hurlburt: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is this. In the mini-budget of Thursday, October 20, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said as reported at page 99 of Hansard, and I quote:
-the government does not believe in excessive intervention in the market place.
I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) why he and two Senators keep crossing this country promoting marketing boards and supply management, which is completely against the free enterprise system?


Eugene Whelan: I never said I agree with those people in the other place. They have submitted a report. But I just want the hon. member to go and talk to his provincial minister of agriculture, who is quoted in one of the noteworthy newspapers in this nation as saying he agrees with that report. I am talking about what the provincial minister of agriculture in Alberta has said. He agrees with those Senators. I am not saying I do,

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Whelan
because there are many things in that report which would involve us in being asked for compensation by our trading partners in GATT, from our trading partners in Australia and New Zealand, and so on.
If we think we can isolate ourselves even in the North American market for beef, we are just kidding ourselves. The United States is dealing with more than 20 other countries in connection with beef and you are not going to be excepted from that kind of a trading program; you will be involved in a world trading program. So there is nothing we can do in this country, there is nothing this minister will do with any marketing board, which will protect inefficient farmers. Anyone who makes such a charge is not being factual and is on the verge of dishonesty when he says that this minister or this government is pushing any kind of program which will protect an inefficient operation to take place in this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 see that members are getting up to raise points of order or to ask questions. If the intention is to ask questions, I would point out that the time allotted to the minister has now expired, so he could continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.

The hon. member for Joliette would like to ask a question and he can do so only with the unanimous consent of the House.

Is there consent to allow members to ask questions of the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No!


Roch La Salle: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to take up the time of the House, but I listened carefully to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). He made a speech which will once again create much hope, but anyhow I do not question his statements. First I would like to know whether there have been butter imports since January last. If not, will there be some from now until April next? Second, on behalf of fluid milk producers-and if I have to implore the minister I will do so-can he tell us today when he will be sending the subsidy cheques to producers who are now experiencing problems of which the minister is aware?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member has made some accusations and asked some questions. If the House wants to give me half an hour I am perfectly willing to answer him. The dairy question alone is a complex one. He intimated to the House, and probably to the viewing audience, that we are withholding subsidies from all the industrial milk producers of Canada. We are not doing that. The industrial milk producers are getting their full subsidy. But we have asked the provincial producers

of fluid milk to contribute $12.5 million across this nation from Victoria through to Halifax, and some of the provincial milk marketing boards have agreed; in some cases legislation has been passed enabling this contribution to be made to the skim-off. We do not at the present time intend to abandon the position we have taken. We think it is something that can be legitimately asked.
We think that those who are taking fat off whole milk and putting the skimmed milk and 2 per cent milk on the market are contributing to the surplus industrial milk situation. The fluid milk producers are benefiting from dairy milk policy to the tune of $281 million a year. If they had to deal strictly on the basis of world prices for dairy products, that is how much it would cost the fluid milk producers in Canada for a program of that kind.
The hon. member has been complimentary about the program I announced today-the forward-looking approach I have taken toward agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: He is concerned about the importation of butter. We have announced exchange of a butterfat program. I hope the hon. member realizes that if we can sell on world markets condensed milk, for example, we would have no butterfat problem, no skim milk problem; we would be exporting the whole product. In return for that we have agreed with some of our trading partners to import butter if necessary. That would be of greater benefit to the dairy producers and more beneficial to the treasury of the country as well. It would be of greater benefit to the dairy producers because they would then have to spend less of their income for export subsidies on skim milk powder. For every pound of butter you make, you make double the amount of skim milk powder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I wish to be fair, but I see many members indicating they want to ask questions. There is only an hour and a half left and at least ten or 12 members were wanting to speak this afternoon. I do not see how we can meet the schedule. I think maybe I should allow only one more short question and short answer, if there is consent.


Some hon. Members:: No!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not appear to be consent to continue. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp).


Mr. Flynn:: Mr. Speaker, when you asked for unanimous consent just now I distinctly heard two members say no and refuse unanimous consent for more questioning of the minister.
I think you should ask the question again, Your Honour, to see if there is unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, I must say that any hon. member who is not satisfied with what the Chair has heard can always stand up and raise a point of order and notify the
October 26, 1977

Chair accordingly. Nobody stood up, and I therefore concluded there was no question being raised. The matter has now been settled, and I am recognizing the hon. member for Provencher.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset 1 would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for their participation in the debate. I, along with many Canadians, felt deeply honoured by the presence of Her Majesty as she participated in the proceedings at the opening of this session of parliament.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a fairy tale which probably many of us learned about in our younger days. It is a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale entitled "The Emperor's New Clothes." The story goes something like this.
The emperor loved clothes and spent very little time on matters of state. One day two cheats or charlatans came to the castle and told him they were weavers of the very finest cloth. They asked him if they could weave some cloth for him. He gladly consented.
This went on for some time, and as the days approached when the cloth was to be completed, the emperor sent one of his most trusted ministers to check on the progress of the operation. When the trusted minister got there he looked at the loom, and on it saw nothing. But the two charlatans pointed out the wonderful imaginary pattern in the wonderful cloth that they were weaving. The minister, very concerned about the wrath of the emperor, decided to go back to the emperor and tell him the story the two charlatans had told him.
This went on for some time, Mr. Speaker, until one day the emperor came to look at the cloth that was being woven and he, too, was conned by the very same story his minister had been told.
To put the fairy tale in perspective, the day came when the emperor came to the weavers to put on his new suit of clothes. He took off his clothes and put on his imaginary new clothes. Then, having said there was going to be a great procession through the town, he walked through the town and the courtiers hung on to the imaginary train, until they passed a small child.
The small child, unlike the adults who were looking at the emperor and exulting about his wonderful clothes, simply said, "The emperor has no clothes". And the people said, "Listen to the innocent. The innocent says the emperor has no clothes; indeed, the emperor is naked".
That story, though fairy tale, launches us into the very type of situation in which we Canadians find ourselves today. The throne speech, to many Canadians, was to be the cloth whereby we were going to get a new dimension, a new hope for the future. We find the emperor, who has been the so-called Prime Minister of this country for the last nine years, following the throne speech, and again following his participation in this
The Address-Mr. Epp
debate, is devoid of new ideas. Indeed, the emperor is naked, naked of any direction, and naked of any future hope for Canadians. Surely the Speech from the Throne should be a thrust. It is an opportunity for the government to show Canadians that it is capable of leading. Unfortunately, the Speech from the Throne was devoid of credibility. It gave no hope to Canadians. Much more, Mr. Speaker, once again it placed a wedge between Canadians and those who are to govern, showing there is no trust in the government of the day.
What is the record, Mr. Speaker? In 1968 Canada was united. The euphoria of Expo and of the related Centennial activities was such that it bound Canadians together. Today, whether one assesses our economy or our future as a country, the government gives little cause for hope. Is there any hope for the one million unemployed in Canada? At the present time our unemployment rate is running at approximately 8.3 per cent. Statistics can be very cold; one million unemployed is bad enough, but even more important, when we look at Canadian workers under the age of 25 we find that their unemployment rate is double that of the Canadian average.
It cannot be said any better, Mr. Speaker, than in the words of the Speech from the Throne. This extract is to be found at page 2 of Hansard:
The human hardship imposed by the current level of unemployment in Canada is deeply disturbing. It is neither just nor tolerable that in this country there should be so many men and women deprived of the dignity of self-supporting work, unable to meet their financial commitments and plan confidently for the future. It is intolerable that so many are deprived of their right to secure and productive lives and that their families bear an unfair burden of worry, uncertainty, and deprivation. On a national scale, unemployment now constitutes a very serious obstacle to economic growth.
By their very words, Mr. Speaker, the government stands indicted. The evidence is one million unemployed. Every member of this House knows that, as the winter months come and go, this unemployment rate will increase. What is the government's response? The only response it has given is another make-work project, another $150 million of largesse. That $150 million comes from where, Mr. Speaker? It comes from the taxpayers of Canada. This is but a short-term solution.
We need a better manpower strategy, Mr. Speaker, one which will create an economic climate which is conducive to steady growth. We need to create approximately half a million jobs per year, and this projection is valid until approximately the mid-1980's. At the present time we are creating only about one half of the needed jobs. We will never create those jobs, we will never create that climate, by shor term make-work projects. What is needed is a manpower and industrial strategy whereby the private sector is encouraged and in fact given incentives-not handouts, because that is welfare of another kind-so it will not see everything which it produces taxed away.
I want to get to this point a little later, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that today we have stepped over the boundary of fair taxation and reached the position of confiscation. That is the situation in which we, as Canadians, find ourselves today. We are confiscating much of that which belongs to individual

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Epp
Canadians; it is taken by government and redistributed in a very unequal and unfair manner.
As a western Canadian, Mr. Speaker, I ask for how many years have we argued, begged, and pleaded with the government to bring forward an industrial strategy whereby we will be able more equitably to develop our own agricultural products and commodities? Where is the industrial strategy? Instead, Mr. Speaker, we had the Calgary Conference on Western Economic Opportunities. Western aspirations are no closer to reality today under this government than they were at the time that conference was held in 1973. We need to create jobs, Mr. Speaker, permanent jobs, not government handout jobs. But this government is not going to provide those jobs.
As for productivity, all Canadians who have studied this question know that our standard of living is largely dependent on the fact that we are an exporting nation. Seventy per cent of our trade, both imports and exports, is still with our neighbour to the south, this despite the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has attempted to erode the confidence in and the good relationship that we have had with our neighbour to the south. Our cost of manufacturing is from 20 per cent to 25 per cent higher than it is in the United States. Added to this, the United States has other advantages, such as a more southerly latitude and economy of scale with a population ten times that of ours. So at the best of times it is difficult to penetrate that market. As a result we have lost jobs. Why are we not competitive, Mr. Speaker? It is because we have created an environment of high production costs, whether one talks about wages or whether one talks about taxes.
Another factor which is becoming more and more apparent at this time is that the regulatory agencies, both federal and provincial, are constantly encroaching upon the private sector and adding to those costs. The only way we can finance trade at the present time is by the export in raw form of our agricultural products and very often of our national resource commodities. When the world market goes soft, as we keep hearing is the case today, we lose our competitive advantage.
The world recognizes, Mr. Speaker, that we are in great difficulty. There was an article in the Globe and Mail of September 28, 1977, simply entitled "Japan shocks Davis"- that is Premier Davis-"with a stern rebuke over strikes, taxes". The article went on to refer to our labour force, and then had this to say:
The Japanese business leaders cited higher corporate income taxes in Canada as the second most important reason why Japan looks to the United States.
Lack of productivity has also resulted in lack of investor confidence. Where is investment confidence today? Why is it that Canadians do not want to invest in their own country but rather look to the United States as a better place for their capital? Why is there a flight of capital? I say it is largely due to the lack of economic leadership on the part of this government and successive finance ministers.
In the 1960's, Mr. Speaker, we heard it said more and more that profits were too high. In fact we often hear it said that the word "profits" is a dirty word. One simple fact in our economy is that profits create jobs. Again no leadership has been given

by this government in creating that type of climate. The government's response has been to change its minister of finance. Again I say that the emperor who is to lead has been found naked, devoid of leadership.
As for inflation, Mr. Speaker, granted inflation is a factor in every economy of the western industrial world, the fact of the matter is that inflation rates in Canada today are increasing despite controls. Other countries, including the United Kingdom along with their unemployment rate, have a lower rate than we have. Surely we have become the sick man of the international economic community; it is no longer Britain.
We all remember the Prime Minister saying in 1974, "Zap, you're frozen". To my mind, the reason why the anti-inflation regulations have been ineffective is that the government lacks credibility, because it said one thing in a campaign and then, when politically expedient to do so, said something else.
Governments must tell the truth. When they do not, it is the people who suffer and get a jaundiced and wrong view of governments. Therefore they say that all of us cannot be trusted. The biggest losers in this shell game have been the Canadian people.
What has been the result of this lack of leadership? What about the sliding dollar? It is not sliding any more, it has sunk below 90 cents. It has sunk to the 1932 level at the height of the depression. We must remember that the dollar is 90 cents as against a declining American dollar. It has come to the point where a cartoonist like Ben Wicks portrays two people walking down the street: one is about to pick up a piece of paper, and the other one says: "Frank, don't bother, it is only a Canadian dollar."
We are the laughing stock of the industrial community. As a result, because of our heavy international foreign borrowings, those borrowings are becoming more expensive every day.
The government has shown the greatest lack of leadership in government spending. I am referring to governments at all levels. At this time close to 43 cents out of every dollar, which is made in goods and services, is taken by the three levels of government. In order to put it in practical terms, it means that a Canadian worker earning $15,000 a year will pay direct and hidden taxes in the amount of $6,800. That is what it is like to be a Canadian today.
To put it another way: during January, February, March and to the middle of April, he or she will work in order to pay federal and provincial income taxes. He or she will continue working during the rest of April, all of May and half of June to pay the rest of his or her taxes. On June 15 or 16, finally he or she will be entitled to work for themselves. What has happened to incentive? The government is silently sitting by, hoping it will go away like a bad dream or a bad headache.
I see the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is in the House today. I have respect for him, but he should be told that he has a big job to do. Unfortunately he does not have a Prime Minister or a cabinet who are willing to say the things that
October 26, 1977

need to be said, and much more important, are not willing to follow the things that should be said. The Prime Minister is not willing to do this because he is an interventionist into the market place. Ele enjoys it, he wants it, and that is the direction in which he wants to point Canada. All he will do at this point in time, if it is not politically expedient for him to do it, is ease off. The minute it is possible for him to do it politically, he will do it once again.
We have repeatedly heard about the taxpayers, that it is the corporations which are paying the high taxes. The 1975 Canada Year Book indicates that 85 per cent of all working Canadians are individual or salaried earners. These people are the ones who have to pay the shot.
One might say, if we have a 43 per cent level of taxation, that hopefully the in-trust money is being spent well. Is it? What did the Auditor General say in his report? 1 should like to refer to the report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1976, which reads in part as follows:
The present state of the financial management and control systems of departments and agencies of the Government of Canada is significantly below the acceptable standards of quality and effectiveness.
Where does the government spend money? The government keeps on asking where we would cut back. In order to give this House an example of where I would cut back, I will refer to an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press and was reprinted by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. It received wide circulation during the recent Manitoba election. When asked the question: "Who is the largest spender in Canadian advertising dollars", one might say General Motors, Ford, or Proctor and Gamble. Elliott Research determined last year that Proctor and Gamble was No. 1. Who is No. 1 today? Today the government of Canada spends more money on advertising than any single corporation in Canada, without taking into consideration the spending of the Crown corporations. Is that restraint? If one were to add to that the spending in advertising by Air Canada, Canadian National Railways or CN Telecommunications, just to name three, what would be the advertising dollars then? A lot of these programs are compulsory.
I should like to refer back to that article and quote from it in part:
It must come as a bit of shock to discover that the advertising cost of programs such as persuading Canadians that filling out income tax forms-already required by law-can be fun, or telling everyone, at a cost which exceeded that of energy saved, that Environment Canada is really an energy miser after all . ..
Today the Government of Canada consumes more money than does Simpsons-Sears, Bell Canada, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, Dominion Stores, Nabisco, Pepsi-Cola, and the Royal Bank of Canada combined to sell their wares. One must remember that these firms are competing businesses. On the other hand, the Canadian Post Office, which has a monopoly, considers it necessary to spend $350,000 to improve its image, a task that would be more readily accomplished if the money were spent to improve service.
One can refer to the ministerial use of aircraft. That was brought forward once again in this session of parliament. The
The Address-Mr. Epp
people of Canada will be conned no longer. They will not be bought by their own money. The evidence of that is what happened in Manitoba during the election last week. Prior to that election the campaign strategy was very simple. The campaign strategy of the Progressive Conservative party, which has now been sworn in as the government of Manitoba, was that we would run on a policy of restraint. For many people that was not a very popular move. They said that people must be given promises. We said that Canadian people, and specifically the people of Manitoba, were not willing to be conned; tell them the truth and they will respond.
Apparently the press did not believe us. On October 3, 1977, an article appeared in the Financial Times of Canada by Roger Newman. That article was entitled: "PCs Hopeful but Unlikely in Manitoba Vote". I should like to quote the last paragraph of that article, which reads as follows:
If the vote was held today, most observers think Manitobans would elect a minority NDP government, with perhaps a weaker Tory contingent as the official opposition and the Liberals as a fairly strong third party. Since no dramatic issues are being debated, the parties could end up in something close to a three-way tie, with the result that a rematch might be necessary within a year.
What is that non-dramatic issue of which Mr. Newman speaks? It is that we said to Manitoba that spending must stop and taxation must be reduced. Also we said that there would be six taxes we would eliminate, one of which was succession duty.
I asked the Minister of Finance the other day whether he would follow the lead of the Manitoba government, whereby a farmer or an owner of a small family owned business would be able to transfer or sell, without the penalty of capital gains, to a close family member once during his lifetime. I am in agreement with that because it would enable the family to retain the family farm or business.
As 1 have said before, we have gone beyond the threshold of fair taxation to confiscation. This government is confiscating the rightful property of Canadian taxpayers. These family farms and businesses have been paid for; taxes have been paid on those farms and businesses, and yet the government wants capital gains. The government complains about youth leaving the farms and not carrying on with their fathers' businesses. The reason is very simple: confiscation.
We must return to living in a society with incentives. We live in a technological age, and we must adjust to that age. The Minister of Finance should reduce government spending on non-productive sectors such as advertising and direct more money into research and development.
Let us put research and development on a better footing in order that the technology with which we can develop can be used for the creation of new jobs in the technological age. My concern today is especially for the transportation industry and for energy.
Not only is the economic situation such that the emperor is naked, he is also devoid of any new ideas with respect to Canadian unity. We will never solve the question of Canadian

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Epp
unity so long as the regions feel they are outside the decisionmaking process in the country. That is what we feel in western Canada. I do not want to speak only as a western Canadian-I want to speak as a Canadian-but there are regions in Canada which feel they are being left out, and the government must wake up to it. There is a close link between the economic stength of the country and the desire of Canadians to remain within the country, and the unity question will have to be solved.
References have also been made in the House to the language law. Let me say clearly to all members here that, as a Manitoban, 1 do not apologize for what has been done in Manitoba because Manitoba has always had the reputation of being an ethnic province, and as ethnics and citizens of that province all we ask for is equality. We do not ask for a special status or for special rights. All we ask for is equality, and it is time that the government woke up to the fact and announced that all Canadians are equal and that there are not some who are more equal than others.
The same thing applies to a referendum or to any new organization on the constitutional level. We want no special deals, no special status for anyone or for any region of Canada. Unity will not be the product or the outgrowth solely of a change in the economic fortunes of Canada or of constitutional changes but, rather, as was said in the throne speech read by Her Majesty:
This discontent in such a wealthy country must find its causes in the human spirit, and it is there also that the unity of the nation must be found.
If 1 were to condemn the government for anything-and I would not even refer to the economic situation which is bleak, and I have painted the picture to describe it, nor to Canadian unity which has been destroyed by the Prime Minister during his ten years in office-it would be for its lack of moral leadership, its lack in human spirit.
I want to quote from the speech given to the Canadian Club on October 17, by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. He said:
The age of the social conscience, social justice and concern seems to have coincided with the age of crime, pornography, mugging and international terrorism. What started out as a liberalization of restrictive social conventions seems to have developed into a dictatorship of licence.
This dictatorship of licence has gripped Canada. It has not only gripped Canada but it has gripped the western world. I do not want to miss any words when I say that one of the reasons for the malaise which we are experiencing today is that the Prime Minister has tried to destroy many of the moral values on which this country was founded because, with a humanistic approach to life man becomes all important, man becomes the only one, he becomes the 1. All values based on Christian principles are set aside once you put I in the centre of things, and this Prime Minister has done it. That is why we are experiencing this malaise.
The Prime Minister has frequently been in the vanguard of change, and, I say very directly to you, change for the worse, not for the better. Under the guise of civil libertarianism, we thought we would gain greater civil liberty, but civil liberty

has been replaced by licence. For these three reasons alone it is high time that the government packed its bags and left because Canada cannot afford another term of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I say to you very clearly: Canadians awake. It is time, and the time will come at the next election.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a great honour for the member for Hull to address the House and have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. First I would like to thank the hon. members for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for the excellent speeches they have delivered in the House on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. In spite of their limited political experience, they have proved to the House and to the Canadian nation that they know their ridings and that they will be excellent spokesmen for their constituents.
Mr. Speaker, when I heard some of the speeches delivered in this House on the national unity issue, I was deeply shocked and, as a physician, I made a diagnosis. It was more psychiatric like since those speeches, to be more precise, bordered on schizophrenia.
1 also noted that the hon. members who made these speeches committed most of the capital sins, from hatred, envy, anger to jealousy. Surely some hon. members and the next generations will see these hon. members as participants in a candid camera stint. I should like to return to one of my pet subjects, namely the federal presence on the Hull side of the river, or rather in the Francophone part of the national capital region. You are doubtless aware of the climate of uncertainty and skepticism which now exists concerning the federal government intervention in Hull.
From the allegations and comments of the people, we get the impression that the federal government is no longer welcome on the Quebec side of the national capital region, and particularly so since November 15 last. It is therefore important to emphasize again the basic objectives and principles which warrant the presence and action of the federal government within the Hull area. As far as I know, Hull, the Ottawa area, and the province of Quebec as a whole still belong to the Canadian Confederation. At the conference which took place in 1969 and which dealt with the constitutional issue, it was the elected representatives of the whole of Canada, namely the first ministers of Canada, who decided of their own free will to create a national capital with areas from both sides of the Ottawa River.
I therefore invite all those who cried scandal and constitutional rape as soon as the government of Canada showed its presence and even its existence to suggest a more democratic and more constitutional mechanism to enable the Quebec side of the capital area to take advantage of the benefits of being in the national capital region. As the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) said so well on May 28, 1975, in Hull, it would perhaps be a good idea to put
October 26, 1977

the city of Hull on the calendar of virgins and martyrs to better negate the constant and legitimate demands which have been made by the whole population of Quebec and its elected representatives for the federal administration to be truly present in Quebec, in the Hull area, which demands go back to 1917. It is therefore necessary to stop suggesting that the federal government presence in Hull is only a pious wish or an exaggerated statement on the part of politicians.
The federal government made a commitment and has kept it. It is present in Hull. Not only do we intend to remain there, but throughout the years, we have decided to amplify our presence, to increase our staff, even though the present figures have been somewhat adjusted since the beginning, which means that in the future, there will be more so-called federal buildings in this area, so that despite those who do not want to recognize it, the federal government will assume sole responsibility. This systematic obstruction to the establishment of the federal government in Hull is only a form of shabby and lowly politics. I therefore invite people to be far-sighted and recognize the long-term objectives that are suggested for the establishment of a national capital area on the side of Hull.
You are certainly aware that if we look at the history of the region, before 1969, the National Capital Commission was for all practical purposes the only federal, provincial or municipal agency planning or developing anything on the Quebec side of the national capital area. Despite this technocratic vacuum, the National Capital Commission has implemented the suggestions made by French urbanist Jacques Greber in his development plan for the federal capital. Only in 1969, as I said a moment ago, following the resolutions by the federal-provincial conference on the constitution where the premiers as well as the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) agreed that the cities of Ottawa and Hull and the vicinity form the national capital area, did the governments concerned decide to have the city of Hull become part of the reality of the capital of Canada.
The adoption of that resolution was to allow the Quebec and Canadian governments to work out an operation policy and programs aimed at eliminating the many disparities and equalizing the development opportunities of the Quebec side of the national capital area. It is thus important to recall that already at that moment federal action was aiming first at a real federal presence on both sides of the Ottawa River and, second, at the needs, concerns and requirements of the people of Hull and the area. That cooperation has unfortunately not always been easy. For example, when in 1969 Ottawa decided to expropriate a district located on the Hull Island, some Quebec officials hurried to have that district expropriated by the Quebec government just before the federal expropriation, on the alleged pretext of providing needed space for building Quebec government offices.
Since then, this great Place du Centre project came painstakingly into being but actual construction work was not undertaken until there was a federal commitment to use most of the buildings. Obviously without such federal undertaking, that piece of land would have remained at best a parking site
The Address-Mr. Isabelle
until the year 2000. Our presence and action in Hull is in no way related to an electoral speech full of stale promises. What we are bringing is a massive injection of money into the economy which will amount to $500 million by 1985. A deep sense of respect for other levels of government and people in general pervades our planning and development which is aimed at creating a national capital area for all Canadians while preserving the western Quebec character of Hull. And the principles underlying our work are simple; they are based on a selective idea to create and maintain a capital which symbolizes Canada as a nation.
Mr. Speaker, Hull had to become part of the national capital area, while assuming its role as a western Quebec metropolis if it wished to reap the social and economical benefits which can be derived from such a position. We still want to discuss the planning and development of the National Capital region with the Quebec government. As always, it is important that we set out together our mutual objectives and while building a capital city on both sides of the river, that we respect the will and interests of the various governments of that region, since, in carrying out this important task, the federal government is not an opponent, least of all an enemy, but an essential partner.
If we want to make this project a success, we must keep communications open and establish direct and frank links between the three levels of government as far as current activities are concerned. In this respect I have been rather surprised at the Quebec government's negative response to the regional community of the Outaouais over the past few months, as if the people elected to run this agency were not competent enough to fulfil their responsibilities in the much publicized issue of the filtering plant which incidentally is not over yet. This near control over the decision making process can only make the heavy hand of the bureaucracy appear even heavier at all levels and slow down the process of decisions and consequently the implementation of certain programs which will finally cause tremendous increase in the cost of these projects which will have to be borne by the overburdened local taxpayers.
And if the presence of the federal government, Mr. Speaker, has made itself clearer today, it is because since 1917, as I mentioned earlier, all elected representatives of the county of Hull and parts of that riding as mayors or aldermen have requested the federal government to spend money in their community. Everything started in 1909 with Dr. Fontaine, the then mayor of the city of Hull, who asked Ottawa improvement commission for $5,000 in order to improve the City Hall park. Then it went on, Mr. Speaker, with Mackenzie King who stated on April 6, 1927 his intention to create a federal district commission which was not supposed to restrict its work to the Ottawa side but expand it on the other side of the river as he used to say, then referring to Hull.
In 1956, Mayor Moncion appeared before the Joint Senate and House Committee on the development of the National Capital and stated: "I am pleased to address these justified remarks to the federal district commission on behalf of the

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Isabelle
population of Hull and its city council". He also said that on several occasions the city of Hull had requested the construction of government buildings within its limits and that he was taking the opportunity to reiterate his requests. And to those who are screaming blue murder at the decision taken by federal authorities to erect government buildings on Hull sites and saying that Hull had a labour vocation, the mayor of this town said in 1956: The city of Hull, which was formerly an essentially labouring town is gradually changing in character due to its geography and it is destined to have an increasing number of people whose occupations will be in the government sector.
Mr. Speaker, must I remind the House once more that in 1956, when the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons met, the President of the chambers of commerce of western Quebec said before this committee: The share of federal buildings in the city and the region of Hull is truly pitiful. We have the printing bureau, big deal! And he went on to say: Does federal district mean that all or nearly all federal buildings will necessarily be on the Ontario side? If the federal district is homogeneous and serves the same purpose, why such discrimination? He wanted ten or more federal buildings on the Quebec side because if a series of federal buildings were to be built along the Ontario side of the Ottawa River, a series of similar buildings would have to be built on the Quebec side. And if one looks behind the National Library, one can see that Hull has completely changed since 1969.
I could quote some statements by former Hull mayor Marcel D'Amour. I could quote from former mayors like Mr. Alphonse Moussette, Mr. Raymond Brunet, Mr. Adeodat Lambert, Mr. Armand Turpin, Mr. Thomas Moncion, Mr. Henri Gauthier, Dr. Fontaine, Mr. Jean-Marie Seguin, Mr. Marcel D'Amour and even the present mayor, Mr. Rocheleau, who, as I said earlier, have all advocated these massive investments on the Quebec side of the Ottawa region. And Mr. Marcel D'Amour, then mayor of Hull, stated to the committee on the constitution in 1971: We believe that Hull, like Ottawa has the same vocation as a federal capital. And I wish to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to what one might think, even though Ottawa is the centre of the federal government, it still has the same duties, the same obligations as any other Ontario municipality. Now, Hull might become the centre of the federal government while remaining directly under the province of Quebec's jurisdiction. Its institutions would still come under Quebec's jurisdiction just as those of Ottawa come directly under the jurisdiction of the Ontario government.
And I might quote other evidence, particularly the statements made by Mr. Jean-Marie Seguin who said precisely, as we know, that under the order pursuant to article 16 of the constitution, Ottawa is the capital of Canada. However, we believe we are included in the national capital of this country. We are convinced of that despite all legal descriptions. This is what we think.
Mr. Speaker, one can often hear on the Quebec side that people do not want the federal government's interference or even its presence but I have gathered some statistics which have also been compiled by other media and I quote for instance from Le Droit which carried out a survey, on May 2, 1969, thanks to CKCH news service. Those who were responsible for this survey have published in the paper of that day a very relevant question, which might be of some help to those who are preparing the referendum in Quebec. The question reads as follows: Should Hull separate from Quebec? The question is clear enough and 83 per cent of all respondents said yes.
Second question: Would Hull benefit more from a federal district? Eighty-four per cent said yes.
1 also had my own poll, which 1 would call a "home-made poll". On February 12, 1973, I asked a question which I sent to all electors in the federal riding of Hull. Are you in favour of regrouping the municipalities in the Hull-Ottawa area under a tripartite administration, namely federal, Quebec and Ontario? I must say that 8,159 persons sent in a reply, out of 26,616 heads of households to whom cards were sent; in other words, 32 per cent of them answered. For a poll of that kind, it was a record because few get a 32 per cent rate of respondents with that type of questionnaire. So, back to the first question: Are you in favour of regrouping the municipalities in the Hull-Ottawa area?
Mr. Speaker, 82 per cent said yes. The second question is not important because I asked: How would you call that kind of district? I must say that 26 per cent supported the national capital district. Some may say that this is ancient history, but according to a survey made by station CKCH in October 1975, during an open line program, the question was: "Would you favour a federal district or not?" An 86 per cent majority was in favour.
And referring to the earlier suggestion that for many the federal government's presence in Hull is a cultural nuisance in terms of assimilation and so on, a scientific survey was made in 1970 during the Hull mayoralty election. That survey was done by the Le sondage d'opinions du Quebec. Question No.
10 was asking for the surveyed persons' opinion on the erection of federal buildings. Ninety per cent of the people surveyed stated that the erection by the federal government of office and other buildings in Hull was a good thing. Such is the will of the people in Hull. In addition, there are those who suggest daily that we should build some Great Wall of China between Ottawa and Hull. They are far from knowing the facts. Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker.
I shall not speak for the western Quebec constituencies that border mine, in other words Gatineau and Pontiac. I shall leave it to my colleagues to elaborate on the figures. But in the constituency of Hull representing the western part, Touraine, Aylmer, Deschenes, and the city of Hull, I must say that 10,385 Hull people are working in Ontario, which includes the federal government, and 2,485 work partly in Ottawa, partly in Hull. This accounts for a total 14,645 people working in Ontario. Adding the other 3,000, we get nearly 17,000 or

October 26, 1977

18,000 people working for the federal government and in Ontario. The practical conclusion therefore is that whether we like it or not, we depend on Ontario and Ottawa as a federal capital for employment in the Hull area.
To the present Quebec government which has been regularly sending its ministers in the Hull area to cock a snook at and to make fun of the federal government by making all sorts of statements I would not dare repeat here because they are not serious, I would say that it should go back to the history of that area which has been so long forgotten by Quebec and will still be forgotten by the present government, for we are too far away from Quebec City.
What the Quebec government wants now is a repetition of the Plains of Abraham drama, perhaps not on the military but on the intellectual field. That is why they come traipsing in Hull. They come here to flatter the people and promise them things and funds the federal government has already given them or is going to give them under shared-cost programs. They also forgot to tell them that in the last nine or ten years the federal government has given $950 million to civil servants who work in Ottawa but live in Hull and spend their money there. Everybody knows that such a massive input of money in a given area does much for the industrial and economic development of that area. It is for that reason, Mr. Speaker, that for a long time I have encouraged my colleagues from the cabinet and this House to understand the history of the national capital area so that eventually we amend section 16 of the constitution to include Hull and the area, in other words the municipalities within the national capital area so they will be part of the nation's capital.
Mr. Speaker, a few years ago the federal government amended its legislation on the reorganization of its departments when it deleted under the mention "head office" the word "Ottawa" and added the words "the area of the national capital". So, if we belong to the national capital area and if we are part of the federal capital of Canada, I do not see why we could not amend section 16 to become a "national capital". We should demonstrate to the nation what the government really wants to do as concerns biculturalism and bilingualism and even transportation-to become a kind of laboratory, the place where we experiment things before we implement them throughout Canada and this should be done within the national capital area that should be the showcase of federalism as it has been understood since 1867.
Mr. Speaker, we have been too long in the shadow. The Hull area has been for too long in a state of stagnation to go back to it, but I am afraid that is the aim of the present Quebec government. But the people from Hull and the area are confident because they know they are in the shadow of the Peace Tower and that since Confederation the protector of that small minority has always been and will always be the father of the nation, the federal government. A capital, Mr. Speaker, is not only the seat of government but also the symbol of the power and unity of a country, the home of the
The Address-Mr. Symes
national spirit and we can achieve this only by amending section 16 of the constitution, something which will not require us to go to London. An order in council would be enough.
So 1 hope I got the message across. I know that many members from other constituencies do not really understand what is happening. Everybody is confused when the matter of the National Capital Commission is brought up. As the Fullerton report said, we are overgoverned. No generation will tolerate the political confusion which prevails in the national capital region, on both sides of the river.
I hope that future generations will cut through in order to rationalize this whole system which is an undescribable mess. I therefore invite my colleagues to address themselves to the problem of the federal presence in Hull and to the problem of the national capital region, to become more familiar with the situation so that when the matter is brought up in the future they may be in a position to make a judgment.


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


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I see that by a recorded vote which will be due shortly the time allocated to me has been cut in half. However, I wish to mention a few important points in this very important debate on the future of our country. In the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) outlined plans and directions where his government hopes to take the Canadian nation.
My question to the people of Canada is: what confidence can we as a people have in the Trudeau government considering the economic and political crisis in which we now find ourselves? After all, this is the same Prime Minister who has been governing Canada for the past nine years. What has been the result?
We have the highest unemployment since the great depression, 8.3 per cent of our labour force out of work, over one million Canadians. For every 100 unemployed, there are only four full-time jobs available. Inflation is running at 8.3 per cent, despite the anti-inflation program. We have a cash deficit of $8 billion, and the Canadian dollar has sunk to its lowest level since the depression. As well, our economy is only operating at 92 per cent of its capacity, meaning a loss of some $ 16 billion a year in goods and services not produced.
To top it ail off, we now have a separatist government elected in the province of Quebec which is determined to break up the country. All this has occurred under the leadership of the Prime Minister who promised Canadians in 1968 a just society and a united Canada.
What justice is there to the unemployed nickel worker in Sudbury, or to the unemployed construction worker and his family in Sault Ste. Marie? What sense of unity is there for the people of Atlantic Canada who have experienced chronically high unemployment year after year, and indeed to the young Quebecois who finds himself out of a job because his province equally experiences high unemployment?

October 26, 1977
The Address-Mr. Symes
After nearly a decade of Liberal rule this country is on the verge of political breakup and economic collapse. It did not happen by accident. We did not slide into this unaware. Many of the causes of the crisis we are facing today are a direct result of the policies of the Trudeau government.
What are the causes of this record unemployment? Surely a large part of the blame has to be the fact of our dependence on a resource based industry in oil or minerals or pulp and paper. We are now at the mercy of multinational corporations which manipulate world markets and prices. One has to look no further than the situation at Sudbury with the INCO Company. We have a lack of Canadian ownership and control. Ninety-nine per cent of our oil industry is foreign owned, as is 60 per cent of our mineral industry. No wonder investment decisions and layoff decisions are beyond our control.
We also have in this country a lack of industrial planning. We are still to a large degree hewers of wood and drawers of water. Jobs, of course, are where raw materials are manufactured. What has happened so often in Canada is that Canadians take the raw materials out of the ground and ship them to another country to be manufactured. It is in that other country where jobs are created. Unless we reverse that trend and get more processing and manufacturing of our raw materials here, we will never solve our chronic problem of high unemployment. Indeed, what will happen to the people of northern Ontario when the iron ore, nickel, copper and gold start running out?
The third reason for our high unemployment is the deliberate policy on the part of the Prime Minister and the cabinet of dampening the economy and allowing unemployment to rise as a means of attacking inflation. Between 1974 and 1976 the economy lost $25 billion and more than 600,000 man years of employment because of this kind of policy. Under the antiinflation program more than $300 million has been taken from the pockets of workers through wage rollbacks, and when workers have less to spend on goods and services, factories have to lay off employees and other enterprises are forced to close. Today our factories are operating at only 80 per cent of capacity, business investment is down, and bankruptcies are a record high. Is it any wonder that unemployment has reached such levels?
The cost of unemployment is enormous not only to the unemployed themselves, and to their families, but also to the average working Canadian taxpayer. Unemployment insurance payments for the first half of 1977 totalled $2.1 billion, an increase of 14 per cent from 1976, and the total cost this year is projected to be more than $4 billion. The government has to supplement the UIC fund with taxpayers' money. Further, the government has lost $17 billion in tax revenues. Since the unemployed do not pay the taxes they would be called upon to pay if they were at work, working Canadians are called upon to pay higher taxes to make up the difference. In 1976 every man, woman and child lost $520 in goods and services not produced because of unemployment.

The social costs of unemployment are equally serious- family tension, marital break-up, alcoholism, increased crime and so on. Added to this one must take into account the disillusionment of young unemployed people-46 per cent of the unemployed are under 25 years of age. The cost of unemployment is so great that unless the government takes immediate and positive action there is clearly the prospect of a terrible crisis in the months ahead. Our party has outlined in this House and elsewhere an emergency economic program to create around 300,000 jobs. Details of this program have been made known on other occasions and I do not have time to repeat them now. Suffice it to say we would redirect some of the provisions in the last budget-redirect that $1.5 billion in tax concessions which the minister gave to the large corporations into personal income tax cuts to get Canadians buying more, and factories upping production. Our program for job creation is self-financing. It would not mean more deficit financing or an increase in the tax burden imposed on working Canadians.
In addition to this emergency job creation program it is imperative we develop a long term industrial strategy for Canada so that jobs are not tied to the boom and bust cycle of our resource industries. We in northern Ontario know what boom and bust means. We have seen it decade after decade. We are all aware of the plight of the 3,500 people who are going to be forced out of work by the International Nickel Company, but I say to the people of Northern Ontario that this is only a foretaste of what will happen unless we can devise an effective industrial strategy. If we are shocked by the INCO lay-offs we shall be in for more shocks in the copper, zinc and related industries in the absence of a mineral development policy.
In 1974 the federal and provincial governments published a paper entitled "Toward a Mineral Policy for Canada" in which they outlined strategy in terms of increased diversification, processing and manufacturing of minerals here in Canada, of a greater tax return from these resources and in terms of conservation. Three years ago that policy was formulated. What has happened since then? We are not advancing. I think of Falconbridge Nickel, for example, which is now exporting nickel to Norway for refining and processing. I recall that in 1975, the Conservative provincial government of Ontario, under great pressure from the multinational mineral industry, deferred for five years a tax provision to the effect that multinationals could not deduct the cost of processing Ontario minerals abroad into account when preparing their statements of provincial mining tax owed. This was a five-year postponement of a provision designed to encourage the processing of minerals here in Canada to create jobs for Canadians.
If this was not bad enough, the Conservative government in Ontario gave Falconbridge Nickel, which is processing nickel in Norway, a four-year exemption from a new Ontario requirement that ores be processed here in Canada.
Falconbridge and the other companies always threaten they will shift their operations and investment elsewhere if taxes are
October 26, 1977

too high. But it is evident from what I have said that the government has no coherent development strategy to require the mineral industry to accept Canadian development priorities. My suggestion is that we set up a federal-provincial mineral export planning council to co-ordinate government bargaining and planning with respect to this industry so that there will be no repetition of the INCO lay offs in Sudbury and elsewhere.
What was the other policy objective? It was to secure a greater return to the people of Canada from taxes for the resources which belong to them. What a joke that has been! The mineral industry has got off very lightly compared to other sectors of our economy in terms of taxation. Eric Kierans has demonstrated in his report to the Manitoba government that between 1965 and 1970 they were given $2.5 billion in tax concessions. And what have we to show for that? International Nickel developing mines in Guatemala and Indonesia and laying off Canadian workers! We have got to end this kind of corporate tax concession and impose a tax regime which ensures that development occurs here in this country and that jobs are provided for Canadians.
There have been too many band-aid approaches to job creation in this country. Canada Works and DREE grants are not going to do what is needed. We need a co-ordinated plan for industrial development. We must reverse this trend to exporting all our raw materials; they must be manufactured and processed here in Canada.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the amendment be amended by inserting immediately after the word "markets", the following words:
"all of which is clearly demonstrated by the Government's failure to develop a particular strategy for Canada's nickel industry which has resulted in INCO's recently announced lay-offs at Sudbury, Thompson and Port Colborne,"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being 5.30 o'clock p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (4) of Standing Order 38, to interrupt these proceedings and to put forthwith all questions necessary to dispose of the amendments before the House. The question is on the amendment to the amendment (Mr. Symes). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
The Address-Mr. Symes


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment to the amendment lost.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Symes) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: 1 therefore declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Malone) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 6.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 27, 1977