1977-04-18

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by economic policies which have left this country with near double digit inflation and over seven digit unemployment and which are being perpetuated by the do-nothing budget brought forward by the Minister of Finance which may well cause a further deterioration in economic performance and increased unemployment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House calls upon the Minister of Finance to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PROPOSAL TO REVOKE CHARTER OF ROYAL BANK IN VIEW OF ALLEGED THREAT TO MOVE HEADQUARTERS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Canada's banks have not hesitated in the past to threaten the people of Canada in order to get their own way, and in view of the fact that Mr. Earl McLaughlin, president of the Royal Bank of Canada, is now threatening the people of Quebec that the headquarters of the Royal Bank will be moved from Montreal to Toronto if the language legislation is passed in that province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth):
That this House inform Mr. McLaughlin and the Royal Bank that should such a move take place their charter under the Bank Act will be revoked.


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of unprecedented unemployment and general economic deterioration across the country, centred in the Atlantic provinces, and the need for labour intensive projects which will provide lasting benefits, particularly to the primary sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion reassess and supplement the DREE budget and institute, together with the provinces, under an appropriate federal department such as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Public Works, projects to facilitate infrastructure developments so that a sound basis can be provided for economic expansion as distinct from the temporary measures reflected in programs such as LIP and Canada Works.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the future of over one million Canadians who today have no jobs.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance is First in the history of this country to actually budget for over one million unemployed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House directs the government to counteract its budget statement of March 31, 1977 which has so conspicuously failed to address itself to problems faced by this nation and present to this House an economic reconstruction program which moves to alleviate the human problems that eight years of mismanagement have created.
4710

April 18, 1977
Transport


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Unless there were some distinguishing feature, as I have said on previous days, I have difficulty in asking the House to consent to set aside an order of the day to debate another order of the day which is precisely the same, namely the budgetary policy of the government.

[DOT] (M10)


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that nearly 15 out of every 100 young people in Canada are presently unemployed. In view of the fact that years of cruel and callous economic management by this administration have jaded a whole generation of young Canadians about their place in a productive society, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander):
That this House calls upon the government as a matter of urgency to table immediate measures to provide jobs by accelerating the deployment of funds into the Canada Works Program so that the few jobs announced in the budget are available this summer, not sometime in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Once again for the same reasons a budgetary proposition is being put forward as an application to set aside one order, which is precisely the same as the order which will be debated.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Recently it was announced on the west coast that moorage fees for private pleasure boat users at federal facilities would be increased by up to 500 per cent. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That the question of rates be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order that equity and justice will prevail for small boat owners.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


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


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should preface my question by saying that I appreciate the response of the Francophones on the other side of the House. That is the kind of response I have been receiving in my campaigning in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Since it is clear that one of the causes of disunity in Canada is the fact that east of the Ottawa Valley only one province- Prince Edward Island, the smallest province-has less than double digit unemployment today. Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether in the Prime Minister's speech in Winnipeg-modestly described as significant-the Prime Minister intends to indicate the new initiatives the government of Canada intends to take to create new jobs for the more than one million Canadians who are out of work and to bring to national policy some sense of national economic direction which will address this serious source of disunity in this nation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no preview of the contents of the Prime Minister's speech, but like the Leader of the Opposition, I will be watching very carefully, and I am sure it will be of great significance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I take it then that at least to the knowledge of the Acting Prime Minister there has been no discussion by the government of Canada about taking any new action to deal with the recurrent situation of more than one million Canadians being out of work and that the position of the government of Canada continues to be that if the unemployed want jobs, they should leave the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since there have been reports that at least $30 million of the money allocated in the budget to phase two of Canada Works will not be made available until phase two, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House now whether the government will give consideration to making the whole of the allocation available much more quickly to try to bring relief directly to those Canadians who are now out of work and looking for work?
April 18, 1977


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the budgetary program of the government is presently before the House for consideration. The budget has been presented and within that budget is to be found the element that in the view of the government will make a contribution to the acceleration of growth of the economy. With respect to the specific suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition concerning the speedier allocation of funds to the Canada Works Program, I will undertake to discuss the matter with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, about $660 million is currently being directed to job stimulation programs in the Canadian economy.


PROPOSED COMMITTEE STUDY OF WAYS OF FINDING JOBS FOR THE UNEMPLOYED
Charles Joseph Clark: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The budget clearly indicates that the government's current economic policy, such as it is, intends to bring no relief at all to the million Canadians now out of work and indeed creates a situation where there will be a net gain in unemployment and the Minister of Finance has indicated that that is something we will simply have to accept-those of us who do not have to leave the country to find jobs. Since the government clearly has no concrete program to end unemployment and bring hope to Canadians, particularly those in the eastern provinces most significantly concerned and the Acting Prime Minister having given up on his government's ability to deal with this problem, would he now agree to making a special reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for it to call upon the advice of all concerned Canadians-unions, jobless and others-so that we might look beyond the government for some direction as to how we can find jobs for Canadians who need them since this government obviously could not care less about the one million Canadians out of work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has referred to the situation in the Atlantic provinces. Even though we admit that the level of unemployment is excessively high in all parts of Canada, including the Atlantic provinces, he will no doubt be gratified to learn that the current figures register an increase in employment in all these provinces with the exception of Prince Edward Island. The Leader of the Opposition asks us to look beyond the government in order to create employment. I understood that the main thrust of the budget delivered by the Minister of Finance was to provide the incentives and the stimulation to the private sector which has the best capacity to create additional jobs for the Canadian people. It is on that particular thrust that the budget was principally based.


Charles Joseph Clark: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Acting Prime Minister give us a commitment now that there will be an immediate reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to permit
Oral Questions
that committee to solicit from the community at large, advice as to measures the government could take to bring hope and jobs to that more than one million Canadians now out of work? Can we have that commitment now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not possible to give any such commitment at the moment. I will discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance, however, to see whether the already crowded program of that particular standing committee could undertake a further important study of this kind.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is not crowded.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVEMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on the Statistics Canada figures released with respect to last month. A most disappointing aspect of the past 12 months is that while only 67,000 jobs were created nationally, of that number an amazingly low 3,000 were created in the five eastern provinces where unemployment is highest. Would the minister indicate if he thinks this trend will continue and will we have a disproportionately low number of jobs created in those five eastern provinces in the coming 12 months?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the hon. gentleman that particularly since the beginning of the year, in the first quarter of 1977, there has been a sharp increase in employment in Canada. We think that the increase will continue as the economy begins to grow. In this budget we have specifically directed fiscal policy to favour the growth of employment and the growth of investment in the easternmost provinces. We are hopeful that the private sector will follow this initiative for the purpose of building additional employment in those areas.
It has always been true that a recovery in central Canada in particular has often preceded recovery in some of the other parts of Canada. That may well, in the early months, again be the case. We expect substantial growth of employment in all sectors of Canada, as the economy grows.


PROPORTION OF JOBS TO BE CREATED BY PRIVATE AS OPPOSED TO PUBLIC SECTOR THIS YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister has indicated that some 150,000 jobs may be created in Canada in the next 12 months, would the minister indicate in which regions he feels those jobs may be created and what proportion will be publicly as opposed to privately sponsored?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the budget, budget debate and statements of my colleague the Minister of Manpower and Immigration have
80012-20%

April 18, 1977
Oral Questions
indicated certain public job creation programs and the way in which they will have an impact. It is therefore an expectation that there will be a substantial increase in the private sector, but I cannot go further to give any regional breakdown.


LENGTH OF TIME NEEDED FOR ECONOMY TO MAKE UP LOST GROUND
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is now accurate to say that in only three of the last 12 quarters has our economy hit the target of an annualized 5 per cent growth rate per year, and as the Minister of Finance has indicated that we shall not achieve more than a 4 per cent rate of real growth this year, could he indicate when he expects the country to catch up the ground it lost in the previous three years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, one cannot be confident that the economy, towards the end of this year and next year, will, as the hon. gentleman suggested, make up lost ground of the year 1975 or the .4 per cent below the 5 per cent rate of 1976. I think one might raise the question whether it would be desirable to have a rate of growth at such a level as to bring about a recurrence of inflation. I would have to say, however, in general terms that one can expect there will be a strengthening of the economy throughout this year and next year.


Mr. Stanfield:: But you said that last year.


UNEMPLOYMENT-ABILITY OF GOVERNMENT TO COPE WITH PROBLEM
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the Acting Prime Minister indicate to the House whether the statements made by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to the effect that the government cannot do anything more to lessen levels of unemployment in Canada, represents government policy? If so does this mean that the government is now prepared to accept the misery and economic hardship associated with the tragedy of more than one million Canadians being unemployed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no one in the government accepts the desirability of these levels of unemployment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But you are living with them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Let there be no doubt about that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There certainly is doubt.	'


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I repeat, let there be no doubt about that, even in the mind of the hon. member. It seems a bit inconceivable to me that hon. members should be asking the government to bring forward new measures to deal with unemploy-

ment at a time when the House is still dealing with the budget message of the Minister of Finance.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What message?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government, through the Minister of Finance, has already laid forth its economic policy with respect to the future. Certainly, it is not to be expected in the time since the presentation of the budget that these measures could have had any significant impact on the economy. That will take time and at present it is not possible to prejudge the outcome.


PREDICTIONS OF INSTITUTE FOR POLICY ANALYSIS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I draw the attention of the Acting Prime Minister to it, although it is addressed to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the statements which have just been made about the budget proposals now before us. Has the Minister of Finance received a copy of the confidential over-view of the budget issued on April 5 by the Institute for Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto, in which it is said that the budget adds little stimulus to the economy this year, and has actually increased the economic uncertainties surrounding 1978. If the Minister of Finance has received this report, can he confirm that it makes the same predictions about the budget as were made in his own department?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have not personally received that particular opinion. I would have to say it is only an opinion. It is obviously one we do not share.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my last supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the difficulty the minister is having in persuading his colleagues to go for a guaranteed annual income because of the assertion that the country cannot afford it, is he making representations to the Minister of Finance and the rest of his colleagues in the government to go for a massive increase in employment so as to produce the goods and services that would make possible a guaranteed annual income?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of private discussions within the cabinet cannot be dealt with in public.
April 18, 1977


ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister.
We are advised that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada will address all Canadians on both English and French networks of the CBC and that the subjects he will deal with will include Canadian unity. Is the President of the Privy Council aware that under the Canada Elections Act, whenever a general election or by-election has been called, political parties are prohibited from using broadcasting facilities before the nomination date of candidates? Could he advise the House whether this is an exception to the rule?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No,
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give a legal opinion. I am sure that it would be a mistaken conclusion to believe that the speech tonight will be a political address.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to ask a supplementary question.
The President of the Privy Council should not consider this matter in a lordly and superficial way as he just did. I would like him to examine this question and seek information seriously and positively. The Social Credit Party of Canada wanted to broadcast television programs throughout Quebec and it has to suspend them because by-elections have been called. We would like to receive the same treatment as other parties. Given these important circumstances, would the President of the Privy Council seek information as to whether or not the exception made tonight is valid and convey this information to the House as soon as possible?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the Prime Minister is addressing the Canadian Association of Broadcasters this evening in Winnipeg, that his subject is on the general theme of national unity and that the CBC and presumably other broadcasters have decided that the speech is of sufficient interest and newsworthy character that it should be available to the people of Canada. There has been some criticism that only recent addresses by the Prime Minister have been televised from the United States. Therefore, it seems to be a very good thing to have one televised and broadcast from an important city in Canada. I do not in any way depreciate the importance of the question the hon. member has asked, whether a broadcast of this kind transgresses any of the rules with respect to broadcasting during an election campaign. I do not believe there is any such connection in the present case. I will be happy to consider it.
Oral Questions


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a final supplementary question.
I agree in part with the answer given by the Acting Prime Minister to the effect that he received the views of broadcasters but could he ask the chief electoral officer or any other relevant authority if broadcasting tonight's speech is in line with Canadian electoral legislation?


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. I remind him once again, as has been suggested this afternoon, that this callous indifference to the economic plight of over one million borders on irresponsibility. I put this question to the Minister of Finance: according to the Toronto Star of April 14, one of his spokesmen stated that budget measures would start to take effect through the economy and the situation would begin to improve in the near future-I underline the words "in the near future" because they seem to be in contradiction to the minister's own thoughts with respect to economic growth and unemployment. Can the minister guarantee, in the light of the statement I have read, that the next statistics from Statistics Canada with respect to unemployment will show an improvement in the present situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: course, neither I nor anyone else could give any such guarantee. The decisions to be made by many thousands of Canadians with respect to the expansion of economic activity are ones which are not under the control of the government. We have put forward a program of stimulants to encourage, particularly, investment in the private sector and we have also provided substantial sums in the public sector for the purpose of creating employment. Far from being callously indifferent to the unemployed, we have deployed substantial measures in the current budget to alleviate the situation, bearing in mind the fact that in the long run the unemployed, as well as everyone else, will be worse off if, in the process of stimulation, we put Canada into another round of inflation.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Notwithstanding what the minister has stated, it seems to me the prospect for the unemployed for the balance of the year is a very bleak one. In view of the fact that many of the current programs in this area are now non-essential and irrelevant to the needs of the unemployed, does the hon. gentleman plan a major reassessment of the government spending program with a view to cutting out the deadwood and using the resources saved so as to create jobs for those who are

April 18, 1977
Oral Questions
unemployed? Will there be a reassessment in terms of government spending? Shut up! Shut up!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I notice that the great parliamentarian from Hamilton West wound up his question by shouting "Shut up! Shut up!". That's a new concept of parliament to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just answer my question.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That, Mr. Speaker, is arrogant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I think with all due respect we have to bring this matter beyond partisanship.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I would ask the minister to answer my question. I think it is an important question. I think it makes sense and I hope the minister will think it makes sense, as well. Will he review government spending programs, particularly those in non-essential areas, to determine whether money could be better directed to job creation programs? Can the minister give me an assurance that he will look into this aspect?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My colleague the President of the Treasury Board has been looking actively at current expenditure on certain programs. I hope the hon. gentleman will keep the same sense of priorities in mind if programs which are now in effect, and which may have to be cut back, are in fact cut back, and that he will recall his concern about unemployment as a priority matter and support us in the measures to be taken.


CONFEDERATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as the minister in charge of debates in the House. I would ask him whether or not he joins me in my belief in the majesty of parliament and also in the degree to which members of parliament make a great contribution to the parliament of our country when given an opportunity to do so. Will he make it possible at a very early date, as soon as the debate on the budget is over, to set aside several days so that members in this House may express their views and their fears with regard to the bifurcation of Canada and at the same time voice their solutions to some of the problems facing the nation today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: certainly agree with the preambular part of the right hon. gentleman's question. I have expressed my own frustration about the fact that it has not been possible so far this session to deal with major questions of timely and current interest such as national unity. I indicated before the Easter break that I hoped that in this portion of the session it might be possible for me to make some proposal which would provide time for such important debates. I agree with the right hon. gentleman that it is very timely and important that parliament should deal with this matter and I am currently wrestling with ways and means of making that possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: 1 know of no more important matter before Canada today than the potential bifurcation of this country, and parliament should have an opportunity of dealing with it. It should have preference over most of the matters which are regarded as of some importance today. Which leads me to ask him this:


An hon. Member:: Importance to whom?


John George Diefenbaker: That is the most intelligent interruption the hon. member has ever made-and from a seated position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I am surprised, though, that with his support for the majesty and importance of members of parliament, he condones the situation today when the Prime Minister of Canada, when parliament is sitting, goes outside parliament instead of taking parliament into his confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Interesting as this subject may be, it is essentially not a question.
The hon. member for Central Nova.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to you, Sir, that whenever the government is in trouble it gets lifted out.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the right hon. member will realize that he failed to put a question in the course of his last remarks. The hon. member for Central Nova.


John George Diefenbaker: On a point of order!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the right hon. member at three
o'clock.
April 18, 1977

Oral Questions


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Acting Minister for Regional Economic Expansion since he comes from Nova Scotia. Bearing in mind that many of the programs now administered by DREE, such as PFRA, FRED, ARDA and so on, existed before the creation of the department and in view of the high administrative costs and cumbersome procedures which have always characterized the implementation of whatever funding was directed toward the program, would the hon. gentleman tell us whether he and the cabinet are considering the reorganization of this department so that needed funds in a time of economic emergency such as this could be directed toward specific projects with more despatch than is now the case?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am
not aware of any basic effort to reorganize the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. However, I would want to confirm this by discussing the subject with the minister himself.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Without attempting to argue with the minister, I should like to point out to him that DREE is obviously not having the effect which both he and members on this side would wish it to have. Can he assure the House that other federal departments such as Public Works and Industry, Trade and Commerce will, as the minister previously responsible for DREE indicated would be the case, be brought into the field of regional economic development as facilitators and co-ordinators so that we can get down to the business of providing sound infrastructure projects of lasting value, such as power grids, docks and so on in addition to the more cosmetic but needed programs such as LIP, NIP and so on? Is there a plan to re-emphasize basic economic development and labour intensive projects?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member referred to departments such as Public Works and their role in economic development. It has always been a policy of the government to regard their activities as important elements in regional development. These activities were not in any way intended to replace the work that ought to be done by the new department of regional economic expansion. The work of co-ordination of these development plans is an extremely complicated one, including co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments and within the government of Canada. This work is being undertaken by the government as a whole.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I will direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the very serious and critically high unemployment rate in the eastern provinces, especially in my own province where the rate now stands at double the national rate of 8.1 per cent, and notwithstanding the budget which the minister introduced, which does not seem to mitigate the situation, would the Minister of Finance be prepared to meet with the Newfoundland government and discuss federal initiatives, worked out jointly with the province, and try to alleviate this situation, which has now reached emergency proportions with unemployment in the province in excess of 20 per cent? I think of programs such as federal government financial participation in the Lower Churchill Falls hydro project, which would provide many jobs as well as badly needed energy in that region.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Newfoundland ministers some two weeks ago and I understand that some of the ministers will be in Ottawa this week for the purpose of discussing a number of questions. Very obviously the important concern of unemployment in the province of Newfoundland will be discussed at that particular time.
With regard to the March rate and the impact on it of the budget, I might remind the hon. gentleman that a labour force survey taken before the March 31 budget could hardly be affected by the budget provisions.


James Aloysius McGrath: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the most recent statistics released last week which show a national rate of 8.1 per cent, representing an army of a million unemployed across this country, is the minister at least prepared to consider in humane terms some special programs or considerations for provinces where the unemployment rate exceeds 10 per cent, which of course would include the five eastern provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Well, Mr. Speaker, that was just exactly the concern we had in moving to a regional fiscal policy in the budget and proposing that the lion's share of direct employment measures should be concentrated in the five easternmost provinces.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport my

April 18, 1977
Oral Questions
question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. Can the minister inform the House whether Canadian National Railways intends to purchase about 800 used refrigerator cars from the U.S. railways, instead of having them produced at the Trenton Car Works in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, where so many Canadians are still unemployed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have seen news reports to that effect but I have not had an opportunity to check with the Minister of Transport. He will be in the House tomorrow and I am sure he will provide an answer.


Andrew Hogan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Acting Prime Minister, in talking to the minister tomorrow, take note of the fact that in a telegram from the president of local 1231 of the United Steel Workers of America at the Trenton plant it is suggested that they were left with the impression at a meeting with the Minister of Transport in December that the manufacture of new refrigerator cars could be done in Canadian plants such as the one in Trenton? Will the Acting Prime Minister ascertain whether the Minister of Transport misled the Trenton delegation on this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


COMBINES
Hon.   Herb. Gray@Windsor West: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which arises out of certain press reports this weekend. Has the combines investigations branch of his department begun or will it begin a formal research inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act into the effects of government marketing boards, and government regulations both federal and provincial, on prices and efficiency in the agricultural sector, and generally on competition in that sector; and if there is, or is to be, such an inquiry, what date, if any, has been set for its completion and what plans are there for publishing its findings and conclusions?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the newspaper article to which the hon. member refers is described as a preliminary working paper prepared by the resources branch of the bureau of competition policy and was submitted to a seminar organized by the bureau. As he is aware, more than perhaps any other hon. member, the bureau studies the structure and performance of economic markets in addition to the investigation of specific allegations under the Combines Investigation Act. The thrust of his question is whether this report and further inquiries will result in a disclosure of some sort or in a formal inquiry, and at this point 1 could not say whether or not that will be the case.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Heward GrafTtey (Brome-Missisquoi):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the document just discussed characterizes current supply-management practices as, if I may quote, "ripping off the consumer, killing off the family farm, balkanizing Canada and distorting the agricultural industry in Canada", after reading this preliminary document which affects food prices in this country has the minister discussed the general matter with the Minister of Agriculture, and is the Minister of Agriculture as well as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in basic agreement with the general conclusions of this preliminary report?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Well, Mr. Speaker, the quotation which the hon. member cited I assume is from the newspaper article. The preliminary report is described as a working paper and it is just exactly that. It has not been subjected to empirical tests which would justify its conclusions in a definitive way. I am not certain 1 would agree with all its conclusions, nor am I certain that I would disagree with them. Certainly some of them appear to me to be compelling, but I am not standing forward and saying that this report is conclusive in any sense. So to that extent I am not going to speak for whether the Minister of Agriculture would agree with the conclusions or not.


CONFEDERATION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one raised by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and is directed to the House leader who has indicated his respect for this institution of parliament. In view of the desire on both sides of the House for a debate on national unity and other important matters now before parliament, and since the only speech on the subject to a legislative body since the remarks in the Speech from the Throne by the Prime Minister has been to the United States Congress, I wonder whether the House leader has discussed with the Prime Minister the first opportunity for him to make a speech in the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the Prime Minister is in the House almost every day and answers questions as they are put to him on a variety of issues. He gives his views on the question of national unity very frequently in the House. But quite apart from that, I will admit, as I said earlier, the desirability of providing opportunities in the House for dealing with timely issues, including the question of national unity; but that will
April 18, 1977

not be possible unless we find some way of dealing more expeditiously with the legislative program that is brought before this House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the House leader would take up with the Prime Minister the possibility of his giving leadership in debates in the House and showing respect for this institution by making a speech in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REPORT ON SAFETY AND HEALTH CONDITIONS IN ELEVATORS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the secret report to the Board of Grain Commissioners dealing with safety and health conditions in grain elevators across the country been made available to the minister?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
1 do not know whether I have seen the complete report, but I have seen in abbreviated form what my officials in the Canadian grain commission have said about the report.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in view of the divided responsibilities of the Minister of Labour, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and the Minister of Agriculture, and in view of the tremendous urgency of making sure our food supplies to the world go out in a clean form, would the minister consider visiting some of these elevators, particularly the ones of export positions, to see for himself the quality of the handling of our grain that is going to our exporters and at least do something to stop the mixing up of pigeon manure with the wheat that we sell?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I have visited some of the elevators. I find some of them in fair shape and some of them need some changes. On behalf of the workmen working in those elevators, so far as I am concerned, they are most important. Having worked in grain elevators and having run combines myself, I can say that farmers are subjected to that kind of dust for certain periods of the year and there is nothing they can do about it except put up with it when they are harvesting that crop. I am sure the hon. member is fully aware of that. 1 can remember it being usual to spit black for eight weeks after running a combine during the harvest season because so much of that dust went into your system. I am not condoning this at all. That is why I am a strong supporter of air conditioned cabs on combines.


An hon. Member:: We didn't ask you about combines. Be sensible!
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: The same conditions should prevail for the grain elevator operators and those operators who are under the direct authority of the grain commission. Before this report and survey was made, our officials had asked for it. We have instructed our officials to do this.


An hon. Member:: Did you ever see a pigeon in a combine?


FINANCE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. He indicated previously that he is meeting with ministers of the provincial government on April 21. I wonder if the minister could advise the House if one of the topics to be discussed would be the revitalization of the Labrador Linerboard Mill, Ltd. which is threatened with closure and could affect 2,100 jobs and affect the economy of all of the provinces. Would the minister indicate if this has been brought up at previous meetings, what progress has been made and what help has the federal government offered?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we have been following with very careful attention the problems of the Labrador linerboard plant. I really cannot make any further comment at this time as to the possible outcome of those discussions.


INDUSTRY
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that one of the problems of the Labrador linerboard mill is finding markets, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether he has been approached for assistance under the Export Development Corporation to help that mill which is threatened with closure and will affect 2,100 jobs in Newfoundland?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, following the recent inquiry of the hon. member, I am advised that no specific request has been addressed to the Export Development Corporation and that if one were to be made, it would be given particular attention. It does not seem, however, that the corporation has a file on the matter at this time.

April 18, 1977
Oral Questions


INCOME TAX
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish that I could ask this question of the compassionate Minister of National Revenue but the hon. lady, after my notice to her this morning, thinks I should direct it to the Minister of Finance.
At this season of the income tax, could the hon. Minister of Finance advise whether the discrimination, which allows the income tax exemptions for those under provincial maintenance orders who are married while denying exemptions for those under provincial maintenance orders who have skipped out of common law marriages, will be removed?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this question of trying to provide some arrangement under the Income Tax Act for people who are in common law marriages, whether in the marriage or in the relationship or as a result of a maintenance order, is one that has been carefully examined a number of times under the Income Tax Act. My colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, has been giving some attention to this to see if we can meet the legitimate concern about discrimination between different persons in two different situations. Unfortunately, at the moment we have not come up with a proposal which would be fair in all circumstances.


HOUSING
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that an agreement between the province of Saskatchewan housing corporation and the federal government might go some way toward alleviating the unemployment situation in many of the rural areas, has this agreement been signed? Apparently it awaits order in council approval; but has this approval been granted and has this agreement been signed? What is the situation to date?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have already met my provincial counterpart twice. Discussions are now under way with regard to some agreements which cover a number of years. To my mind, the hon. member should be more specific about the section of the National Housing Act he is referring to, because several agreements have been signed with each of the provinces.


Stanley James Korchinski: This agreement, I understand, is under the RRAP program. Since there is an existing program which does

provide for assistance in larger communities, this has a tendency of going in favour of the larger communities at the disadvantage of the smaller communities. Is there anything afoot?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a feeling the hon. member may be a bit mixed up. I shall send him copies of current agreements with Saskatchewan.
As for the RRAP, I can tell the hon. member that larger amounts of money have, been alloted that province for the current year.

\ English]


MANPOWER
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech of March 31 that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration would be announcing details during the budget debate on funding for Canada Works Programs, I wonder if the minister can explain to the House why the one million unemployed in Canada have to wait with bated breath for at least three weeks before the Minister of Manpower and Immigration addresses himself to this issue in the House? Why cannot definitive statements be made at this time or at least two weeks ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the budget debate will be concluding this week. It is my intention to call the remaining days of the debate until the debate itself expires on Thursday.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I again address myself to the Acting Prime Minister. The Acting Prime Minister has failed to answer my question. I asked the minister why it was necessary to keep Canada's unemployed waiting for three weeks from the time the budget debate was tabled in the House to a date some time in the future when the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will address himself to the subject.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Claude-Andr£ Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. [Translation]
Considering that for four years a group of Soviet scientists have allegedly been occupying an island of floating ice in the Canadian Arctic, known as North Pole 22, can the minister advise the House about the measures the Canadian govern-
April 18, 1977
[Stage Direction]
ment has taken or will be taking to ensure the sovereignty of Canada over the Canadian Arctic, and why it granted a foreign power the privilege of setting up a scientific station on its territory?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.


PRIVILEGE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning a matter that arose a few moments ago. I believe I have to preface my question with an observation, in view of the statement made by the Acting Prime Minister. Your Honour felt constrained- again, this is what has happened several times-to recognize somebody else.
I rose for the purpose of speaking about an institution for which I have overwhelming respect, and for private members of parliament from my experience not only as leader of the opposition but as prime minister. I have formed tremendous respect for the manner in which, if given an opportunity to speak, they will place before parliament views that will be helpful to this nation. The House leader says, "we cannot deal with this matter now; we have a great many others to deal with". Mr. Speaker, no matter is more important to the people of this country today than the unity of this nation. Parliament can do a great deal to solve the present impasse which is developing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have been here a long time.


An hon. Member:: Too long.


John George Diefenbaker: Somebody says, "Too long". If you are here one tenth of the time, you will have been here too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Go get them, chief.


John George Diefenbaker: I have tremendous admiration, as 1 say, for private members of parliament and want to give them an opportunity, as well as myself, to speak in the House before this country is bifurcated beyond redemption. The House leader says there are other important matters and that ultimately they will give consideration to having a day or days set aside for this purpose. Sir, I can see parliament being degraded day by day under the rules as they are. There is no means whereby a private member of parliament can bring before the House, without unanimity, a matter of immediate consequence
Privilege-Mr. Diefenbaker
and urgency because one "No" prevents such a motion being brought forward.


An hon. Member:: What about when you were over here?


John George Diefenbaker: We did not have that rule. We allowed parliament to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Any more smart remarks?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman's interruption indicates that ignorance is not absent from his mind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: We did not have such a rule. Today there are orchestrated negatives, no matter what comes up here, unless the government-in its kindness and consideration- decides to permit a matter to be discussed. The result is that this parliament is becoming a political unit of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, the government knows best; that is their attitude. Look where we are today because of that attitude, unable to discuss a matter for which days should be set aside in this House. The future of your country and mine is brushed aside by the House leader with that suavity that he possesses to such a high degree and which accounts for his present position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, I make the appeal in all seriousness. We do not act if we permit a situation whereby the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), extramurally, instead of speaking in parliament which it is his responsibility to do, goes outside for political purposes to make these speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was brushed aside when he endeavoured to ask questions on unemployment. Sir, from the bottom of my heart I speak on behalf of the members of this House and the people of Canada when I ask that we do not degrade this institution. What about statements made by ministers outside the House? No more abominable ones have ever been uttered as an invitation to the people of the province of Quebec when they come to vote than were made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) when they said that if separatism won the vote in Quebec, they would go back to Quebec and leave their own nation, Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: I agree that the proper expression is "shame". These are so-called parliamentarians.

April 18, 1977
Ways and Means Motion


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under our rules, when an hon. member has an objection to any matter which I have handled in the question period, I am prepared to hear him out. I am prepared to hear the right hon. member, of course, on the handling of a matter today. I stand to be corrected if I am in error-and, of course, I had the opportunity of hearing him only once-but I hope he will realize that in the time that was given to him for a supplementary question he made a criticism about the Prime Minister making a speech outside the House and put that statement on the record. I did not interpret it as a question as much as an assertion. Therefore, I would ask the right hon. member to restrain himself to those remarks.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 am always a staunch supporter of reciprocal restraint, and I make that very clear. Every time a question is asked here that these sycophants opposite do not like, they endeavour to howl one down. I like the crossfire of parliament. I love to hear something that is cutting; but so many of the observations of hon. members opposite are just noise and have all the cutting edge of a wet sponge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: My only hope is that those who now jeer will have the opportunity of returning home after the next election, as they should if they do not understand parliament better than they do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege of which I have given you notice. It concerns some answers given in the House by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is responsible for the UIC. Since the minister is not here today, I wonder if I could deal with this matter when he comes back to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table notice of a ways and means motion with respect to the Excise Tax Act.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TASK FORCE FOR A CANADIAN BILL OF RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS FOR CHILDREN
James Aloysius McGrath: for leave to introduce Bill C-413, respecting a Canadian bill of rights for children.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to establish a national task force with the provinces to arrive at common ground for the purpose of establishing in Canada basic, fundamental human rights for children. Canada, which is a signatory to the 1959 UN Declaration of Human Rights, has not made any progress in this direction. It is interesting to note that 1979 will be declared world children's year by the United Nations. I am hoping that by that time the bill will have had an opportunity to come forward.


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

[ Translation]

Marc Lalonde: for leave to introduce Bill C-49, to amend the Canada Pension Plan.


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

Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in light of the refusal of the government to take any new action to deal with the record-breaking level of unemployment revealed during the Easter recess, and in light of the discourtesy to Parliament demonstrated by the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today on the opening of this session, and by his refusal to make a single speech in the House of Commons in this calendar year, I move, seconded by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker):
That this House do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


*HM *Hnnnnni
April 18, 1977


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,042 (Supplementary), 1,174, 1,538, 1,716, 1,802, 1,875, 1,959, 1,986 and 2,006.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,042-Mr. Howie: (Supplementary):
What financial assistance, if any, has been given to (a) cattle farmers (b) poultry farmers in New Brunswick since January 1, 1975?
Eugene Whelan: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: (a) Thirteen beef cattle farmers received loans amounting to $473,800; Seventy-two dairy farmers received loans amounting to $4,371,500. (b) See Answer to Question No. 1,474 answered this day.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	By department, where such information is readily available, what are the approximate dollar values of the items listed in the current Auditor General's report as indicating, according to the Auditor General, an inadequacy in financial management and control?
2.	(a) What are the names and salary ranges of the deputy ministers in the departments concerned (b) how long has he or she held their present position?
Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): 1. The information requested is not readily available in files maintained by the Office of the Auditor General. Most items listed in the current Auditor General's Report as indicating an inadequacy in financial management and control were identified through a comprehensive review of financial systems (the two-year Financial Management and Control Study) rather than through examinations of individual transactions.

April 18, 1977
Order Paper Questions
As a result data on the approximate dollar values of the reported items are not available.
2. Not applicable in view of the response to Part 1 of this question.


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


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, from temporary help agencies only; (a) None; (b) (v) Ontario, 1975/1976-1,088; April 1, 1976-December 31, 1976-816 (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x), None.
2.	Main estimates.
3.	Ontario; (a) $6.10; (b) Not available to the department; (c) (i) 1975/1976-$962,268.46; (ii) April 1, 1976-December 31, 1976-$481,133.01.


Mr. Howie: For the year 1976, did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have any student summer employment programmes in (a) Canada (b) New Brunswick and, if so, in each case (i) what were they (ii) how many persons were given direct summer employment and what were the wages (iii) what was the cost?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) Yes. (b) Yes. (i) (a) High School Students; Summer Youth Employment Program; Indian and Eskimo Student Recruitment and Development; Conservation projects in the Territories; Clearing and cleaning up various recreational areas; Parks recruitment; Parks awareness; (i) (b) High School Students; Summer Youth Employment Program; Indian and Eskimo Student Recruitment and Development; Clearing and cleaning up various recreational areas; Parks recruitment; Parks awareness;
(ii)	(a) Number of persons given direct summer employment: 4,302 Total wages: $3,054,755; (ii) (b) Number of persons given direct summer employment: 157 Total wages: $92,958;
(iii)	(a) $3,205,144 (In addition to wages, this amount includes the costs of supplies involved), (b) $92,958 (Any additional costs for supplies are included in the amount reported in (a) above).


Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many veterans have been added to the rolls of WVA/CWA recipients classified as (a) new (b) reinstatements?
2.	How many have been removed from the DVA rolls classified as (a) discontinued (b) deaths (c) in suspension?
3.	What are the figures for disability pensioners?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: For fiscal year 1975-76: 1. (a) 12,748; (b) 4,026.
2.	(a) 5,717; (b) 5,100; (c) 4,087.
3.	New awards, 1,761; Reinstatements, 338; Discontinued, 4,849.


Mr. Herbert: With reference to the answer to Question No. 3,229, answered on January 26, 1976, have there been any changes in cost since that date?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The Bank of Canada advises that, while there have been some increases in its estimates of the costs of its head office building project in Ottawa since the answer to Question No. 3229 was prepared, a much firmer basis for estimating these costs will exist when the remaining contracts for work on the project are let in this and the next several months. The Bank therefore proposes that it provide further figures at that time.
L7NSTITUT DE PROMOTION DES INTErETS DU CONSOMMATEUR


Mr. Jones: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,245, what are the precise duties of I'lnstitut de promotion des interets du consommateur?
2.	Do the duties coincide with the duties and functions of the Information Section of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and, if not, how do they coincide?
3.	How many such organizations in the other nine provinces receive similar grants?


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: 1. The Institut de promotion des interets du consommateur is an independent Quebec-based consumer organization. IPIC publishes a magazine, Le Reveil du Consommateur, which contains comparative product and service tests and consumer information on marketplace concerns. The group also provides assistance to individual consumers.
2.	The consumer services offered by l'lnstitut de promotion des interets du consommateur complement the work of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in the area of consumer information and education.
3.	There are 27 voluntary organizations outside the province of Quebec who received grants from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during 1976-77.
April 18, 1977


Mr. Brisco: L Did a movie made in Toronto called "Shoot", involve segments of the Canadian Militia and, if so (a) which military group (b) who produced the movie (c) what was the cost to the government of the involvement of military personnel?
2. Were the fully automatic weapons shown in the movie, the property of the government and, if not, were they imported and, if so, from where?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: 1.
Yes. (a) Lome Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment); (b) Harve Sherman Productions, Toronto; (c) nil, members of the Lome Scots were hired as extras by the film producer.
2. Yes.


Mr. Yewchuk: Was any (a) monovalent (b) bivalent swine influenza vaccine finished by Connaught Laboratories in 1977 and, if so, in each case, what was the average unit cost?


Marc Lalonde: (a) and (b) No.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of proposing a motion under Standing Order 26 regarding a very serious matter. Accordingly, 1 ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter, requiring urgent consideration, namely, the revelation last Wednesday, when this House was not sitting, that unemployment in Canada has reached, not continuing or chronic but crisis proportions, with official and hidden unemployment affecting nearly 1.5 million Canadians, which in light of the fact that the government's budget accepts this high and increasing jobless level, makes it necessary for the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in special debate under Standing Order 26, to make a full statement on the depression level of unemployment in Canada which seriously endangers the national unity of this country.
The Budget-Mr. Firth


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Without making reference to that aspect of the application of which the Chair had notice from the hon. member as required by the Standing Orders regarding the discussion or the disagreement as to whether unemployment changes from continuing or chronic to crisis proportions as a result of the release of the figures, I have to adjudicate the matter on the basis of Standing Order 26(5), which reads as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action-
These are the operative words.
-and he also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
Of course, the matter is directly before the House today, tomorrow and for the following two days thereafter as a result of the announcement of the intentions of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) by way of budget debate. Accordingly, for me to set aside special time pursuant to the Standing Order would fly directly in the face of Standing Order 26(5), and I cannot do so.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take this opportunity to make a few remarks on behalf of my constituents, the people of the Northwest Territories, in this budget debate. I suppose in a way I am breaking a tradition which has long been held by members of the opposition in replying to major government policy statements when 1 stand here representing the people of the Northwest Territories and say that I am in agreement with at least part of the minister's budget. When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) delivered his budget address, those of us who listened carefully found an almost constant message running throughout the budget. Hidden in the little explanatory remarks in the speech was the message that the Canadian economy was in pretty poor shape.
I would like to take this opportunity to say that for once I support the minister's claim and wholeheartedly agree with him that the economy is in poor shape. I can also report to the minister that many people are unemployed and many Canadi-

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Firth
ans are suffering. People who live on fixed incomes, Canadians who earn low incomes and even Canadians who earn not so low incomes would agree with the minister that the Canadian economy is indeed in pretty poor shape. It is a tribute to the minister and to his government that so many people agree with his assessment of something this government has managed to do.
However, that is where my agreement with the budget ends. This budget comes at a particularly important time in Canadian history. It comes at a time when all Canadians, perhaps for the first time in generations, are assessing the role of the federal government. All Canadians are wondering about the nature of confederation. Many Canadians are asking themselves what should be the relationship between their particular regions and the federal government. I had hoped that the minister would have been a little more sensitive to these kinds of questions as he was preparing the budget. I had hoped that the minister would have taken into consideration the fact that Canada is a diverse country with many different regional problems requiring different solutions. Many agree with this, and that is true in the north. We have to look at northern problems and find northern solutions.
I had hoped that the minister would not have fallen into the trap of proposing catch-all solutions which catch all the problems of some of the people in central Canada but which leave the rest of the country working with a budget which just does not fit. I suppose I had hoped for too much. While Canadians have been trying to decide how to put their regional differences together to form a stronger confederation, this minister has the insensitivity to come up with a budget which barely acknowledges any regional differences at all. At least the minister and this government are being consistent in that respect. Instead of providing proof that this government can come up with workable solutions which will bind Canadians closer together, the Minister of Finance seems to have fallen back on the tried and true solution of giving concessions to the Toronto business community in the hope that it will come through with magical jobs and investment. I believe we have tried that one for too many years and it just does not work.
We northern people had hoped that the minister would pay a little attention to some of the unique conditions which rule the economy of the Northwest Territories. This budget did not touch on one of those things we desperately need in the north, things we must have if we are to continue to decolonize the economy of the Northwest Territories en route to full provincial status. I am speaking, of course, of a little bit of stability. After years of bungling there is now such a mess in the area of government planning and policy-making for the north that it is no wonder the economy of the Northwest Territories suffers.
It is no wonder that business operators in the north are hesitant about investing any more money or creating any more jobs. We are now faced with a situation where people simply do not know what foolish move the government will adopt next. What we northerners want and need is a federal government which will set out and stick with policies which will create a stable situation in which the many people who are

making decisions in the economy feel comfortable forecasting beyond the next 20 minutes or half hour.
Part of the stability we need can only be found in increased control over local government. How can local business and industry be expected to flourish when all the important decisions are made thousands of miles away in places such as Ottawa, New York and Chicago? Despite all the government's words to the contrary, we have been moving backward in this respect. For example, as recently as three weeks ago a workshop on local government was to be held to promote self-government in the Northwest Territories. It was to be a workshop on how to deal with the details of local government, everything from how to fix plumbing to how to fill out forms, how to apply for licences, and so forth.
That conference was called off and reinstated twice by the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories. The "off again-on again" tactics of the government of the Northwest Territories so frustrated the organizers of the workshop that they were forced to cancel it altogether. That workshop was to be held at Baker Lake, Northwest Territories. The organizers were forced to cancel the workshop when most of the delegates were already making their way there. That was a waste of time and money for many people, and it was extremely frustrating. Why was the Commissioner so worried that he twice refused permission for the workshop to be held? He was worried because several paragraphs of a 50-page background paper made reference to the use of radical tactics when dealing with senior levels of government.
In his wisdom, the Commissioner decided that northern people should not be exposed to the works of the late Saul Alinsky. Northern people were not allowed to hear of a man whose books on politics are available to any high school student who cares to read them, a man whom the National Film Board considered important enough to be the subject of a documentary film. How are we to develop northern resources to create a strong community when the official responsible for that development treats us as naughty children? How are we to cope with the economic side of development when the Minister of Finance does not even acknowledge that we exist?
Let us consider housing which I have mentioned in this House, in committee and other places across Canada. The minister made several references in his budget-all glowing- to the great increase in the number of houses built during the past year. Taken by themselves, the minister's figures for housing construction look impressive in our stagnant economy, but in the part of the country that I represent-and, I am sure, in many other parts as well-the figures do not match the real world. I am sure many members of the House would agree that a decent place to live in is a basic human right. Many people in the Northwest Territories are denied that right.
In some communities the government has introduced prefabricated housing, houses that fall apart after a few of our northern winters. In some communities, services for the houses we have are non-existent, which means that people still have to
April 18, 1977

melt snow and ice in order to get water for drinking, cooking and laundry. The shortage and poor quality of the houses in the north is a factor in every social problem that exists there, from public health to alcoholism. To put it in terms the minister may feel more comfortable with, these social problems cost the government a great deal of money each year. If the minister had tried to do something about the housing shortage, he would have been able to save a great deal in his account for child welfare and other programs, while at the same time providing jobs and incomes for a number of workers in my constituency.
1 referred earlier to the federal government treating northern Canada as a kind of colony. The housing policy of the federal government is a good example of this. In most northern communities, particularly in the eastern Arctic, only public housing is available. People have no opportunity to own their own home and the public housing is often inadequate for their needs. These northern residents have to pay at least 25 per cent of their income-which is usually very low and in some cases non-existent-for this inadequate housing. This is a severe hardship for many. On the other hand, federal and territorial government employees are provided with heavily subsidized housing of superior quality which, of course, has all the necessary facilities.
For several years 1 have asked the government to start a log housing program in the north. This could be started tomorrow morning, and should have been started many years ago, especially in the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories. I believe this program would provide an essential service to the north. We would make houses from an indigenous, renewable natural resource, rather than importing material from other regions of Canada. Residents would be employed in meeting their housing needs, instead of virtually all the jobs in the industry going to other regions. The communities of the north would have an opportunity to control their housing policy and decide their needs.
This idea of northern control over basic human necessities such as housing is very important for regional dignity, but I see no such concept in the budget. Indeed, there is not very much in the budget for small business operators, especially those in the north. The small business community in Canada is large. It provides a great percentage of jobs in southern Canada, and the proceeds stay there. Of course, a healthy economy needs small business. In the north, the small business community forms only a very small part of the economy and is kept in that position because it must operate under conditions which simply do not allow it to grow.
For over two years small business operators in the north have tried to get the government to listen to their problems and make simple but important changes-changes which would bring them opportunities in line with those readily available to their counterparts in southern Canada. Not very long ago, in July, 1975, a task force on northern business published its report and listed some 42 measures that the federal and territorial governments should follow in order to create a better climate for small business in the north. After
The Budget-Mr. Firth
two years of review and several promises of a new code of treatment for small business operators in the north, we find that very little has happened.
Just before the Easter recess I raised a question on this matter in the House. It was interesting that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) said that he agreed with the recommendations of the task force but was having difficulty in getting his colleagues to accept them. Not long ago I received a letter from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) which indicated that he does not seem to agree.
Another thing that really hurts us in the north is prices. My friends and I have spent a great deal of time telling the government that their anti-inflation program does not work, and now it seems that even the Anti-Inflation Board agrees and has released figures to this effect. The figures show that consumers in southern Canada have been badly hit in the pocket. In the Toronto area, as the Minister of Finance should know, the cost of a good diet for a family of four, for one week, went from an estimated $42.42 in March, 1976, to $46.15 in March, 1977-an increase of $3.73 in one year. In my part of the country the price of the same basket of food in the same period went from $56.60 to $63.43. Just the price of food alone should open the eyes of many of the ministers across the way, but it does not seem to make any impression on them at all. It does not seem to me that there is anything in this budget to help reduce that kind of regional difference.
I should also like to comment on the government's attempt at job creation, Mr. Speaker. The Canada Works Program for all of Canada was allocated $110 million for phase one. Of this amount, $1.5 million, or 1 per cent, was allocated to the Northwest Territories. That may sound like a lot of money, but it is only a drop in the bucket as far as meeting the real needs of northern residents is concerned. This program does absolutely nothing for those who most need it, for those who do not read and write, for people who may not even be aware of the existence of such programs. They are not capable of going down to the Manpower offices even if there were an office within 2,000 or 3,000 miles of the village; therefore, the program meets only in a small way the employment needs of northern residents.
As far as I can see, northern residents have been left out of this budget. I suspect that many people in other regions of the country have also been excluded because, apparently, the minister and his colleagues refuse to acknowledge that we have in this country economic problems different from those of central Canada. It is about time the government recognized these regional differences. Let it correct those differences if it wants to do something of benefit for all Canada. Mr. Speaker, in this wonderful, rich country of ours, I suggest that good housing for all Canadians, no matter where they may live, is a basic human right. The government so ought to consider it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Firth


Walter (Wally) Firth: I now wish to comment on the proposed pipeline which will transport gas down the Mackenzie Valley. Apparently the need for such a pipeline has been accepted by many people, and I think a decision about it is pending. I believe the Berger report will soon be handed down, as will the National Energy Board report and other reports. Unfortunately, an idea which I think makes sense has not been considered by many of the people responsible for making such decisions.
Mr. Speaker, many in this House know that my platform in two federal elections in the Northwest Territories was this: no pipelines or major projects should be started in the Northwest Territories until native claims have been settled. Let us suppose for a moment that such claims had been settled and it had been agreed that for the good of all Canadians we must build a system for moving oil and gas from the north to southern markets. So far many people have accepted the idea of a pipeline. Unfortunately, the idea of building a railway to move such resources was not given a fair chance. I firmly believe that if the railway companies and those who support the use of railways for moving resources such as natural gas and oil from the north had been given the same opportunity as the oil companies for making their case, the authorities would have preferred a railway to a pipeline.
It has been proven that railways work well in northern areas. There is a railway in Alaska and one in the Yukon. The White Pass Railway has been doing a good job for many years. There is a railway serving the Moosonee area of Canada and a rail line to Churchill, Manitoba, which traverses muskeg and difficult country. There is already a railway in the Northwest Territories extending for half the distance the proposed pipeline would run if it were decided to build a pipeline. I think using a railway makes good economic sense. For obvious reasons it is the course of common sense.
A well developed transportation system in the Liard River area of northern Canada would open up tremendous possibilities in agriculture. I know that many in the south think the north is frozen all year, or for many months, and that it is very difficult to grow potatoes, cabbage, wheat or other crops. But it has been shown time and again by many individuals that the agricultural possibilities of the Mackenzie area are enormous. I, personally, have seen some fantastically large cabbages, turnips and other basic vegetables which have come from that area. One can grow good crops in the north. For example, a chap by the name of McBride, I think, in the Hay River area not far from the Alberta border decided one day to grow rapeseed. The government's agricultural experts told him that the rapeseed plant cannot grow in the north. He ignored them, went ahead and planted rapeseed, and when he brought it to the elevator operators they said it was among the best rapeseed they had ever seen. He grew the crop despite the opinion of government experts who said it could not be grown in the north.


John R. Rodriguez: That seems to be the government's attitude in many matters.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the statement of the Minister of Finance that the economy of this country is in deep trouble. But that is about the only statement in the budget with which I agree. I disagree with all the rest of the budget. I will not take up any more time of the House. Let me say, simply, that I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on what should have been excluded from the budget and what should have been included.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Before recognizing the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Industry-Effect on small businesses of Quebec white paper on language policy-Government action; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Administration of Justice-Allegation Cathy Curtin and Sylvia Roche treated unfairly as result of provision in Federal Court Act; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-Airports-Settlement of lawsuits connected with car rental concessions-Request for report.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, before I speak on the Budget let me make some comments about two events which took place in the House before the resumption of this debate, after the Easter recess. The first was a motion brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that the House do now adjourn. I gather the primary reason for that motion was the absence from the House of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is now in Winnipeg and is to make a speech on national unity tonight in an important forum. The opposition, by moving that motion, seemed to
April 18, 1977

imply that if the Prime Minister is not physically present in the House, this House ought to adjourn.
True, we appreciate that high compliment paid to the Prime Minister of Canada. He is a most important figure, of course, and he exerts a central influence in the chamber, but I do not think his presence in the House is essential if the House is to meet. I do not think the Prime Minister would expect the opposition to pay him that kind of compliment. You can imagine the hue and cry which would have gone up from the opposition if before the Easter recess the Prime Minister had said that because he would be away this Monday to deliver a speech, and because he felt the opposition were incompetent and could not function without his presence in the House, the House should not meet. Surely that would have been considered as the height of arrogance.


John R. Rodriguez: Right on.


Norman Augustine Cafik: And I think it would have been.


John R. Rodriguez: Right on.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I find it strange that the opposition think the House should not sit because the Prime Minister is absent doing something in terms of national unity. I find something else difficult to comprehend. From time to time, directly and indirectly, the opposition has said that the Prime Minister and the government of Canada ought to do more to encourage national unity, or that they should not sit back on their haunches but should do something positive. The Prime Minister is doing something positive in Winnipeg. Opposition members seem to feel he should not be there to talk to the Canadian people. This brings me to the other motion that I also find difficult to comprehend.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved a motion proposing to censure the government because the Prime Minister and other ministers dared to make speeches and announcements outside this chamber which the opposition felt ought to be made in the chamber. It is evident that parliament is here to serve the people, not to be served by the people. It is equally evident that one of the purposes of government is to communicate with the people.
For parliament to usurp unto itself the exclusive prerogative of hearing everything directly for the first time would be asking it to stand as an intermediary between the Prime Minister, and the people's government and themselves. That is not the meaning of parliament. We should certainly insist on parliament being informed of what is happening; however, it does not follow that government should not communicate directly with the people of this country on important national issues, particularly with regard to national unity.
A third event occurred during the recess which concerned me. In a letter to the president of the CBC, the Leader of the Opposition complained about the media covering the speech of the Prime Minister in Winnipeg either fully or in large part. That is very disturbing. I find it inconceivable that any party
The Budget-Mr. Cafik
would think it unfair or inappropriate that the remarks of a prime minister of any country or leader of any nation should be denied to the people of that nation. Surely it is fundamental that a prime minister of whatever political stripe ought to communicate with the people so they may know directly his views and thoughts on such a central issue as national unity.
The action taken by the Leader of the Opposition illustrates a partisanship that is counterproductive to the interests of this country and holding it together. Frankly, this nation suffers far too much from over zealous partisan activity on the part of many of us.


An hon. Member:: Read the letter.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It has been suggested that I read the letter. To my knowledge that letter has not been fully made public. I have not been able to find a copy of it. If someone, when speaking in this debate wants to read the letter, I would be happy to hear its precise contents.
I gather that one of the central points of the letter is that the Leader of the Opposition wants equal time. I find that extraordinary even from a partisan standpoint. The opposition seems to think that everything the Prime Minister does is counterproductive. If that were true and they believed it, they would be delighted to give him all the exposure he could get in order to prove their point. The fact is they know that when the Prime Minister makes a speech on such an important subject it is such a moving speech that it has great meaning to the Canadian people. They just do not want that to happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Now that I have become carried away on this particular tack, there is one other comment I cannot resist making. The principle of freedom of information has been espoused by a great many members. It is supported on all sides of the House. I agree with the principle that government ought to operate with as little secrecy as possible; that is a fine principle. However, it is rather amusing for the official opposition to advocate such a marvellous stance because they think there will be some political advantage to them, and then in recent days turn around and have the Leader of the Opposition impose a kind of cabinet solidarity on a cabinet that does not even exist. If he feels that freedom of information and an exchange of ideas is healthy for a government, he should know that it is even more healthy for an opposition to practice. However, now that they are muzzling their own members they will have to reconsider the sacred principle of freedom of information except in so far as it applies to the government rather than to themselves.
Turning my thoughts to the budget, I will make a few brief comments. First, there has been a lot of criticism of the budget by opposition members, but very little criticism of any sustained or meaningful nature from the public at large. The business community recognizes that it has a responsibility to assist in creating employment. The government recognizes it has to provide tax measures and incentives to assist them in doing that in order to help the unemployed of this country. In

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Cafik
so far as the business community is concerned, this budget deals with unemployment it in a very precise manner. It gives concessions to them which immediately will be translated into job creation in this country. That is a very responsible role.
In terms of stimulating the purchasing power of Canadians through personal tax cuts, it is exclusively geared to those in the lower income brackets who really need the assistance. The tax cuts involved in the immediate budget proposals are in the neighbourhood of $500 million. Add to that the tax cut inherent in the escalation of exemptions that took place at the beginning of the year, which was another $950 million, and the job creation incentives for industry, and you have economic measures for this year which total close to $2.5 billion.
In a time of restraint and cutting back of government expenditures we really cannot expect much more than has been done in this budget to stimulate purchasing power and create jobs. One, of course, is fully aware of the moneys that have been put into the Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs. I believe that the figure for Canada Works, with the increase, is now $110 million. This is geared primarily to those areas of highest unemployment. Those of us from areas of considerably lower unemployment are very happy to see that incentive skewed in that particular direction.
Initially, the Young Canada Works program was to have $20 million for job creation for our young people. An additional $30 million was added to that amount, making $50 million. This gives us a gross figure for job creation not far off $200 million. There is no question that that amount, significant as it is, will not create full employment in Canada. We cannot find enough jobs for all the unemployed through that kind of measure. If we are substantively to correct the unemployment problem we must work very closely with the private sector to create the job opportunities that will be required in this country within the next ten years.
The high unemployment rate that we hear so much about today has to be put in some kind of perspective. Aside from Mexico, Canada has the greatest increase in the number of people seeking new jobs each year of any country in the world. We are creating an enormous number of good jobs every year, but because of the rapid rise in our population we are going through a period in which it is extremely difficult to keep pace with job formation at the rate which is required.
The government cannot buy itself out of this situation, given our present deficit position. Efforts to do so would in any case be in the nature of a band-aid approach. Thus, as a long-term solution we have to encourage the private sector to provide jobs. Also, at all times we must balance our concern for unemployment against our program to control inflation. It goes without saying that a high rate of inflation in Canada, one which exceeds that of our trading partners, is counter-productive in terms of exports. Canada is the largest exporting nation, per capita, of any in the world. It is all the more necessary, then, that our fight against inflation should be a success. The program has already scored significant successes
[Mr. Cafik.)
in the first 18 months of its existence and it must continue this record, otherwise we shall find ourselves priced completely out of the international market which in turn would result in worsening employment prospects.
Another important element in this picture is the value of the Canadian dollar. I recall a conversation in my office with a lawyer from a Toronto firm. After conducting business on another matter we began discussing the general economic situation, and this lawyer-I presume he is knowledgeable about a wide range of subjects-expressed concern about the point at which the Canadian dollar would settle in relation to other currencies. Would it go down to 90 cents, for example, or to 85 cents in relation to the U.S. dollar, and what would be the effect on job creation? I suggested that my visitor was not taking all the factors into consideration. There can be no question that the lower level of the Canadian dollar implies certain hidden benefits in terms of job creation. When the Canadian dollar is low, let us say that the level is 90 cents, we are evidently getting a 10 per cent advantage in terms of exporting our products. This results in more jobs becoming available in Canada and assists us in fighting inflation.
There is another impact which could also have positive benefits. Consider the question of imports coming into a country whose dollar has been devalued. In some ways the impact is adverse, but there is no question that increasing the cost of importing goods provides more opportunity for Canadian producers to manufacture goods for sale at home. For example, those who might normally import parts from the United States and elsewhere are encouraged to produce those parts at home because the cost of importing them is greater, reflecting the lower value of our dollar. Each of these elements can have a positive impact upon job creation. As I say, there are some adverse effects resulting from the lowered value of the Canadian dollar, but I am not at all sure they offset the benefits to which I have referred.
Moving away from the budget itself I should like to make a few comments about specific areas with which we ought to be concerned. First of all, I believe far too many people in our society look upon every group other than our own with a jaundiced eye. They think they are being ripped off by the business community, or by labour, or by big business, or by politicians, or whatever. There is continual tension between divergent groups-labour and management, French speaking and English speaking, politicians and constituents. It seems to me that at a time when we face a problem of national unity, at a time when we are trying to create a basis of understanding and co-operation between all these various groups in our society, it is important that all of us in positions of responsibility should act in such a way as to avoid fanning the flames of disunity.
All of us, as private members of parliament, as members of political parties, must work together in an unusually co-operative way in order to reach a common objective. With this in mind, we ought to be prepared to set aside our own political concerns in order to achieve something which is so greatly in the public interest. In other words, we must attempt to create
April 18, 1977

an understanding within our constituencies that self-interest is best served by attending to the common good of all the various interests in society. In other words, we might consider taking the beam out of our own eyes rather than calling attention to the mote in someone else's-a practice at which many of us are adept.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let's get the people back to work.


Norman Augustine Cafik: The hon. member across the way says, "Let's get the people back to work". I don't know what he has in mind. I don't know whether he has in mind the employment of all of them by the government of Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I take it, then, he wants them employed by the private sector. I have heard him say many times that we ought to leave the private sector alone. Well, when we left them alone we got into the problem we are now experiencing. So I guess he wants us to intervene.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No. Don't mislead the House.


Norman Augustine Cafik: In any event, the hon. member is pregnant with contradiction. One can see that at every turn. Although I like him very much and generally get along with him very well in the finance committee, I must say that his contradictions are more notable than the areas in which he happens to agree with himself.
There are other subjects I wish to talk about. I mentioned one in a speech the other day in the House of Commons. I certainly hope the government will give serious consideration, when reviewing its programs, to providing more loan capital and perhaps even equity capital for small business ventures. I hope, also, that efforts in this field will be geared to job creation. I have always found it disturbing that when someone needs assistance from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and they get carried away and say, "We can create new jobs", the departmental officials say, "That is fine, but it is not relevant to this program". The fact of the matter is that we are now facing a very serious level of unemployment, so I think they ought to plan their programs to take more into account, job creation, job maintenance and export opportunities, and to do so by way of loan or equity capital rather than in the way they are proceeding now.
Secondly in that area I should like to see something done to assist our small business community and others develop export markets abroad. We are taking steps in this direction, and I welcome all of them, some of which are very effective. But frankly, I believe that we should have a federal export trading company with specific responsibility in this area. We ought to take a leaf out of the book of some very successful economies, such as those of Japan and Germany, which really use this technique with significant benefit to the working population within those countries. Certainly I hope we will do more than we have in the past.
The Budget-Mr. Cafik
Another area where we need a little further effort is in matching job skills to job opportunities. There is no question that the Department of Manpower and Immigration, through many of its job creation programs-the on the job program is a good one-and through their community college job training and upgrading of skills programs, provide some pretty good training opportunities. However, I sometimes wonder about their efficiency. I recall having a meeting with community college officials regarding these Manpower training programs and I discovered, much to my amazement, something that concerned me very greatly, namely, that if a person with very limited academic training wanted to become a welder and had a grade eight education, he had to upgrade his education to grade 11 or grade 12 or perhaps go right through high school before he ever saw a welding machine; and of course the program only lasted one or two years, so such a person started a welding course and all he got out of it was a grade nine education.
It seems to me that far too much emphasis is put on academic qualifications in programs that upgrade skills. I think we must do more to develop specific skills in a crash program. I just do not believe that you have to have a university education, or even a high school education, to become a welder or tool and die maker, or acquire some such similar skill. I am not downgrading those skills. In fact, I happen to be a welder and tool and die maker and I also happen to be a process engineer. Yet I do not have the academic qualifications even to start the course in one of these skills under a program for which we pay the bill. The situation is just absurd and as a government we should, in my view, do something to correct it. I do not think we are getting the biggest bang for our dollar in terms of upgrading skills. We should be matching these skills to the opportunities that are available.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, in terms of job opportunities and matching of skills a great deal more ought to be done, in spite of the fact that the federal government does not have the constitutional responsibility, to ensure as much as we can by way of advice to ministers of education at the provincial level, to colleges and to universities, that some projection is made of labour force requirements in the future. This would then give us some idea how many lawyers, engineers of various kinds, political scientists or those skilled in academic achievement are required, which information could be made available on a national basis to institutions of learning in the provinces so that those who pass through our universities hopefully can stream themselves, if they choose to do so, into an area of activity which will offer them some hope of finding a job.
If someone wants to go to school for purposes of academic achievement alone, I have no objection. We have lots of room in our society for the thinkers of the world, for the academics who do not want to fall into a specific occupational grouping. However, they would at least be aware that this is the consequence of a course which they chose before they chose it, so that we would not graduate 30,000 political scientists and have

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Cafik
job opportunities for only eight in the year. That is just nonsense.
Perhaps I may just touch on one or two other matters very briefly. One area I have spoken about before is this. There is a great deal of talk in the mill about family law. One point in this connection I should like to make-I do not know whether I have made the point in the House of Commons but I have spoken about it publicly for about four years-has to do with the concern I have for people with matrimonial difficulties. Take the case of a woman who is deserted by or separated from her husband. There are a number of children the court has awarded alimony for maintenance of the children but the payments do not come through. What recourse does she have? She has to keep going back to the court, which is a costly, time-consuming process. Such a person does not have the means to enforce a garnishee order on wages or anything like that.
Bearing in mind that many of these people receive assistance through social welfare agencies, a process which can go on for years, it seems to me there is room within our system to provide a mechanism whereby awards made for the maintenance of children should be paid by the court, that the court should have the onus of collecting from the person against whom the award is made. The court has the mechanical means whereby the award can be enforced. The court can garnishee wages and can follow a person around to see that the alimony is paid. The present system places too much of a burden upon the individual, and I think in the long run too much of a burden upon society at large in terms of social assistance payments. I think we should do something to help a large number of people who find themselves in a very unfortunate situation in our society today.
Another area I should like to touch on very briefly, Mr. Speaker, has to do with the need to minimize bureaucratic red tape which binds individuals and the business community when dealing with government. The other day in a speech in this chamber I mentioned that I welcomed the steps taken by Statistics Canada to remove a large number of small business people from reporting requirements. I think that was a giant step forward, but there is room for even greater improvement. It seems to me that the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and other federal departments ought to work together in a concerted and co-operative way with provincial governments, perhaps through a federal-provincial conference, to make a very deliberate attempt to minimize this kind of red tape and to provide a genuine-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).
[Mr. Cafik.)


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I found it somewhat amusing that the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik)-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, I heard interjections indicating that hon. members may not have refused consent. I wonder whether Your Honour would ask whether there is unanimous consent?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I had to recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra who was standing. The hon. member has the floor.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was amused to hear the hon. member for Ontario speak. He seems to think that parliament is irrelevant, that parliament can be safely bypassed. I know this is not the first time. In fact, just a month ago the minister responsible for small business made a very important announcement in Vancouver, to which the hon. member for Ontario referred a few minutes ago. Just because more and more ministers are making these announcements outside the House, I do not think this makes it correct. If I may correct the hon. member for Ontario in what he said about the reduction of returns required from small businesses, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Marchand) made it very clear when he was in Vancouver that the reduction of forms to be returned and information sought would save small businesses some $40 million, but that would not be in effect in toto until 1981, some four years away.
The hon. member for Ontario says the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Winnipeg tonight is doing something for national unity. I was not aware that there were separatist problems in Winnipeg. I think there may be a few in other corners of the country, but not there.
I also think it strange that the hon. member for Ontario thinks that all of the complaints about the budget are coming from this side of the House. I do not know where the hon. member for Ontario spent his Easter recess. Perhaps he was doing something for national unity by staying at home. If he talked to his constituents, he would know that Canadians are worried about this budget and are worried about this country. The hon. member for Ontario does not seem to have been talking to his constituents during the Easter recess.
There are very serious problems in Canada which the budget has done nothing to correct. First, unemployment is expected to continue at record-breaking levels. At present one million Canadians are out of work, and the government has offered no real stimulation of the economy. Second, government deficits are expected to continue to expand out of control. The current deficit is the highest in Canadian history and is greater than the 1964 total of federal government expenditures.
April 18, 1977

Working Canadians will see little for them in this budget with the exception of an increase in the federal tax credit of $50 per child for taxpayers with children, and an increase of $100 in the employment expense deduction limit. Most Canadians will see no effect whatever when they file their 1977 tax returns. It is significant that these changes do not offer any help to pensioners or to the unemployed-only to working Canadians. I am sure most taxpayers were pleased to see the loopholes in the rules covering RRSPs and RHOSPs were closed. This only underlines the government's laxity, since I remember telling the former minister of finance of the RHOSP loopholes after the budget of November, 1974, when it was debated in this House.
If working Canadians see little in the budget, then nonworking Canadians will see utter despair. The Liberal government's attitude used to be epitomized in the expression: "What's a million?" Now it is: "What's a million unemployed?"
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) himself said that the federal government is unable to solve the unemployment problem right away. He said on television earlier this month that he would be as delighted, as any minister of finance would be, to try to get the rate of unemployment down. He went on to say that he did not think we have the tools of a significant magnitude at hand to be able to reduce unemployment drastically. He continued by saying that his budget was not primarily an employment creation measure. What an understatement! At a time when unemployment in Canada has exceeded the one million mark, the government has patted itself on the back for having provided an additional $100 million for the Canada Works program, an amount that will produce an estimated
11,000	jobs. The minister in his budget speech said:
It will have significant impact in reducing the number of unemployed.
His colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), also referring to the $100 million said that we will be spending some $1.2 billion on programs for jobs. With one million unemployed, an increase of less than 10 per cent to the government's employment program can hardly be cause to pat oneself on the back.
We on this side of the House understand that the government cannot correct the unemployment problems by direct programs. We have never suggested that the government should be involved in direct job creation. It is true, as the hon. member for Ontario said, that we feel the private sector should and can provide the jobs that are necessary in Canada. However, it can only do that if the government will leave the private sector alone. This $100 million that the government has spoken about will produce 11,000 jobs, but these will not be permanent jobs. They will last only for the duration of the government support. The budget reaffirms that the government has determined that it has neither the intention nor the ability to solve problems of unemployment and that it intends to produce a record deficit of $7,000 million-a deficit of more than $600 for every Canadian taxpayer.
On budget night the Minister of Finance said that without the restoration of confidence we will not generate the jobs we
The Budget-Mr. Clarke
need. He said it in the early part of his speech as though he were heralding budget measures that would attack this basic problem-lack of confidence. No such measures appeared. Of course we in the official opposition have been urging such action for years, and we have not been alone. In February of this year the President of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, W. B. Laurie, urged the federal government to give business and labour specific incentives to deal with Canada's economic woes. He said:
The first gesture to restore confidence should be a general reduction in income taxes, both corporate and personal.
He also said:
A personal tax cut would remove people near the poverty line from the tax rolls and increase consumer spending urgently needed to utilize our excess productive capacity.
That is one of the problems we have in Canada-the lack of demand caused by the stagnant economy that we now have, which produces excessive productive capacity, which costs Canadians dearly.
For years the Progressive Conservative party has been advocating incentives to individuals and business to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment. It should now be obvious to the government that unemployment and the economy are inextricably bound together. You cannot interfere with business as the government has been doing and expect the private sector to do its job as it should be doing.
Some weeks prior to the budget the leader of my party had outlined a five-part program that would have, first, reaffirmed government's faith in the private sector as the main source of new jobs and new national wealth. Second, it would have assured confidence and certainty in the Canadian economy by eliminating middle of the night rule changes. Third, it would have had different levels of government working together- instead of fighting as at present-to develop a national policy. Fourth, it would have encouraged the placing of savings in equity investment in Canada. Fifth, it would have required the major partners in the economy to resolve the economic problems.
On the eve of the budget my leader speculated that the March 31 budget could be the last chance for Ottawa to bolster the economy. He said that the lack of confidence is critical now, and he called for stimulation of economic growth and significant reductions in personal income taxes. He proposed that the government should reduce the financial demands of productive citizens by curbing federal spending. He also proposed the introduction of a small business investment incentive credit for Canadians who make equity investments in small or medium size businesses. These are the kind of things that will produce jobs in Canada.
It is true that minor measures were taken to help small business by the budget, for example, the extension of investment tax credit, the increase in federal dividend tax credit, and the introduction of inflation adjustment for inventories. But the government has missed the point. Doctor Gail Cook, executive vice-president of the C. D. Howe Research Institute in Montreal, said that the government had not done enough to

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Clarke
stimulate the private sector. She said that the business community will only invest heavily if it sees an adequate return on its expenditure. The rate of return can only be assured if there is a market for the goods and services. Because of inflation, unemployment and uncertainty, demand for goods and services is shrinking, resulting in reduced sales and climbing inventories.
The further result, and this should be obvious to the government, is increasing unemployment brought about by lay-offs, and the vicious circle begins again.
Joseph Jeffrey, chairman of the London Life Insurance Company, also called for substantial tax cuts for both individuals and corporations-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: And he is a Liberal.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -as a means of reducing Canada's growing unemployment. He said that tax cuts are the ideal method of getting initial money into the hands of consumers and investors. He continued:
New jobs generated would not only tend to offset the tax cuts by generating additional income taxes, but would also reduce government expenditures on unemployment insurance.
The Minister of Finance seems to think that he can save money by keeping people on unemployment insurance rather than giving incentives to the business community which will have the power to take these people off the unemployment insurance rolls. The government seems to be unable to understand that working Canadians are taxpayers while unemployed Canadians are a drain on the taxpayers. I suppose that is not surprising in light of the Prime Minister's comment in the House a month ago when, in answer to a question, he said:
I think that one of the reasons the country is in difficulty is that Canadians are living beyond their means.
In fact it is the government that has been living beyond its means. In the last ten years the federal government has had a budgetary surplus only once, and in every other year it has had to borrow to finance its operations.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: The figures supplied to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in March of this year by the Minister of Finance show that Xhe gross national debt on March 31, 1976, stood at over S88,000 million, that is $88 billion in the government's language, but since government ministers do not seem to understand what billions are, I would like to remind them that it is $88,000 million.


An hon. Member:: Thank you, professor.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: If that sounds like a lot, we can divide it up on a per capita basis and it still comes to over $3,800 of debt per capita in Canada today. As if these heights were not dizzy enough, the government continued to add to this debt at the annual rate of $7 billion, or $7,000 million. Again, for the

benefit of the class opposite, I will translate that. That is $20 million per day. We can break that down a little bit more. It amounts to $820,000 per hour for each 24 hour day.
I think it is interesting to observe that government costs climb fastest in inflationary times. In the later part of 1976, for example, the figures reported that government expenditure was climbing at a rate of 25 per cent per annum compared with an annual rate of 8.8 per cent for inflation. The reason for this was that corporation taxes were falling because of the business climate in Canada, and at the same time personal taxes, because of unemployment and other reasons, were rising less than the government had been expecting. The government continues to ignore what we and others have been telling it, that is, that inflation has been manufactured in Ottawa by excess government spending and excessive growth in our money supply to finance that spending.
Deficits for this year and the past two years have totalled over $17,000 million, an amount equal to two and a half times the aggregate Canadian government deficits in the preceding 30 years. It does not matter how governments try to disguise their taxes, it is the same taxpayers who ultimately must pay the taxes. Governments must tax, borrow, or print more money to cover their spending, but it is taxes that must be collected in the end to pay for current spending, interest on debt, and to repay the debt itself.
During the six years from October, 1970, to October, 1976, federal government current expenditures increased by 151 per cent. To finance this, the money supply was increased in the same period by 100 per cent. While all this was going on the real GNP increased only 31 per cent, and this was an actual decline in the rate of growth over the preceding six year period.
Even though the budget contained measures to increase the investment tax credit in areas of high unemployment, these were certainly overdue. The government claims that 76,000 jobs were created during the last fiscal year, but only 3,000 were created in the five eastern provinces. Why should Quebec have a significantly higher unemployment rate and a significantly higher inflation rate than any of the bordering United States?
I hope that the Prime Minister in his speech tonight in Winnipeg, which is billed as a major address on national unity, will explain what his government intends to do about the regional disparities which have heightened during his term of office, what he plans to do about the unemployed whose benefits have been or will be exhausted, and how he expects to get the real growth in the Atlantic provinces up to national standards. But can we expect such answers from a Prime Minister who in nine years in office has produced the worst economic chaos in history, the worst unemployment in history, and the most divisive attitudes from both ends of the country that Canada has ever seen?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: I should like to refer to the remarks of Jacques Parizeau, Quebec's minister of finance. In a recent interview
April 18, 1977

with the Financial Post he described the Trudeau attitude in explaining how Quebec had hoped to cushion the unemploy-, ment problem after Expo '67. This is what Mr. Parizeau said to the Financial Post:
Some of my friends suggest 1 really became a separatist without knowing it after Expo. A ten year old child could well understand that after Expo there would be a terrible unemploymnt crisis in Montreal. So we had to have on the shelves a bank of public works that would have to be plugged in immediately after Expo to take up the slack. This was prepared in 1965, 1966 and 1967. With the federal government we stocked a number of top projects and put them on the shelf for the post-Expo period.
Then our two governments started to fight. That was when Pierre Trudeau was rising in Ottawa and eventually became Prime Minister.
He concluded his remarks as follows:
. .. the whole remarkable program that we had built was completely deserted. Nothing came out of it and we just had to watch unemployment rising in Montreal.
For the leader of our country to treat a single province in a fashion such as that is divisive in itself, and it is no wonder to thinking Canadians that we are having problems with unity today, considering the leadership we have had recently.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He is breaking up the country.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: It is well known that we in the official opposition have always opposed long term controls because of the havoc they create. Our 1974 proposal for short term controls, which would have broken the inflation mentality and allowed the government time to adjust its fiscal and monetary policies, was rejected and probably misunderstood by the electorate.
People might have expected some action when 15 months after the 1974 election the government did a complete reversal and imposed controls-for 39 months, it said. However, after 18 months of controls, with confusion and anger rising all over Canada, the government has taken no steps to revise its policies in the direction of responsible financial management. We still had an inflation rate of 9.3 per cent last year, compared with a 5.1 per cent rate in the United States. The government of Canada still continues to grow. Now the Canadian government consumes 43 per cent of our economy, compared with 35 per cent in the United States.
Although when tabling the main estimates for 1977-78 in the House in February, 1977, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said that those estimates should dispel any remaining doubts about the government's determination to restrain the growth of federal outlays, the next month he told a committee of the House that the government will probably not be able to continue present low growth rates in the public service for long.
The former minister of finance in his June, 1975, budget said:
The government proposes to set an example of restraint... by imposing strict control over its activities and programs.
The present Minister of Finance in his May, 1976, budget said:
The Budget-Mr. Clarke
It is a fact of life that the scope for expenditure control increases as one looks further into the future. It proved very difficult to cut back on our expenditures in
1975-	76 once the year was already under way. We were able to get on track for
1976-	77. We will consolidate our gains in 1977-78.
In spite of these declarations and predictions, estimates for 1976-77 were up by 19 per cent, and estimates for 1977-78 show a further increase of 7 per cent, held back somewhat by the transfer of certain burdens to the provinces, but we know that the taxpayer will have to pay it all in the end whether through federal taxes or provincial taxes.
I would like to make a final reference to another area of the budget, where we find that the government is reaching into the graves of Canadian taxpayers. The government was not satisfied with the situation which previously existed, and now it proposes to tax gains on insurance policies which are realized on death. Previously the government was satisfied to tax only the gains which were realized on cashing in a policy, that is, the profit on the investment aspect of the insurance policy.
Furthermore, in addition to reaching into the grave to tax those gains, the government has decided to ignore legitimate loan transactions between policy holders and insurance companies. The minister tried to explain it away by saying there was no obligation to repay a loan. Well, I wonder if the government ever feels any obligation to do anything more than to roll over its own loans. Certainly banks roll over loans. There is plenty of precedent for that. Henceforth, says the budget, interest paid, even on temporary policy loans to enable the taxpayer to launch a business or to tide him over some particular period-he may be buying a house or avoiding a tax discount; it does not matter-will not be deductible under any circumstances. The fact that it was laid out to earn income will be ignored.
All the usual income rules are going to be overlooked. Perhaps to emphasize the inequities of the government's ideas on taxation, existing policy loans will be allowed to continue to bear deductible interest, and that can only be interpreted as a real incentive not to repay existing loans. 1 wonder if the government thought of that when it was entertaining the idea that insurance companies should not have to make loans at the low interest rates they found themselves locked into.
I see it is coming up to six o'clock, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion I say to this House that the record I have sketched today is deplorable and that this budget should be rejected.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Mr. Speaker, as the previous speaker has said, it is coming up to six o'clock, and I wonder if I could call it six o'clock at this point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m.
At 5.59 p.m. the House took recess.
80012-2 1

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. MacFarlane AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to speak to this budget while being observed from the opposite side of the House by the single hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Except that I am a married member.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: 1 realize that is important and 1 have taken note of the fact that we are now ready to begin. With the hon. members on this side and the complement of members on the other side we have a quorum-even though they are only two.
I should like to say that 1 cannot quite understand why there has been such a great gnashing of teeth and screaming and shouting from the opposition parties about this budget. All who looked at the estimates tabled in February could easily have forecast the budget. Although changes could occur in a new budget, the estimates seemed to be geared in a similar direction, in the main estimates, decreases of millions of dollars were forecast. For instance it could be anticipated that the budget decrease for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources should be about $577.5 million, principally because of the reduction in oil import compensation payments. The Unemployment Insurance Commission decrease was expected to be about $325.5 million. Due to the proposed changes in the established financing formula, the Department of National Health and Welfare's budget was expected to reduce by $172.8 million. A further decrease that seemed to be forecast by the estimates was for the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, $128.5 million, because of reductions in subsidies on the sale of wheat and contracts for grain hopper car fabrication which are now completed. The completion of the 1976 quinquennial census has brought about a reduction of $25.7 million in the budget of Statistics Canada. The Canadian Livestock Feed Board's budget was reduced by $10.9 million due to revisions in the assistance program. This gave a total reduction in the budget of $2,240.9 million.
If we examine the increases in the estimates, they reflect the government's concern for the things that are happening in the country. Although decreases had to be achieved, there also had to be certain increases such as that for the Department of the Secretary of State. Anyone might have forecast that who understood our circumstances at this time. There was a requirement for an additional $567.7 million for post-secondary education and language development.
At least one of the opposition parties has been very vocal as long as 1 have been a member of this House, about the fact that the Department of National Defence should receive attention and that there should be capital expenditures in that department. 1 believe the minister has reflected the desire of the Canadian public to see an Armed Forces presence which
can defend our sovereignty in the north and take care of the establishment of the 200-mile fishing zone, and at the same time be a force we can be proud of and which will service outlying communities. The Department of National Defence received an increase of $423.6 million to cover these expenses.
1 am concerned when 1 hear the cries from the other side of the House that the government does not care for the unemployed. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Manpower and Immigration will receive an increase of $304.3 million to be used to reduce unemployment. There were also cries from the other side about urban affairs. That department will receive an increase of $267.7 million for grants and subsidies to housing and improvement programs in communities. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will receive an increase of $171 million to be passed on to Indian and Eskimo bands and the territorial governments. The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive an increase of $121.3 million to cover higher pensions and allowances. 1 notice the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) applauding, Mr. Speaker. I am sure he would like more but will understand how difficult it is.
The decreases amount to $2,240.9 million and the increases to $1,855.6 million. It is the old story of robbing Peter to pay Paul. When we see how important it is to increase spending in one area we sometimes take the money away from an area we think can spare it, but even then we really know it is not enough for all we want to do. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the budget might have been forecast.
In the little booklet "Budget in Brief' issued by the Department of Finance, under the heading "Policy Highlights" there appears the following statement:
The federal government will pursue its policy of developing energy supplies. But we must all adopt better conservation practices and face the prospect of higher prices.
The best way for Canadian consumers to protect themselves against higher energy prices is to use less energy.
It was obvious throughout the budget that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was attempting to bring that point to our attention.
Some people have complained that nothing was said about controls in the budget or about the fact that this government was once against them. Mr. Speaker, I have no fear of standing before the electorate and saying that I was in a government that brought about a system to try to deal with high inflation and high unemployment. I have no worry about saying that when 1 first came to parliament there was a certain group of people about to go on strike for an increase of 72 per cent; two weeks before we went to a control system. A year later that same group settled for a 6.9 per cent increase instead of 72 per cent because of the initiative of the government. That is on the wage side.
On the price side, it has not been that long since Christmas. As I walked through the supermarkets, I talked to the ordinary people in my constituency. I talked to the union workers at
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. F.thier).]
April 18, 1977

Stelco, Dofasco, Westinghouse, and to electrical engineers. My constituency of Hamilton Mountain is a strong union area.
One wife said, "It is a better Christmas. 1 can do more." That may not sound much to anyone, a better Christmas. Some people asked why we cannot have Christmas all year round. Life does not seem to offer itself in that way. To the ordinary worker, to be able to do something a little special for his family is very important. Many people in my constituency found it possible this past year when it was not possible the previous year.
Price and income controls have helped to bring down the rate of inflation, but their job is not yet done. That is what we are enforcing. When we brought them in most people would not have liked to; we are now saying the same thing and are not afraid to do so.
If controls are suddenly removed, there is a danger that rates of price and cost increases would begin to escalate again. Indeed, 1 attended a meeting with a group of very fine people who were willing to spend an entire Sunday afternoon talking about controls, a group of union workers whom I admire. They spent much time doing research. When one person said "These controls must come off so that we can get a raise which will give us back all that you took away," I could not believe my ears. 1 did not sit and listen to that. 1 could not understand anyone believing that if we removed the system we would go directly back to adjusting all the prices so that people could have all that they would have made, adjusting all the salaries so that people could have what they should have had. If that is what we are going to do, we will go directly back to where we were, where there was such a hardship on the aged and those not unionized, but not for the person with the big salary, the big union, or big business. This Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) is of the conviction that what he is doing is for the most benefit of those most concerned, those who have hardship. Therefore he felt it necessary in this budget to reinforce his opinion of controls.
The government believes it would not be feasible or desirable to begin decontrol before the second anniversary of the anti-inflation program, October 15, 1977. There are many people who are disappointed with that. Regardless of that, 1 have to say that it is a clear cut statement. It is a statement that was asked for, and it is the kind of policy that comes under the budget.
This is not a budget which did not answer questions. It is not a simple stand-pat budget to throw in the faces of people. It is a long-term budget, something that was badly needed. It is something that was placed before us, saying there will not be changes in controls unless the economy itself reflects that it is possible to do so, unless attitudes change and this reflection is there.
A recent business and labour initiative has raised the prospect of sufficient support for voluntary restraint as to warrant consideration of a somewhat earlier decontrol date. That could affect the question of timing. The prospect will be explored in a round of consultations to follow publication of a discussion paper on decontrol and post-control environment.
The Budget-Mr. MacFarlane
In the meantime all parties are advised to proceed with wage and price determination in the expectation that controls will continue in effect for some time. It is not something that this Minister of Finance, this government, or the members of this party say with a lot of ease, but it is something they say without embarrassment, and with strength. They say it to the left, to the right, and to the centre. Controls must not go until there is an indication from the parties concerned that they are willing to co-operate for the benefit of all concerned, and not one at the expense of the other.
What I find surprising is the way in which some people have decried and derided the budget. What worries me is that many of the media and many of the public recognize that these outgrowing policy statements were coming from the budget and they agreed with them, but we continue to get the story that nothing happened.
The government has launched a vast employment strategy keyed to the job creating programs of Canada Works and Young Canada Works. Just today we had a tremendous onslaught, as though every single person who was unemployed is the personal responsibility of someone on this side of the House, and that no one cares.
I hesitate to refer to other countries, but this is an international problem. At the beginning we did not really accept the strategy of freezing prices. We considered inflation at that time to be largely an outside force upon our country. We only went to controls when we saw it become a cost-push situation. We were learning from what was happening outside.
There is no question that the Canadian economy is facing its most serious unemployment problem since the late 1950's. Nobody denies that. However, we are also faced with a whole new set of labour market problems. In the tradition of Liberal governments throughout Canada's history, the present government is responding to these problems with compassion and innovative programs for the individual Canadians who are without jobs.
What are these labour market problems? First, the labour force is growing too fast in terms of the number of job opportunities the economy is generating, even though Canada's employment record has been admirable. In January of this year employment rose sharply, but so did the labour force. In February the labour force increased more than twice as fast as employment rose.
One of the major problems has been the continuing rapid influx of young people and women into the labour market in search of jobs. These two groups of people historically have had the greatest difficulty getting jobs, primarily because many of them are entering the labour market with relatively little experience. As a result, unemployment among youth is now more than two and a half times that of adults.
Youth unemployment in particular is a world-wide phenomenon. The International Labour Organization recently reported that the total of unemployed youth has reached an all-time record of seven million in the world's 24 richest countries. Youth unemployment rates range from an average
80012-211/2

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. MacFarlane
of 28 per cent of total unemployed in Germany to 44 per cent in Great Britain.
Canada has been singled out by other countries as a leader in trying to deal with this tragic problem. United States Senator Elubert Humphrey recently wrote to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Bud Cullen) to say, and I quote:
We are very fortunate in the United States to have a neighbour to the north which not only faces many of the problems of our own economy but which has the leadership and foresight to take innovative approaches to these problems... Our young people will be very fortunate indeed if we in the United States merely follow that lead and establish the same kinds of programs here.
Instead of decrying the programs which exist, we should recognize that these direct employment programs, which are being copied by the United States, France, Australia, and the United Kingdom, among others, rank with the best employment measures in terms of cost per job created and in terms of generating work quickly. In 1977-78 alone almost 90,000 jobs will be created.
Say it is not enough, say we need more, but do not ignore what is happening. Recognize that many people have said, "Do not sponsor it all through government." Why would the Minister of Finance not attempt to influence the economy in a way which would generate the opportunity for private enterprise and private business to do its share in creating new jobs when the Canadian public really want that? We are not in that great socialist society where we are mother and father to everyone. We do have a responsibility and I do think we are fulfilling it in our job creation program. I also believe the Minister of Finance is on the right road in placing responsibility for the creation of jobs on business so that employment might be available for our youth, trained and untrained, in particular, as well as for the women who are looking for employment.
Control over expenditure is certainly evident in the budget. Many of the policies which the people want to see are evidenced there, also. The budget, in itself, has been highly acceptable to business and to the public in general. The only criticism which is anything like sound criticism has come from the labour people who point to the high unemployment figures. But they are not telling the government to stop doing what it is doing. They are saying, "Do more, do more." By the same token, if we were to remove controls and everybody went for the salaries they wanted, more jobs would certainly not be created. There would be less. So I respectfully submit that the budget has been presented in a long term way. And don't forget that our long term now is much shorter than long terms were before; everything has shrunk in time and space and when we talk about a long term now it would appear longer than we would like it, because every day when we have so many unemployed it is a burden upon the Minister of Finance.
Each moment, when we think of the number of people who are unemployed, in Restigouche County, in Hochelaga or Hamilton Mountain or in Vancouver Quadra, is a burden to every one of us. And don't forget that we have members over here who come from areas of terribly high unemployment,

those with the highest percentages, those with 47 per cent. At least in the Maritimes we have almost as many members representing those areas as do the parties opposite; we are as knowledgeable as they are about those areas, and certainly in the great province of Quebec where there is a large amount of unemployment there are ample members on this side of the House who come directly from areas of high unemployment and who are as much concerned as members on the other side are concerned.
Therefore I think we should refrain from simply attacking the budget for its inadequacies, recognizing that certain things might not be possible for a government unless we, in a country which considers itself to be a free enterprise country, can revitalize our economy, revitalize private business, so that it can play its full role in bringing about proper employment.
I should like to conclude by saying one or two words, on a subject which with due respect to the Minister of Finance, is more important to me than the budget. When we talk about the economic situation, when we talk about unemployment, there are many who would like to reverse the cart and say "Because we have poor economics, because we have a problem with finance, because we have unemployment, this problem of alienation has arisen." Let us put that feeling to rest. Let us understand, and let us shout it from the highest hills, that what this country faces today is doubt as to whether it should exist as a country. Let us not allow people in Ontario or in Quebec or in the maritimes or in the plains or the far west or the far north to say, "This is all a dream someone has; there is no problem about national unity; it will go away and disappear." It is serious.
There are some of us who have already started on the road of committing ourselves to ways in which this problem of alienation can be solved for Canadians. If we are Canadians we can centre ourselves upon our unemployment and our poverty, our wealth and our resources together. But if we are not, it will be very difficult to figure out how problems are to be solved. When I think of the people, particularly the Acadi-ans in New Brunswick, or those French-Canadians who live in St. Boniface, I wonder how Mr. Levesque or any of his cabinet ministers can tell them that they don't care or they do care, because that seems to be one technique we hear. They seem to be saying, "We don't care about the French outside; you can handle that; we will handle our situation inside." Or, "We do care about you and it is better for you if we do this."
If they indeed are a separate country, a separate entity with separate sovereignty, how can they tell anybody what to do in Manitoba or in New Brunswick? It is only as Canadians that we don't tell people what they have to do; it is only as Canadians that we can agree how these questions can be solved. It is only when we come to the table as Canadians that our problems can be solved. We cannot come with minds on separation, with ideas as to what the alimony is going to be before we have even accomplished a divorce. We are bound to come to the table as Canadians I have no right to say anything about what is happening in New Brunswick and New Brunswick has no right to ask for any assistance from Ontario, and
April 18, 1977

Ontario has no right to talk about the cost of oil in Alberta, and Alberta has no right to talk about the fact that they did not get enough manufacturing from Ontario out there, or the Crowsnest Pass rates or anything else. We can only talk about these things as Canadians.
I think the national unity situation has a far more important effect on the economy than any simple regulations which are put into force by economic councils or by people who are selling, buying, trading and working. 1 do not think mistakes in financing cause disunity. Disunity is what makes it difficult to share and have a vibrant economy. Thus, in conclusion, 1 make a plea that we should recognize what some of our outstanding Canadians have said.
1 find it interesting from time to time to read what a person like Claude Ryan has said. He hits on the situation easily. He said that one of the great programs was the program which was sponsored by the Christians and Jews across the country under which they exchanged people from Quebec and young people from Ontario. And one day, as we were standing in Central Station and we were making the exchange-people were going back by train to Hamilton or across to Vancouver and the French were going out there and the English were coming in-it was interesting to recognize that those who came from Ontario, who came from Quebec, when they came back they had really gained some English; they had learned some English and they would turn on their TVs and hear English and they would listen to English radio and see English films and hear English music. But the young English who had gone to Quebec would soon quickly forget the language they were supposed to master because the language itself was a little different; it was a little more technical, a little more accurate. The short experience of one month or two weeks, when they went back to an English environment, would all be lost and the real gainers in the language situation were the French Canadians who still had their French because of their background and their culture but who had an English influence to keep their English going.
But, you know, as we stood in Central Station and looked at those young people, we said, "You know, you will never be able again to say to one of those English kids or one of those French kids, 'those other people are foreigners.' " They might not gain equally on the language side but never again would a French Canadian who had spent that month in Hamilton think of English Canadians as foreigners, and never again would the English kid who had lived in Riviere-du-Loup think of French Canadians as foreigners. They would think of them as fellow Canadians. This is important. It is important from my point of view to recognize each other as Canadians.
This is one of the times when 1 would not use French in my speech because 1 would say it is important for English Canadians to stand up without embarrassment and say, "Recognize the French fact." This is not a battle which will be fought in Quebec. There is no room for a battle in Quebec. This is a battle which will be fought in Canada. This is indeed, if you want, a civil war-a war of the mind. We may be able to survive this war of the mind if we act honestly, as English
The Budget-Mr. MacFarlane
Canadians, because I think it is amply proven that even Mr. Levesque is beginning to look at the fact, as he talks about six million, that six million in 21 million is one thing but six million in 246 million is a pretty tough number with which to deal.
We have a chance in Canada to recognize our French brothers as the equals they are. We should listen as Canadians at the table to what they feel is the way that they would feel equal in their country, which is our country as well. This moment is our responsibility, particularly those of us who are Anglophones. Of course it is important that we are able to communicate in the language of the other founding race, as it is important that they communicate with us. But understand the danger, Mr. Speaker, of going down the road to separation. That there is some way whereby some French Canadians might not be allowed to learn English is a horrifying thought. Some English Canadians might then say that they never need to learn French. Indeed, 1 think that we should be learning Spanish, a language which is used by our brothers in South America.
I know that tonight the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will be speaking about national unity. I regret that I will not be able to hear what he says, but knowing both his spoken and his written word 1 have no doubt that it will be a speech which will be pretty non-political. No one is interested in vote getting, but we are all very much interested in seeing that all Canadians understand at this time that we are being given a great opportunity, an opportunity which comes to nations when they come of age.
When the Japanese came of age, they exported miniature circuits, small radios and television sets all across the world. The Germans gave us the language of science, the technical language of the labs. The Americans and the Russians went to the moon. The Canadian moment is now. What will our export be? Our most important resources, our youth. This is why unemployment is so important to us. Our export will be attitude. Our young people will go across the world and will say, "We worked it out. We are that great"-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 regret 1 have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired, unless he has unanimous consent to continue. Does the House give consent?


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: May 1 just finish that last sentence?


Mr. Paproski:: One minute then.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give the hon. member unanimous consent to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Steve Eugene Paproski: As the Prime Minister said, "Go out of the country and find yourself a job".


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I welcome the interruption, Mr. Speaker.
I have been given one minute and I think in one minute I can

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. MacFarlane
very simply answer that statement. Whatever the hon. member thought the Prime Minister said, or purports to say what he said, the young people 1 spoke with applauded him. I have yet to go into a university which challenged me on this, and I would venture to say, not more than any member of this House but as much as any member, that 1 am in contact with young people in universities and have not had the question posed. It is always posed by old, dull, mediocre people.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Like Lincoln Alexander.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I could also say in the next ten seconds that when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that the Prime Minister and other ministers said they would go back to Quebec, and that that was a terrible thing, that it would be a difficult problem for me too. If there was no Canada, where would we want to live? We would live where we best knew our roots were. 1 am sure that if there was no Canada, Albertans would go back to Alberta.
The question is hypothetical but the answer was well put. If Mr. Levesque is listening-and 1 would like to shout all the way to Quebec City-let me tell him that if separation comes, the people who think so much of Quebec, like the French members in this Chamber from Quebec, and also the English members from Quebec, the ministers who have served us and the Prime Minister, will not be at the table to negotiate with him. He will indeed be negotiating with a separate country. Does he not understand that that is how serious it will be? How could separation occur and there be all those members here? There would not be any seats for them. They would not be part of us.
The Prime Minister never says things in an ordinary, average way; he tries to make that very point, and 1 do not think we should overlook it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are stretching that ten seconds, Gus. I have been very patient.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the window of Canada is strong because it is made from two founding nations. In that window there are bright stained-glass panes. There are the Pakistanis, the Ukrainians, the Scottish, the English, the Germans, the Jews, the Bermudians, the Jamaicans-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The blacks.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Certainly the blacks, but I have never considered all black people as the same; I thought they had feelings about themselves too. People from Trinidad, Jamaica and St. Lucia are great friends of mine, and they have a certain feeling toward where they came from. That is the Canadian dream. That is the export of Canada-the attitude that we are not melded and mixed up. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that if that dream is achieved, we will worry about our unemployed, our old, our young, and we will present a budget that will make the whole world look. Because we will have something to share with them. That is the dream, Mr. Speaker.
(Mr. MacFarlane.)


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in this budget debate on this first day after the Easter recess. Had I spoken prior to Easter I would not have had the opportunity to discuss the pros and cons of the budget with many individuals within as well as outside my constituency, individuals from all political parties and from all walks of life who confirmed their disappointment with and disbelief in this latest budget, particularly as it relates to the unemployed.
During this period of time 1 did have the opportunity to talk to youth from universities and high schools who, contrary to what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) said, were concerned at the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had told them, "If you want jobs, go elsewhere". They are very concerned about where the government is leading them. They are also very concerned about where the recent budget is going to lead them and the rest of the country.
Another group of people with whom I had the opportunity of speaking, indeed a segment of the economy to which I sent a questionnaire, of which I have the results here, was the business community. I admit that the questionnaire was sent to the small business sector of the industrial community, 73 per cent of which was not content with this latest budget.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would only be echoing the words of those members who took part in this debate prior to Easter if 1 dwelt on the incompetence of the government and its budget to deal with the serious unemployment situation in Canada. The government has in fact not only ignored any prospect of dealing with unemployment but, rather, has budgeted for over one million unemployed in the months and years to come. It was especially my leader, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), who so eloquently expressed his dismay on one hand, and made very specific recommendations on the other, recommendations dealing not only with the unemployment situation but indeed with the economy as a whole.
In order not to be repetitive, Mr. Speaker, as I said I will not dwell on the subject of unemployment in general terms but rather on a specific area, that area being small and medium size enterprises whose potential employment is not only the biggest in an industrialized nation but certainly the least costly. There is no question in my mind after talking to Canadians in all walks of life that to continue to hand out grants for temporary make-work programs is not the answer. Instead, the emphasis should be put on permanent employment opportunities which can be accomplished by creating strong economic programs within the private sector.
The small and medium owner-managed enterprises, which 1 am talking about, account for over 60 per cent of the labour force in Canada. This is a labour force that is being squeezed under by bureaucratic pressures from all governments across Canada. I am not just referring to the federal government; I am referring to all governments across Canada. This is the labour force that can effectively increase productivity and
April 18, 1977

improve our Gross National Product. This is the labour force whose ranks can invariably include the bulk of the unemployed in Canada, but not if the government continues, as it does, to overlook this vital sector of our economy which forms the backbone of our economic way of life. As a result we are now witnessing the highest rate of bankruptcy in small businesses since Confederation. Should this trend continue, free enterprise as we know it will be damaged beyond repair, only to be replaced by what 1 have often called corporate socialism. The trend will continue unless immediate and positive action is taken by the federal government on this very serious issue.
The government representative of this sector is the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Marchand). Unfortunately he finds himself with his hands tied behind his back. I have said over and over again in the past how pleased I was that the Prime Minister saw fit to appoint a new Minister of State for Small Businesses. Although I believe the minister is attempting to work in good faith within his portfolio, one must wonder at the credibility of the government when one of its own ministers is not even able to define which segment of the economy falls within his own jurisdiction. 1 am referring to the Minister of State for Small Businesses. When 1 asked the minister on March 24 if he could define small business as it relates to his portfolio, he simply did not have an answer. This is unfortunate, but I do not blame him personally. Obviously he is not allowed to have his own beliefs, concerns or recommendations materialized in cabinet. This is because cabinet obviously has not taken this issue seriously enough to even commit the government, the public and, even more important, the businessmen across the country to initiating today or in the future a small business policy or a small business act.
Small business within this Liberal administration is lost in the void of non-policies. One example of one of the minister's main recommendations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) for inclusion in this budget was the removal of the capital gains tax on the transfer of a small business from one family member to another. That was a very good recommendation that was made by this party in the past, and by other interested groups such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. But there was no mention of this, and many other recommendations made by the minister, made by the opposition parties and special interest groups also were not included in this budget. Unfortunately this only confirms to me my initial reaction that the formation of this small business subministry is simply a temporary move to pacify the disgruntled small businessman rather than for the purpose of creating, outlining and establishing programs and policies, as it should, geared toward the growth and prosperity of the small business sector.
We saw something along those same lines prior to the 1974 election when the ethnic population of this country were disgruntled and the Prime Minister, to appease them, created a ministry or subministry responsible for multiculturalism, only for that ministry to disappear once the Liberals gained a majority in the Flouse.
The Budget-Mr. Jelinek
With unemployment in Canada hovering around the one million mark and no federal intervention to reduce this unemployment in sight, the potential labour growth within this small firms sector can no longer be ignored. In Japan, West Germany and elsewhere, where governments have been concentrating their economic efforts on the well-being of small and medium sized enterprises, populations now find themselves virtually with full employment.
One must reaiize that the most economical form of employment opportunity lies with the entrepreneur who is constantly struggling to avoid the obstacles this government's actions cause to fall in his path. Surely it would not be difficult for the government to reduce the tons of bureaucratic paperwork the small businessman is expected to cope with. 1 know the minister is trying to work hard in this regard, if only the cabinet would untie his hands and the hands of those who are working with him to allow him to make the necessary moves on behalf of the small business community.
Instead of strangling this community, the small business community, with bureaucracy and all sorts of restrictions and controls, it is time that the government initiated forms of incentive instead, be they through the tax system, research and development, or what have you-incentives that would encourage the growth and development of small firms thereby creating built-in employment at the lowest possible cost. This is simply just not happening. In my mind incentive is the key word and one that has disappeared from the political vocabulary in Ottawa today. Instead of incentive programs, we are now in the midst of the greatest give-away era in our history. The higher the number of direct grants or give-aways, the less incentive for realistic productivity. Just as the higher the number of unemployment benefits, the less incentive is there for long range employment.
We can no longer afford to create such temporary make-work programs as to study the usage of washrooms in Canada, which cost the taxpayer $175,000 only to find out that the most dangerous part of the washroom is stepping in and out of a wet bathtub, or to spend $48,000 for a study of fertility of families in Quebec. This has happened. This government gave out grants totalling in the millions of dollars for such purposes as the study of the role of the harmonica in the social culture of each region of Canada. How irresponsible can the government be, particularly when the government itself continues to preach restraint for everybody else except itself?
These are just some of the things which account for the unpredecented spending by this government which now accounts for 43 per cent of the Gross National Product as compared to, for example, 35 per cent of the Gross National Product in the United States. Keep in mind that the bulk of the American Gross National Product is spent on their armed forces, and over-all defence program which, comparatively speaking, does not even affect our Gross National Product in Canada. It makes one wonder, therefore, how the government can be considering proposals for the indexing of pensions to the cost of living for federal civil servants, members of parliament, and senators. There is no way, in my opinion, that we can

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Jelinek
afford to do this today, let alone force it upon future governments and generations. To go ahead with such a proposal on indexed pensions is irresponsible and would be the first step toward the unpredecented and ultimate bankruptcy of the government, and therefore possibly of the country as a whole. Even this government can only continue to print money for so long.
It has been said over and over again, and it must continue to be said, that the government must curb its expenditures to at least the levels of controls which it imposes on both the public and private sectors. Our party and our finance critic in the last Speech from the Throne, or in the last budget debate before this, brought out in detailed form how this can be achieved by reducing government spending by around $1 billion. Instead of printing more money, which is the major cause of inflation, the growth in the money supply must be reduced. This must be done fast.
Specific economic problems and remedies undoubtedly vary from country to country and region to region. However, general economic problems are indeed universal. Having travelled throughout my life throughout many parts of the world and, more specifically, having recently completed a national tour across Canada, this time for the purpose of discussing mutual problems and potential solutions with small businessmen, I was somewhat pleasantly surprised to find how common these problems and potential solutions were in this regionalized country of ours. Business in general, but small businesses in particular, unite this country as no other segment of our economy does. The problems, concerns, the mutual understanding reached in Victoria, are viewed in exactly the same way in Toronto, Quebec City or Halifax. Yet the threat of separation and the ultimate breakup of Canada are seemingly hovering over all Canadians today.
It has now become evident from numerous polls that the majority of Canadians do not want Quebec, or for that matter any part of Canada, to leave Confederation. The results of my own constituency questionnaire on this matter showed that
90.1	per cent of my constituents oppose separation in any form. The British North America Act which provided Canada's Constitution also provides that in a sufficiently great emergency the federal parliament has the power to deal adequately with that emergency for the safety of Canada as a whole, even though it might thereby interfere with property and civil rights in the provinces. I bring this forward because surely the threat of separation can be considered to be an emergency and therefore the federal parliament could state that under the BNA Act no province can withdraw unilaterally from Canada. There is no doubt that such legislation would be acceptable to almost all Canadians, including a majority of citizens in the province of Quebec, and it should be enacted before a referendum on separation is held by Mr. Levesque.
The fact that the possibility of a breakup of Canada as we know it does exist naturally makes the threat of separation a priority issue, thereby overshadowing the serious implications

of an economic slowdown and a lack of action by governments to deal with this slowdown. Unless and until that threat is overcome, Canadians will continue to suffer the consequences of an ill-managed economic policy. That is why I urge honourable members to consider the possibility of referring to those provisions in dealing with the emergency we are now facing and calling on the government to put forward a piece of legislation officially prohibiting the separation of any part of Canada, thereby closing any further dialogue on this matter.
Canadians do not want any part of Canada to separate, and we are wasting our time which could be spent more profitably on debating important issues such as the economy. It is true that a dialogue on this issue is taking place, as well as on other issues, but perhaps there is not enough of it. Government members are concerned and opposition members advocate their recommendations, cabinet ministers become involved and the public voices its opinion through various polls, talk shows, letters, phone calls, and so on. Of course this is a healthy democratic process, but it stops at the doors to the Prime Minister's office. Beyond those doors the Prime Minister does not care, and I do not think he even knows what is happening, and certainly he does not value the opinions of members of parliament from either side of the House or the feelings of Canadians, nor even at times the recommendations of his own cabinet ministers. The latter is evidenced by the record number of resignations and defections from his cabinet during his reign as king Pierre.


An hon. Member:: What about Horner?


An hon. Member:: What about Hellyer?


Otto John Jelinek: If this were a country of monarchs or dictators, then perhaps the Prime Minister would make a good dictator. But this is not a dictatorship, this is a democracy, and he should listen to the Canadian people, whether it be on the issue of capital punishment, of the economy, or of separation, and he should listen to parliament. But he does not, as has been evidenced over and over again during his time as Prime Minister.
Even though the Prime Minister may at times appear brave and firm, one must begin to wonder about his growing lack of credibility which has become apparent. Less than one year after he said "separation is dead", the Prime Minister is trying to polarize the issue. Less than one year after he said "inflation and unemployment are beaten"-


Steve Eugene Paproski: Wrestled to the ground.


Otto John Jelinek: -it became obvious to everyone that that was not the case. Less than one year after he said "we don't need wage and price controls", he imposed them on the unsuspecting public overnight. The Prime Minister's capacity to unite this country and bring a semblance of order to our economy has been clearly demonstrated over the past nine years. To those of his supporters who do not believe this, let me say it again. In the last nine years the capability of the Prime Minister to bring this country to its present situation has been
April 18, 1977

demonstrated, whether it be in the sphere of economics or of unity. Economically speaking we are in the worst mess we have ever been, and so far as unity is concerned, we all know where we stand.


An hon. Member:: Where does Joe stand?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Prime Minister Clark to you, buddy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The greatest line of the day.


Otto John Jelinek: It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister very seldom addresses the House of Commons when speaking on important issues such as unemployment. I believe he learned his lesson when he ran head on into the Leader of the Opposition on the last budget. The Prime Minister himself admitted-and it is on the record-that that day he was no match for the Leader of the Opposition. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister is afraid to come to the House of Commons to face this side. He has to go to Washington to make policy speeches and he has to go to Winnipeg to make policy speeches, but he does not come to parliament where he is supposed to make policy speeches.
One of the biggest mouths on the other side is that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) who is making interjections during my speech. I remember very distinctly, when fitness and amateur sport were still in the minister's lap, that as the official opposition critic on sport and fitness I recommended that there should be a sub-ministry for fitness and amateur sport. The Minister of National Health and Welfare then spoke to a sports association at the Chateau Laurier, laughed at the recommendations of the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and spoke about how impossible it was to have a sub-ministry for fitness and amateur sport. He thought it was a ridiculous recommendation, but then a few months later, as is characteristic of this government, there was a big flip-flop, and we now have a Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo).


Marc Lalonde: Go ahead Otto; we love it.


Otto John Jelinek: The minister is spouting off again, not knowing what he is talking about. He was a lieutenant for unity in Quebec, and look at what is happening to unity in Quebec. Now he is a corporal. Perhaps he should become a private.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then he could become a veteran.


Marc Lalonde: Come on, Otto.


Otto John Jelinek: Perhaps from now on when we make recommendations, as we will continue to do, the minister should either accept them or be quiet.


An hon. Member:: Arrogance.
The Budget-Mr. Fortin


Otto John Jelinek: It would also be good if the Prime Minister would learn his lesson and make policy speeches in parliament, where he should be making them, rather than abroad.


An hon. Member:: Since when is Winnipeg abroad?


Otto John Jelinek: It is time the Prime Minister's capacity to unite this country and bring a semblance of order to our economy was used.
In closing, we must not allow anyone to change the basis of what Canada and Canadians stand for, even though the Prime Minister has said that the free market system will not work. Hon. members opposite and hon. members on all sides are concerned because unity is difficult to attain. As Canadians, new and old, we must unite this country through co-operation, understanding, and reasonable compromise, and not permit any minority to suffer the injustices of restraint of freedom, whether that freedom be freedom of religion, education, business or language.
As an elected representative, but far more important, as a Canadian, I will continue to stand strongly behind these principles, which are the very foundation of this great nation.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is a duty for hon. members to take part in the important budget debate. Evidently, and I would like to make my brief comments in that context, each member on this side of the House could make partisan comments, as we have heard some, holding the government responsible for every evil and adding that if they were in power they could do better. We might also hear members opposite say that everything is all right and that if the opposition were in power, conditions would not improve. At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that Canadians would be further ahead if the budget debate failed to reach a higher level.
In my opinion, the budget speech must be considered as an approach by this government to the economic problems confronting our country and our fellow citizens. I think it is the duty of members of the opposition to judge the contents of the budget speech not as a whole but in a detailed and thorough fashion. Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to a special phrase which came to my mind when I received, as did all members, a letter dated April 15 from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) advising me as follows:
Dear Member of Parliament:
As you are aware, in his recent budget speech the Minister of Finance announced the allocation of an additional $100 million for our employment strategy. On April 4, 1977, following that announcement, I therefore informed the House that $50 million would go to the current phase of Canada Works and $20 million to Young Canada Works.
In his letter, the minister informs each of the 264 members of Parliament of the budgets based on the real unemployment rates in our respective constituencies, of what would be spent in them. From the outset all members received that kind of letter from the minister, not long after the announcement of the new program, which was supposed to replace the old Local Initiatives Program, also a temporary job-creation program, based on people's initiatives and ideas.
4742

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Fortin
Well then, to speak of something more concrete, the riding of Lotbiniere was granted the sum of $275,000 under the Canada Works program. In that letter, the Minister told me, like all other members, that if I wanted I could set up an advisory committee composed of representative constituents. Like many other members, regardless of political parties, I therefore set up such a committee, not to accept or reject projects, but to classify them in priority order. The budget was then $275,000, based on the real unemployment rate which was arrived at by using the statistics of manpower centres.
Then the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) rose and, faced with an incredible level of unemployment which is affecting young people most, he announced in his budget speech higher expenditures, as 1 indicated in my previous quotation, which will increase the amount of $275,000 granted to the Lotbiniere constituency by $238,000 to a total of $513,000. The same applies to the Young Canada Works program, for a little while after the budget speech, the minister increased by $131,000 to $301,000 the amount of $170,000 which had been originally earmarked for the Lotbiniere constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I make the following remarks free of partisanship, for I have this matter very much at heart. Of course, as all other hon. members, I am glad the government agreed to invest large amounts of money in my riding to create employment. So much so because the people in my riding are really involved in worthwhile projects. Mr. Speaker, the remarks I should like to make are at this level. From the start, the minister wrote to me. He asked me to volunteer to sit on the advisory committee which would study each project and rank them according to their priority in relation with the real needs of the constituency. Those needs were established by officials who do their work well and by citizens approved by the minister. Those people meet seriously, make a serious study, and finally suggest a series of projects to the minister in a process of elimination.
As everyone knows, the elimination is done within the limits of the budget. Everyone is happy except those whose project was refused because of insufficient funds, who go back to the manpower centre, change location, move, find employment elsewhere, and completely abandon their project and hope that it will be accepted during the second phase. Now, Mr. Speaker, during the budget debate, to appease somewhat the virulent and justified criticism of the government inaction-I mean its long term inaction to eradicate unemployment in Canada-the minister announces that the initial budget will be nearly doubled, so that now, with no thought given to the initial work of consultation and the meetings held by these people, certain projects which were given more or less priority will now be Financed. The same thing will probably happen with the Young Canada Works program.
Mr. Speaker, the same thing happened with the Local Initiatives Program in Lotbiniere, and probably in many other constituencies. First the government promises us a certain

budget and takes the trouble to state that there will be no budgetary increase. People then go back home grumbling and try to meet requirements. A non-political choice of the projects is made since the advisory committee removes all political aspects from its choice, but after this has been done, a month, a month and a half, two months later, the same minister or another one, the Minister of Finance this time, stands up and announces that the budget has been nearly doubled.
In all honesty, Mr. Speaker, I humbly admit that I am very happy to see even more money come to us, like all my colleagues, but this shows that this government, like the previous ones, has no long term industrial strategy not only to create jobs, but to maintain them. This is why, Mr. Speaker, the temporary job creation programs which come up one after the other were invented a few years ago. There was Opportunities for Youth, which no longer exists. Then, there was the Company of Young Canadians, which no longer exists. Then, there was the Local Initiatives Program, which is now gone. We now have Canada Works, and one day, probably very soon, this will disappear to be replaced by another program. We now have Young Canada Works.
That is a bad approach. False hopes are generated among people. Those people sit down around a table and detect problems, hon. members and concerned citizens set priorities on projects and then, all of a sudden, everything is turned upside down, we start all over again and we finance almost anything. I think that every member, when he really thinks about it, will have to admit that this conclusion is right. That reflects a fact.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, an hon. member could ask the minister to double his budget. Surely if the Minister of Finance would agree to do that for the constituency of Lotbiniere, I would be very happy with that but, to be honest, I do not think we have enough good projects which could be properly financed or deserve to be financed.
Mr. Speaker, in my constituency, we are trying at the same time to deal with the unemployment problem through federal government programs which, I repeat, are temporary and shortsighted and are doubled or scratched overnight. Those are decisions I would not dare qualify as political, but they are indeed very questionable. Simultaneously we see the systematic disappearance of jobs in the textile and furniture industries. This last month and a half, I visited about 40 plants in Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I met with the workers. I also met with quite a lot of unemployed. This Canadian trip showed me that Canadians are ready to build this country. What they lack first is work incentive, second, job protection and third, economic leadership from the government.
Coming back to the first point, Mr. Speaker, I would say that import controls are essential. Hundreds and thousands of jobs are lost in Quebec and in other provinces simply because while the government establish temporary job creating programs, often of a social nature, they open our doors to textiles imported from Japan, Taiwan, Korea or elsewhere, they permit competition, particularly from the United States in the furniture business, and this competes with our own jobs in
April 18, 1977

Canada; this is how our jobs and industries which formed the economic backbone of our regional structures disappear gradually.
In the meantime, the government introduced this kind of "shortsighted" program, Mr. Speaker, to compensate a little and to appease the passions and the pressing demands on the part of the citizens. So when programs such as LIP or Canada Works or Opportunities for Youth or Young Canada Works are ended, all we hear is this: this project should continue, Mr. Fortin; it was so fantastic, and once again, hon. members will agree with me. It is obvious that it was "so fantastic , but the only answer we can give is that we do not know, that it is a temporary program and we wait for the minister's answer. Maybe yes, maybe no. We do not know.
All members in their constituency offices had to answer the many requests by citizens who had a project and wished to go on with it, instead of being faced with unemployment, who wanted to continue their project because they identified a need, because they would like to improve or amplify, extend or diversify their project. We do not know, we are waiting.
Then the minister gets involved. We do not know for what reason, we do not know within which industrial strategy, job creation or existing job maintenance programs, but here comes the minister announcing in a letter that the constituency of Lotbiniere will get a budget of $275,000. Then everything is under way. But two months later we receive another letter from the minister after projects have been accepted, given priority, put in order, sent to the minister, once they are under way, the sponsors have gone elsewhere, the minister writes to us saying:
"Well now, boys, go on working, be earnest, be honest, we have new money in store for you. Go ahead! This is totally ridiculous, Mr. Speaker. We shall never build a country with such a near-sighted approach. This is what I would like hon. members to realize. Whether our constituencies elected a Progressive Conservative, Liberal, Social Credit or New Democrat member, we all experience the same problems each day. In my area as elsewhere, there were some projects probably fantastic in nature. Some were less so, but many were fantastic. However, nearing termination people came to me and asked: "Mr. Fortin, what are our chances of continuing?" What answer can we give? We are members here, we ask the government or we write the minister about their future plans. They do not know, we have no inkling, not a word. And then, suddenly, we get a letter and here we go again!
This is playing with people's good faith. The government is now forced to establish that kind of temporary program, that kind of band-aid, not because it is a Liberal government, but because it has no industrial strategy approach of any kind.
Second, the government is not interested in fighting unemployment. It has other financial interests to pursue. The proof is, and I would like to stress this, they allow an uninterrupted flow of textile imports, polyester fibers for instance and others from abroad, to compete here with our own Quebec and
The Budget-Mr. Fortin
Canadian products. Of course businessmen and consumers will buy what looks to be the best quality at the cheapest price, so our Canadian products remain unsold, employment is reduced, unemployment is on the rise. Simultaneously, the government says: "Use restraint, we must fight inflation, we must control wages and salaries-but not prices". Canadian products are getting more expensive all the time, they cannot compete with imports from countries that sometimes or quite often exploit cheap labour. And that is how, Mr. Speaker, when fighting inflation at consumers' and workers' expenses, we allow imports to enter this country to compete against our own workers with our own products and thus increase our unemployment rate. Those are the main sources of dissension in this country.
Mr. Speaker, we see one Canadian or one Quebecer unemployed for five or six months. How could this man have any ambition to build his country? He feels rejected from the community and he feels he must depend on it to survive, and he is finally the victim of the bureaucracy of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. And the government does not know what to do with him because there are too many like him. We have now the highest rate of unemployment in 37 years. We have one million jobless workers in Canada. In 1977, with a majority government, what is the problem, Mr. Speaker? The individual who has been unemployed for five or six months lives through a deep human tragedy. He feels more and more dependent on society and workers feel in turn that they are supporting him doing nothing.
And that is why the unemployed and the workers are divided, why they tear one another to pieces and fight one another. Why? Because there are no equal opportunities in this country, because job opportunities are more than scarce, they are practically non-existent. Why? Because this government is not on the side of the poor and the worker. Why does this government not have an import control policy? Will this industry have to disappear before the government wakes up?
We used to have a very prosperous footwear industry in Quebec, but it has now disappeared and we are wearing imported shoes. That is shocking. It is not a political fact, it is an economic reality. We are paying more and more taxes, and the last budget brought down by the Minister of Finance is in no way different from previous budgets. It is exactly the same dish served differently. There is nothing new there. Taxes are still there. Most are higher. Austerity is the word. Tighten your belts. No long-term job creation program. No guarantee that existing jobs will be protected. But, good heavens, Mr. Speaker, where is this going to lead us? I say that the time has come to stop playing politics with these issues.
For a long time, the Social Credit has been advocating as a long-term measure a more flexible taxation level and the use of the Bank of Canada to finance the public sector, not the private but the public sector, so as to give a new impetus to our productivity and provide some relief to the taxpayers. I know full well that makes a lot of people laugh. Mr. Speaker, in the present traditional context, neither the Tories nor the Grits have anything other to suggest, in order to increase our
80012-2 2Vi

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Fortin
productivity and better distribute Canadian wealth, than inviting foreigners to come and invest in Canada. It would seem that, were it not for foreign investments in our country, it could not operate.
When we, Social Crediters, suggest using the Bank of Canada to develop and finance the public sector, the traditional politicians, Tories and Grits alike, laugh at us, and find the suggestion amusing. They would rather borrow from abroad and bring in money to Canada to build a school, highway, or bridge. With that system, the government is of course obliged to levy taxes representing two, three or even four times the real cost of the construction, in order to pay back the capital and interest. Some hon. members do not believe that; yet those very same members are very much concerned about the future of our country.
Well, Mr. Speaker, some hon. members may not be aware of it but there is in Quebec a corporation known as the Quebec Housing Corporation. That corporation is responsible for the construction of low-cost housing for the aged. It gets its funds from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Ottawa.
To build 35 units, and my colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) as well as others have already spoken about that in the House, the CMHC loaned Quebec $563,000 to be paid back by the Quebecers over a 50-year period. The rate of interest charged by the federal government to the province of Quebec is 10 per cent compounded, so that, after 50 years, the Quebecers will have paid Ottawa five times the initial amount of $563,000. And after a thing like that, one would call it federalism and talk about a constitutional problem in Canada? No! The problem is one of economics based on the mode of financing both the public sector and the provinces.
If the separatist movement in Quebec is gaining ground, Mr. Speaker, it is because many Quebecers are more and more aware of such exploitation of a government by another. I say this not because I am a separatist. I love my country, I believe in Canada. But I do not understand that for most federal members, it is more important to support their own political party and to follow the same beaten track that has led us to our present failure, instead of trying to join forces in order to build a new Canada with modern tools and to finance our development.
I fail to understand how, because of their petty partisanry, our federal members in general are making it impossible not only to preserve our national unity but to maintain a country strong and able to develop and build itself. Since when do we depend on foreign capital to build our country? Since when do Canadians not have enough confidence in their own country to the extent of having to depend entirely on foreign finance for the development of their own public projects like the Olympic Games, James Bay, Hydro Quebec, Hydro Ontario, and so on? Since when?
What is the difference between $100 million from Wall Street, New York, and $100 million from the Bank of Canada? In both cases, those $100 million increase the Canadian purchasing power and we shall have to tax our
(Mr. Fortin ]
citizens in order to repay the borrowed capital. And according to the proposal of the Social Credit, we would repay the capital plus 1, 2 or 3 per cent for administration costs. Under the present system, we have to tax our citizens four and five times for the capital borrowed from foreign sources in order to develop our own country.
Mr. Speaker, I find it terribly dismaying to see the Quebec premier having to go to explain his policy on Wall Street, New York, as I find terribly dismaying to see the Prime Minister of my country going to Washington to explain Canadian internal problems, just as I find it extremely depressing to see the Manitoba or Saskatchewan premiers borrowing money from the Americans to finance public development projects in their own province. We have something in common in Canada and that is our collective hat-in-hand approach with regards to public financing.
Mr. Speaker, this country is very diversified, very wast. British Columbia gave itself a Social Credit government. Alberta elected a Conservative government. Saskatchewan and Manitoba opted for the New Democrats. The Ontario government is straddling the fence, neither Conservative, NDP or totally Liberal. Quebec chose the Parti Quebecois government and I could go on, to show how Quebecers, and Albertans or Manitobans do not agree in a Canadian concensus with regards to self-financing, self-government. Whether it be the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, through one party or the other, all hon. members here assembled would like to keep this country united.
Mr. Speaker, that will not be possible as long as we do not make it a political issue. We will have to agree with each other now that we have learned to live together for 110 years; we will have to review our institutions, turn the page and look to the future. Are we or are we not proud to be Canadians? Do we believe in this country or not? Such is our choice and I truly believe, Mr. Speaker, that if the referendum were to be called tomorrow morning in Quebec, the federalists would have practically no chance of coming through. And that for a very simple reason: the federalists themselves see the success or failure of this referendum as a personal political victory and not as the need to learn to live together in this great and vast nation.
Mr. Speaker, that is fundamental. I talked to some people in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan. We must go over there.
I talked to some people in Thetford Mines, in Quebec City, in Montreal, in SherDrooke, and all Canadians, English-speaking and French-speaking alike, have lost confidence. They feel that they can no longer get the attention of their Parliament and their government and that they are completely cut off from their elected leaders. Generally speaking, Canadians feel that they no longer participate in the economic development of this country.
I ask the government to indicate to me a program effectively promoting work, encouraging development of small business in this country. Quite the contrary, we now have one million unemployed and as many people on public welfare. When we complete our income tax returns, Mr. Speaker, we realize that
April 18, 1977

it was wasteful to work for this country because we end up being penalized. Let us consider the cost of housing in this country. It is an outright rip-off. The same for interest rates. A young married couple will have to pay back three, four and five times the cost of their house, even that is only a house, but all through their life they will be ripped off by the financial system, only to have a place to raise their family. Let us have a look at the government approach in the federal budget as well as in the Quebec budget which levies taxes on children's clothing-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


André-Gilles Fortin: I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for their kindness.
As I was saying, let us look at the content of federal and provincial estimates, it is not a matter of partisanship but of personal conviction. They are destroying the family concept in this country simply because they fail to encourage the individual in his work to support his family, and the wife is even forced to work. Why? Because wages are inadequate, employment is rare, the cost of living is high and domestic needs are very costly.
Lo and behold, they are going to tax children's wear in Quebec. Here in Ottawa, the exemptions announced in this budget regarding children, the first, the second, the third and the fourth, are totally unacceptable. It is a national disgrace, Mr. Speaker. And this is not because they are put forward by the present government, the whole approach is wrong, and is it any wonder that this country is no longer united? The basis of this country is family unity and since it was destroyed, Mr. Speaker, let us not be surprised by what we are going to reap.
The right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), instead of going on a trip to Winnipeg, should rather try to initiate frank, honest and open discussions with the Quebec government as well as the government of other provinces, rather than seeking confrontation as it has done since November 15.
Mr. Speaker, this is essential. What is to be earned through this kind of day to day confrontation? It is impossible to watch the newsreport on television in the evening without seeing a Quebec minister take a stand against a federal minister, and vice versa. It is distressing. And they say they would like to negotiate! But, Mr. Speaker, we shall never build a country on this kind of narrow-minded discussions. Why do we not simply think Canadian? Why do we not try to be united and to learn how to live together? Why do we not get over the past and keep the good things it brought us, and build a future in giving ourselves modern institutions? It is a disgrace to keep the other
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins
place in its present state, Mr. Speaker. When one thinks, for instance, that the former member for Langelier (Mr. Mar-chand) has resigned from his position, went to run for the Quebec election and was rejected by the people there finally to be appointed in the other place! What credibility is this institution supposed to have for the Canadian people?
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that my colleagues will think about it and consider the future of this country not in a partisan way but as Canadians, proud of being so.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East):: Mr. Speaker, I had started out my first sentence by saying, "I am going to start off my remarks tonight with what might be considered to be a rather unusual approach". Indeed, it is more unusual than I had anticipated, because if I heard the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) correctly he said something to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was afraid to speak in this House because he would run headlong into the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Well, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not spend enough time in this House to run into anyone or anything.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Ha, ha, ha!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I should like to go back a few years, because history is very important to a nation. 1 recall that when I was attending university I had what I considered to be the privilege of studying under a very interesting professor whose predictions of that day and indeed whose predictions during previous days, have unfolded into what one might describe now as historical truths. He always referred to any young students who had any radical ideas about politics, history or sociology as his group of angry young men. We did have, and we still do have, a few of them in this Chamber and they have added considerably to the interest in our debates and to the usefulness of the House. He always referred to any of the ladies in the class as some of the people of the future. It was never really his tradition to mention them very often. Women's lib was not at its highest point at that stage and I doubt if that particular thought had ever entered his mind at that time.
While he was talking about some of the young people of that day as being angry young men, I cannot help but wonder if he fully realized that many of us in his class certainly looked upon him, in a kindly sense, as somewhat of the angry old man of that day who was driving some of us forward. I am speaking here of Dr. Arthur R. M. Lower, Ph.D., F.R.S.C., professor of history at Queen's University, Kingston, sometime professor of history and political science at United College, Winnipeg. This man had an insight into Canadian history to such a degree that he literally predicted what this country is going through today. I am glad to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) applauding Dr. Lower because I look upon his as one of the outstanding intellects of that day.

April 18, 1977
The Budget-Mr. Hopkins


Stanley Howard Knowles: You were lucky to be his student.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I certainly was. He once said about Canada that if it were internationally unreliable it might attract as much attention as Ireland or Italy; but since it can invariably be counted on in advance by the powers to whom its conduct matters, it ranks as safe and sane, a successful mediocrity of a country, like Switzerland or Sweden. He also stated that writing Canadian history remains an act of faith, the substance of things hoped for. His book entitled "Colony To Nation" was finished in the last year of the second world war and the fourth printing of that book took place in September of 1951.
An interesting part of it all is that many of the things he had to say in those days have since played a major role in our contemporary times, and yet I would have to judge that not very many of his students in the mid-fifties would have really believed or understood the full impact of what he was saying. For example, when we take into consideration his statement that "the writing of Canadian history remains an act of faith, the substance of things hoped for", this indeed leads us into the field of practical politics itself.
He went on to say:
Yet it is no lack of great themes that has prevented the history of Canada in this sense from being written, for the four centuries of the country's existence abound in themes which appeal not only to the analyzing intellect but to the imagination. If people find Canadian history dull, it must either be because they are dull themselves or because the Canadian historic scene has not yet been painted in its own bold colours. How could a history full of grandiose projects, startling contrasts, stark antitheses, be dull? How could significance be lacking in the story of a country whose very existence consists in a never-ending battle to accomplish the impossible?
Here we find his penetrating mind provoking our thoughts and prodding us into a state of imagination and reality at the same time. During every lecture that I recall that he ever delivered, he put tremendous emphasis on the two major racial groups of Canada and the problems that existed between the two, and felt that some day those problems would come out in the open and cause this country to face the stark reality of two different cultures, in the same way that you have two sleeping giants who suddenly come to life and realize that each other is present.
It did not seem difficult to him that on future occasions Canada would again be facing difficulties of national unity, because he himself had written many realistic examples of the problems that existed between the two major groups during the course of his own lifetime. At the same time he was a man who did not treat history as a number of facts and figures and dates and romantic fictional stories; rather he treated history as a real analysis of men's approach to each other and, on the basis of an immense background of study of such analyses, then proceeded to make projections and predictions for the future.
In other words, he was a man with a great perspective. For example, this angry old man-and I use this term in a very kind and respectful sense-stated:

Unique solutions, founded on unwilling tolerance, have been reached by Canadians for these overwhelming problems of theirs. "Responsible government", the compromise between imperialism and colonialism, or between dependence and independence, was worked out on Canadian soil and by Canadians: The Federal Union of 1867, which through mutual agreement to forgive and forget opened a way to solving the problem of the conquest of 1763, was in itself one of the greatest acts of statesmanship in the 19th century; the bold defiance of geography contained in the national planning which was an essential aspect of Confederation resulted in the integration of half a continent.
In these lines, and later on in many of his writings and indeed in many of his lectures, he brought to bear on the minds of his students the very complex problems that faced Canada because of regional differences and major cultural differences that must be respected and recognized in a sort of gentleman's agreement if Canada were to survive as an integrated and united nation.
About his own book he said:
This book has been built about some of these great themes. The author hopes that a careful reading of his pages will help Canadians to some of that self-knowledge so necessary if they are to take their rightful place in the world, and still more, if they are to be a happy people, at peace with themselves. If he has not succeeded in this task, then someone else must take it up, for it is imperative. It may be performed by the statesman, by the novelist or the poet, or it may be performed by the historian. Certainly on no one is the duty of revealing to the people, reasons for the faith that is in them, more directly laid than on the historian, for by its history a people lives.
I would like to repeat that "by its history a people lives." Today we find ourselves facing grave problems of national unity in Canada. It is a time when we must not be looking at our present day problems in a contemporary sense alone. We must be looking at them and at our regional problems with a perspective of past history in mind, with a sincere sense of duty and indeed desire, and possibly above all with courage and imagination based on past history, and our present and future outlook, if we are going to tackle the real, basic problems of national unity with a degree of in depth reality.
At this point I would like to pay an outstanding tribute to my federal colleagues from the province of Quebec and from other regions of Canada, who are putting forth a sincere and constructive effort to hold this nation together.
What we need today and what we are going to continue to need in the days ahead are people on both sides of this parliament who possess the faith, the determination, and the courage of the Fathers of Confederation of this nation, those Fathers of Confederation whom we can gaze upon in those large portraits on the walls of the Railway Committee Room, which we view from time to time, and in no one in this House are that faith and determination for a united and continuing Canada better exemplified than in our present Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: At mid-century, Professor Arthur R. M. Lower went on to say something that today we can look upon with a great sense of irony:
For Canada itself, the glass at the half-century mark stands fair. Relationships between the two races are more cordial than normal; one sometimes wonders,
April 18, 1977

indeed, how long such unnatural conditions can continue. The English-speaking world is still in harmony and, consequently, English-Canadian souls are also resting in peace. A new province has been added: its reception into the family was cordial and the average English-Canadian even allowed himself a barely observable flicker of national emotion over the event.
In this particular statement, he is obviously telling us that up until the middle of the twentieth century Canadians had never really become overly enthused about their own nation, or indeed about their strong desire to build a good future for this country. 1 am sure that he felt in his day that a great sense of national pride was somewhat lacking.
I, and 1 am sure many or most members in this House, would readily agree that such is not the case in our contemporary times. I can well recall that when I was in Grade 11 in a high school in Ontario, I got involved in a rather unseemly argument with my history teacher because I was very strongly in support of a truly national Canadian flag, and as a result, 1 was treated like somewhat of a rebel or even an anarchist. One of my long-standing regrets has been that I was not a member of this parliament when Canada's national flag was finally adopted after many, many weeks of bitter debate and anxious moments.
Today is not a time for political opportunism, nor is it a time for national weakness. It is a time for Canadians with moral fibre; it is a time for Canadians with constructive and federalist ideals; it is a time for all Canadians to converse together; it is a time for all Canadians to think together; it is a time for all Canadians to understand together; and it is a time for all Canadians, indeed, to stand together. As an author once said:
Even the woodpecker owes his success to the fact that he uses his head and keeps pecking away until he finishes the job he starts.
In our generation and in the next we must continue to finish the job that was started by the Fathers of Confederation and successive statesmen of Canada. Like those Fathers of Confederation we must not play the role of the pessimist who sees a difficulty in every opportunity. Instead, we must play the role of the optimist who sees an opportunity in every difficulty, and in particular in those we face today in the field of national unity.
At this point in time one must consider that Dr. Lower when writing his book "Colony to Nation" was not in a position to assess the growing and long term development and public impact of mass electronic media in the field of television in particular, and in the continued extension of radio services in general.
As recent events have shown, our dedicated federalists in this country have proven themselves courageous enough to stand up and be counted and accused the television network of promoting many of the problems of national unity that we face today. Because the CBC network was fostered, among other things, to promote national unity, then there should be no question but that that is the purpose for which it must stand. While the CBC French television network has come in for special criticism with regard to charges of bias on its part, there are other areas of CBC broadcasting and telecasting that should come under scrutiny as well. Before going into one or two of these I would like to emphasize very strongly that I am
Adjournment Debate
not generalizing with regard to my comments about the CBC because there are really many very informative and worthwhile programs. It would be wrong to condemn the good along with the bad, and I would not want those who are trying to be fair and informative to be thrown into the same bag with all the others who are accused of being biased and unfair.
There is no question about the existence of a very strong bias in the CBC with respect to nuclear energy. I would like to exemplify that statement by quoting a letter that I received from one of my constituents. He wrote a letter to the CBC to register a complaint against the program "Concern" that was broadcast on October 20, 1976. I should also add that this is only one of several letters that I received on the same topic and program. It is headlined: Deep River, Ontario, October 21, 1976. It is written to the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in Ottawa. It reads as follows:
My wife and I would like to voice the strongest objection to the program on nuclear energy broadcast by CBC on "Concern" 8:00 to 9:00 p.m., Wednesday, October 20, 1976. This program made absolutely no attempt to moderate the extreme anti-nuclear positions of the people interviewed and no attempt to present a balanced view of this issue. The people doing the talking were, almost to a man, the most clamorous anti-nuclear crowd that one could assemble. What is CBC trying to do? Are you attempting to turn the public against the Canadian nuclear program, if so to what purpose? That program is one of the outstanding achievements of Canadian science and technology, one that has already saved Ontario hydro some 70 million barrels of oil and will go on doing so. It is quite clearly the best reactor system in the world.
Why is it that those anti-nuclear people and CBC people who apparently have swallowed their line think they have a corner on morality and level headedness? We have noticed that anti-nuclear types never speak out against nuclear weapons; one would think this ought to be central to their concern.
This is not the first time that we have detected anti-nuclear bias in CBC programming. We would like to suggest, sir, you look into it; Canada is being done a great disservice by it. Less attention to sensationalism and inflammatory presentation and more attention to transmitting real information and balanced viewpoint would be appreciated.
Mr. Speaker, it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on April 4, prior to the Easter recess, I put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) concerning the province of Quebec white paper on language policy. I mentioned that many businessmen were of the opinion that the coercive policies of the Pequiste government might have little effect on multinational corporations but could have a major impact on small business.

April 18, 1977
Adjournment Debate
1 asked the minister whether he was considering any special measures in an attempt to prop up the already flagging economy in the industrial and commercial sectors in the province of Quebec. The minister answered by saying that if the kind of policy enunciated in the white paper on language policy were to materialize, some areas of the Quebec economy would be hurt to a considerable extent. The minister went on to say, however, that it is too early to make a definite judgment as it is only a white paper and we do not know yet the kind of legislation which will be passed by the government of Quebec.
When I mentioned that there would be relatively little effect on multinational corporations, it was not to imply that there would be little effect in Quebec itself. Rather, 1 was stating that the large corporations are not only better equipped with staff and have more money to tackle the problems of employee language, literature translation, labelling, advertising, etc., but that they can transfer all or part of their operation without seriously affecting their sales. This is equally true of Canadian companies operating in two or more provinces.
The effect on these large corporations is already becoming apparent. Whilst no major moves are being made, departments and divisions are being relocated at convenient times, and expansion plans have ground to a halt. There may not be a material effect on the profits of these companies, but the loss of jobs to Quebecers who want to stay in their province, plus the loss of purchasing power of those who agree to relocate outside Quebec are already starting to have their effect.
However, of far more serious consequences in the immediate future is the problem of the smaller business which has only one outlet, and that in Quebec. In such cases relocation is generally out of the question. True, some businesses have already announced plans to move. Nevertheless, a company that might have a mortgage on its building, a loan on its plant and inventory, a distribution facility based on local transportation and a regional requirement, has no choice but to try to adjust. With many smaller businesses already in an extremely competitive position, the additional costs to accommodate the Quebec Pequiste government's illogical and ill conceived language measures can effectively put these small businesses into bankruptcy.
The Quebec businessman did a remarkable job adjusting to Bill 22. Very few dispute the need for progressive language legislation, but no one will live in fear of restrictive measures put into force by a government bent on destroying any harmonious relationship that existed between our two founding races in the province of Quebec.
The folly is in the concept that the destruction of an Anglophone run business will provide an opportunity for a Francophone run business. Until separation-which, incidentally, I do not personally fear-and the erection of trade barriers, selling in Quebec can still be carried on from outside Quebec. A person who was not competitive yesterday will not be competitive tomorrow. A bankruptcy in Quebec does not

automatically decrease competition or leave a hole for another new business to fill.
The obvious difference between the federal government's approach in attempting to provide the opportunities by assistance and the Pequiste government's approach to provide opportunities by destruction is readily apparent for all to see. Those who have the choice will not wait to be destroyed.
A secondary effect on the businessman comes from the reduced market. The reduction in construction, and particularly in house building, means less money in the hands of construction men to buy goods, and fewer houses needing furnishings. Once again the large corporation can weather the storm because of its multinational or multiprovincial structure, but when the market goes down for a business whose sales are local by nature, there is no other source of revenue to meet fixed costs, and the situation is likely to deteriorate.
One would not have expected an immediate downturn in the economy following the November 15 election. Business carried on. Houses were finished and the buyers moved in and bought furniture, carpets and draperies. Industrial and commercial construction went on; at least most of it did though there are examples of projects stalled in a half completed state.
It is now that the effect is starting to be felt. Purchasers do not need to buy a new house when there are so many good buys in older and not so old houses. Contracts for new plants are not being signed. Commercial buildings are not starting. Major projects are being re-examined.
Unemployment starts with the construction worker, next comes the equipment and furniture maker, and then the whole economy starts to grind down. This process has already started. The process has been started by the white paper on language policy and will not be easily halted. As the minister responsible for industrial strategy, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce must plan now to attempt to minimize the self-destructing policies of the Pequiste government. Whatever language legislation is introduced, the downturn in the economy is not likely to be arrested.
One Quebec company is experiencing unaccustomed resistance from the Federal Business Development Bank. Another is feeling the adverse effects from programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which is plowing money into a competitor in another province. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) himself admitted that Montreal, which is not considered-


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


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) and the parliamentary secretary (Mr. Poulin) the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) will allow me to answer his question.
April 18, 1977

The hon. member for Vaudreuil has always been an ardent champion of industrial firms creating employment and contributing to the economic expansion and well-being of Quebecers and Canadians to improve understanding among our French-speaking and English-speaking citizens. I think that his experience and his work in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs do corroborate what he has said this evening. However it is surely impossible for me in such a short period to comment on all the remarks made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil. The white paper sets as a general rule the right of all Quebecers to work and to be served in French and the charter on the French language will make it compulsory for all Quebec companies having more than 50 employees to operate in French. As for the Frenchifi-cation program as such, it will pursue the following aims: First, make sure that the management and staff of the firm have an adequate knowledge of the French language; second, increase the number of Quebecers who can speak French at every echelon of the firm, including the board of directors. At present, as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated tonight in his speech in Winnipeg, only 9 per cent of all Canadian firms have Francophone employees at this level, and 43 very important firms in Quebec have no Francophone representative sitting on their boards of directors. Third, prepare a French translation of any working paper used within the firm; fourth, make sure French is used as the language of communication within the firm as well as with customers; fifth, use French in all advertising, except on communication media which use another language.
Through the voice of its president, Mr. James N. Doyle, the Chamber of Commerce of the Province of Quebec has recognized the need to give a more equitable share to French at the higher corporative echelons, including larger corporations. It has recognized also that serious injustice and neglect have occurred, and that these situations must be corrected.
However the president expressed many reservations and made remarks and suggestions to Dr. Camille Faurin, the minister in charge, about granting to public servants the power to cancel the permit of corporations which would take no heed of the new language legislation. This would result in the closing of the corporation and, as the hon. member for Vaudreuil indicated, many losses of jobs, many unemployed in Quebec, and everybody knows we have already plenty of them.
There might be a way to win offenders back without imposing the fines provided for in the legislation. The president of the Chamber of Commerce has asked for a meeting with the minister before the introduction of the bill, to make to him further important representations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.
Adjournment Debate


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-ALLEGATION CATHY CURTIN AND SYLVIA ROCHE TREATED UNFAIRLY AS RESULT OF PROVISION IN FEDERAL COURT ACT
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, over three weeks ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) stated that 18 months prior to that at a provincial attorneys general conference at Halifax, Nova Scotia, he indicated his hope for amendments to the Federal Court Act. The minister made this statement in response to my question relating to a case involving two young Quebec ladies affected by section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act who were dismissed from their positions at the Olympic site in Montreal, ostensibly on the ground of national security. Tonight I just want to have the Minister of Justice elaborate a bit on his answer, and I want to remind him that in my opinion, and in the opinion of a much more distinguished man than myself, the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, Jules Deschenes, the present section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act leaves a lot to be desired.
It seems to me that in this day and age we are not giving enough status to the judiciary. We are not receiving the guidance and direction that we should from those distinguished Canadians. In our society the judge is the only official whose only mandate is to do the right thing. Fawyers cannot do it sometimes for reasons of solicitor-client relations, and for political reasons politicians are sometimes not able to do the right thing. The one person who has that mandate is a judge. When a distinguished Canadian of the calibre of the Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court is disturbed about the provisions and the use made of a section of the Federal Court Act, I think it is time for many Canadians to be disturbed in the way they were disturbed recently when members of this House brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice the apparent excessive use of the notorious writs of assistance.
Cathy Curtin and Sylvia Roche were dismissed from their jobs, and because of Section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act they had no opportunity to find the reason for their dismissal or the merit of this course of action which affected them so drastically.
Section 41 (2) of the Federal Court Act reads as follows:
When a Minister of the Crown certifies to any court by affidavit that the production or discovery of a document or its contents would be injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, discovery and production shall be refused without any examination of the document by the court.
Chief Justice Deschenes said:
But then, what are we to think of the 1970 amendment to the Law of the Federal Court which sanctioned, in five specific cases, the principle of absolute immunity?
This referred to the tendency of the executive to over-rule the judiciary in proceedings of this type. He went on to say:
Depending on each his own temperament, we may be led to be amazed or smile when we see added, in Canada, the field of federal-provincial relations-
He was referring to federal-provincial relations being excluded. It seems to me that it is rather a perversion of
[Stage Direction]
April 18, 1977
Adjournment Debate
natural justice when a Cabinet minister-and 1 do not wish to impute motives to any of the distinguished members presently occupying such positions in this House-has the privilege or the right to exclude a judge of the Federal Court from the review or consideration of whether evidence ought to be tendered to help a litigant or person defending their position. This is a perversion of the cliche-which is true nevertheless-that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.
It is not only the young ladies in question who are affected, but ironically enough it is quite common for members of the RCMP-who are often involved in this type of thing as they were in this case, by virtue of an affidavit of the type referred to, signed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox)-to be instructed not to turn over the evidence that would presumably have assisted these young ladies. By a supreme touch of irony, often RCMP personnel themselves, as was the case recently with Gilles Brunet and Don McCleery, get caught in the same unfair situation that we see manifested in the case with which I am dealing.
I do not want to go off on a tangent or cliff-top oration tonight, but I wish to take the opportunity to invite the Minister of Justice or his parliamentary secretary to assure me that this particular section of the Federal Court Act will be looked at and-as I am sure has already been done-the minister will carefully read the decision of Chief Justice Deschenes and look back in the jurisprudence to determine in how many cases people were victimized by having this provision prevent a judge of the Federal Court from assessing whether there was merit in the government's contention that evidence vital to someone's civil rights and legal case would be arbitrarily withheld on the affidavit of a Cabinet minister. It seems to me that this is a very poor principle and that it should be changed.
Mr. Mike Landers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the act respecting the Federal Court of Canada was adopted during the 1970-71-72 session, after full discussion by parliament.
Mr. Justice Deschenes recently rendered a judgment concerning the application of Section 41(2) of the act and upheld its legality, after reviewing carefully the Canadian jurisprudence.
The judgment also discusses at length the merits of "absolute" versus "relative" government immunity in relation to executive communications, after reviewing the positions adopted in many countries in which the common law prevails.
Fundamentally the problem is: who shall decide whether an executive communication should be allowed to be withheld from knowledge by persons other than those in the executive branch who are authorized to know of it? Some say that such a decision can logically only be made by those in the executive who are authorized to know; which excludes the judges as well as everybody else. Others contend that judges should be allowed to review the evidence sought and decide whether it should be disclosed or kept privileged. In this latter alternative, in a federal system the further problem arises of determining
[Mr. MacKay-l
which judges should be allowed to examine such communications, whether all provincial judges or commissioners holding subpoena powers as well as federal ones, or merely the latter.
These are a few of the important questions that arise when dealing with executive privilege in Canada, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has already indicated that he is reviewing the Federal Court Act. He is studying carefully the judgment of Mr. Justice Deschenes as part of this review.


AIRPORTS-SETTLEMENT OF LAWSUITS CONNECTED WITH CAR RENTAL CONCESSIONS-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, the occasion that brings me here this evening to join with the distinguished Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Roy) arises out of a confusion that appears to be growing around the present policy of the government with regard to rental concessions at Canadian airports. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), myself and other members have posed a number of questions in this House, going back to late last fall, with respect to these difficulties. About two weeks ago, I believe it was April 7, I had a telephone communication with the minister's office.
As reported at page 4471 of Hansard, the minister stated:
Mr. Speaker, those documents are fully available to any hon. member who would want to see them.
The documents pertain to the situation with respect to policy and guidelines for car rental concessions, and in this particular case the formula under which certain concessions were awarded. Specifically, they have to do with why there was a divergence from the normal policy. In the awarding of contracts, why did the ministerial support staff see fit to prepare their own guidelines to meet specific situations?
In response to a telephone call I made this morning, I was forwarded a letter signed by, I am sure, a very sincere and proper person in the minister's office. However, it dealt only with the situation concerning Tilden and Avis. We already know about that because it has been widely reported in the press.
What we have been asking for are explanations of specific inconsistencies going back to last fall with regard to policy and guidelines and their application with regard to the recent awarding of car rental concessions at airports. For example, we want specifics on the inconsistency in the application of the guideline policy with respect to Ottawa Ford-Rent-a-Truck, the "compact" situation, and others. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is aware that this poses serious problems. What we want to know is why we are not to be given the opportunity to see these documents and to hear the explanations with respect to these inconsistencies.
We want to know where we stand, for example, with Host which is suing for $4 million, with Hertz, which is suing for $5 million, and Holiday for $10 million-in all, $19 million. It is not enough for the minister to say to me that I ought not to be
April 18, 1977

concerned with these figures because they are not important. A reference to page 4471 of Hansard will give hon. members an indication with respect to this. I think it is serious. The amount involved is $19 million. We want to know what this will cost the Canadian taxpayer and what the policy is at this point in time.
Is there a policy, are there clear guidelines, covering those who seek concessions? If so, can we be given assurances that these guidelines will be strictly followed? The essence of my concern is this: I do not want to see the Department of Transport falling into the same trap with respect to other rental concessions as it fell into in the infamy of the Sky Shops affair, for example. We do not want the Canadian public to lose confidence in our capacity to deal with these things. I speak in the institutional sense, in a third person sense, because even though I am a member of the opposition I do feel some responsibility for the official management of Canadian institutions such as airports, particularly with respect to the guidelines and policy we follow, policies which do affect the business community.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary would be kind enough to address himself to the particular document to which I referred. The question remains: which are these documents which, in effect, explain the inconsistencies? Do we have a policy on which the business community can rely, and where do we stand at the present time with respect to the $19 million suits which are-and I quote the minister-being defended at this point? Do we face other settlements? For example, do we face the possibility of the reopening of the Avis case? Avis, I see, was paid $143,000 out of court, $5,000 of which was to meet legal fees. I do not have the figures of the exact amount of settlement in the Tilden case. Do we face a situation in which these two companies might come back and say, "In the light of the circumstances, we were gypped"? Finally, do we now have in place clear guidelines which are not likely to be
Adjournment Debate
frustrated by inconsistency and ad hoc patching up of difficulties?


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for this opportunity to put on record the status of settlements for damages brought about by the final ranking of accepted tenders in respect of the choice of counters and parking spaces for the operation of car rental concessions at nine major international airports in Canada. To date, Transport has successfully concluded settlements with Avis Transport (Canada) Limited and Tilden Rent-A-Car System which compensate the companies for losses attributable to changes in their original contracts.
A review of the facts will explain the government's rationale for paying damages to these companies. Initially, on October 21, 1976, Avis was informed by DOT officials that its tender was accepted and that it ranked fourth, while Tilden was informed that it ranked fifth. On November 11, 1976, Tilden instituted action in the Federal Court claiming it ought to have ranked third instead of fifth. Subsequently, Avis initiated a motion in the Court to be permitted to intervene in the action. Department of Justice counsel was asked to consider the relevant facts and to advise the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) whether Tilden could have been ranked fourth and Avis fifth. Justice counsel so advised the minister, and then with his approval proceeded to negotiate with the two companies concerning compensation for loss, if any, reasonably attributable to changes in the existing contracts.
With respect to other claims for damages by other car rental concessions, I can only confirm that negotiations are taking place but I have no further details to report this evening as I would not like to prejudice the final outcome. However, as the minister stated in the House on March 30, the hon. member should not attach any importance to the actual figures being used in terms of total claims by car rental firms.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Tuesday, April 19, 1977