1977-10-27

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the government's appalling lack of concern with respect to health research in Canada as elaborated in the remarks of Nobel Prize winner Dr. Gerhard Herzberg at the recent conference of Canadians for Health Research, and having regard to the stress laid by Dr. Herzberg on the need for the better funding of health research, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the government take action to bring health research in this country up to international standards so that Canadians may enjoy healthier and longer lives.


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


Some hon. Members:: No!


SUGGESTED REGULATION OF IMPORTATION OF MEAT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to put forward a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It is consequent upon the near-unanimous support given in the House of Commons and by producer groups concerned in favour of a beef import policy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That Canada adopt a long term beef import policy and that as soon as possible parliament enact legislation to regulate the importation of beef, veal and live slaughter-cattle.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering that Noranda Mines Limited has announced lay-offs of approximately 500 employees during recent weeks and considering that Mr. John White, manager of Noranda's copper mine at Murdochville is now talking openly about the possibility of further substantial lay-offs in a few months time, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House instruct the government to meet with senior officials of this company as soon as possible to develop a program which will avoid the possibility of further lay-offs.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House before such a motion can be presented for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


REQUEST FOR INCREASED AID FOR RESEARCH FOR NEW FORMS OF ENERGY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the gradual depletion of traditional forms of energy and since it is necessary to find immediately other adequate forms of energy to maintain the rate of progress and development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the government remove its budget restrictions and substantially increase its financial contribution to scientific research aimed at the discovery of new forms of energy.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 27, 1977
Economic Aid


INFORMATION
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to put forward a motion on a matter of urgent necessity. In the light of the report of the North-South Institute chaired by the distinguished former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, Arnold C. Smith, concerning the Third World and Canada's performance in which it is concluded that study and debate on international development have been badly hampered by an unreasonably restricted approach to the provision of information by the federal government, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House direct the Secretary of State to introduce effective freedom of information legislation without further delay.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion can be made at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. In view of the fact that the general development agreement between the federal government and the province of British Columbia clearly identifies three specific geographic areas of British Columbia for special assistance under the DREE program, and in view of the fact that one of these three areas, namely the Kootenays, has been ignored for special assistance in the latest series of federal government sub-agreements, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston):
That the minister responsible for DREE immediately begin discussions with the province of British Columbia with a view to providing the forms of economic assistance which are of a priority nature in the east and west Kootenays.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provision of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), I move:
That this House notes with regret that the urban transportation assistance program announced yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) represents only a transfer of funds from other programs already in existence and is thus a complete denial of the election promise of 1974 which was to have involved $290 million of new money to enable urban communities to solve serious transit problems; and this House condemns the government for its callous disregard of its solemn promises to the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VACANCY
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, Andre Fortin, Esq., the member for the electoral district of Lotbiniere, by death. Accordingly, 1 have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a new writ of election for that electoral district.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I would remind him of the Prime Minister's speech in which he indicated that the building of a pipeline would mean something like some $4 billion to Canadians, would include 100,000 man years of work and involve over one million tons of steel. Is the minister now aware of the very serious questions being raised regarding the lack of guarantees for the use of Canadian steel in the pipeline? In this regard I would ask the minister whether the pipeline contract will be open to international bidding or will the bidding on the Canadian portion of the pipeline be restricted to Canadian interests?
October 27, 1977


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, new legislation is currently being drafted. With regard to the Canadian content aspect, this is now under the National Energy Board's authority and they have clearly stated that opportunity to Canadians to bid will be given every preference. 1 might add that we are capable of rolling 48 inch, 52 inch and 54 inch pipe in Canada and that practically all of the pipe requirements can be produced in Canada, which I should like to see happen.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In his usual way the minister has ignored my question. In light of the fact that the agreement calls for implicit understandings- which does not mean a thing to me-and refers to being competitive, and given the fact that the minister has said Canadian interests will be given every opportunity, which means that some room is left open for international bidding, can the minister advise, together with his colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, whether he will see to it that there will be guarantees in order to protect the interests of our steel industry and those who provide goods and services which play a major part in this pipeline?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I said that Canadian content will be optimized as far as practicable. If we can do it all, we will do it all. If that overheats the steel mills and we find ourselves far out of competition with world steel prices, then we may have to rely on some help. I can assure the hon. member that the legislation which will come before the House will spell out specifically the opportunities Canadian sources will have to supply our Canadian pipe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. Minister referred to the word "competitive". Is the minister aware of the fact that the United States Senate, which will have to approve this agreement, is very concerned about the slump in the steel industry in that country? Is the minister aware of the fact that there is a task force on steel in the United States of America which can, in the end result, mean that there will be further tax concessions and government involvement in order to make the steel industry of the United States more viable and competitive? When the minister talks about whether or not we are going to be competitive, is he prepared to recommend to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister that Canadian companies should be and must be as competitive if such an eventuality occurs in the United States?


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: What is he going to do about it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, naturally we want to retain an atmosphere in which Canadian companies will remain competitive with the United States. I can assure the hon. member that some of the news reports with regard to American desires
Oral Questions
have been very erroneous with respect to the pipeline agreement.


FINANCE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Last week the minister announced a $150 million additional fund for job creation. A few days ago the Minister of Employment and Immigration told the House that that money would not be used under any of the job creation programs administered by him.
Can the Minister of Finance tell the House how that money will be spent, where the money is coming from, and notwithstanding the desperate need for job creation in this country, can he assure the House that the money will not come out of the pockets of old age pensioners and recipients of family allowances?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking me a very large question.


Walter David Baker: Give us a large answer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The $150 million would be applicable through the FLIP program which operates within the government to create jobs.


An hon. Member:: Flipflop.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This year it will be based on the locations and levels of unemployment and so on. Every department will be submitting propositions to the President of the Treasury Board, and the allocations will be made there. Of course, we have the money within the federal budget that was laid out by my predecessor in April. A rearrangement of the priorities of the government is being done at this time within the Treasury Board. If there is any announcement about it, it will be made by the President of the Treasury Board. I think the hon. member is not accomplishing anything by spreading false rumours about old age pensions and so on.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister should take up the question of false rumours with his Minister of National Health and Welfare, where the rumour came from in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Begin:: No way.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Apologize.


James Aloysius McGrath: Given the one million plus unemployment in this country, and given the fact that we have now substantial

October 27, 1977
Oral Questions
lay-offs and pending lay-offs in the mining industry, can the minister give the House and the country his assurance that this $150 million will not be used in the Liberal pork barrel fund, as was the case in phase II of job creation where Liberal ridings received $300,000 more than Conservative ridings, and as was the case in the government's relocation program where all relocated civil servants went to Liberal ridings?


An hon. Member:: Order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be ashamed to rise in the House when the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Churchill are claiming to have the greatest allocation of that kind of money.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is: Is the minister prepared to assure this House that he will give priority, in the allocation of this $150 million, to areas which have been struck by lay-offs because of the policies of this government, given the lay-offs in the mining industry, the projected lay-offs in the mining industry and the impact of this on industry towns?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is shifting ground very rapidly, but this money will be allocated strictly in accordance with the areas of unemployment in the land.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The Prime Minister was laughing throughout that exchange.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is not very funny, Pierre.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-ALLEGED IMPROPER REMISSION OF DUTIES
John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce: Is the minister aware of the fact that the cabinet has recently allowed three of the major auto companies in Canada $336 million in duty remissions to which they were not entitled under the terms of the auto pact because these companies did not live up to their obligation to create the requisite number of jobs in Canada? Is he aware of the fact that the cabinet made these decisions in flat contradiction of the provisions of the auto pact and, if he is aware of it, as the new minister will he promise the House that this kind of decision will not be repeated in the future?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): I am rapidly becoming aware of the Broadbent statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The House was previously aware of the Martin bureau of statistics; now it is the Broadbent bureau of statistics. The $336 million has been given out since the beginning of the auto pact, and all of that money has not gone to the three majors; some of it has gone to other than the three majors over a period of years. One of them was a truck company which is not in the auto pact, but we are going along with the remission because it is manufacturing in Canada. In my view, the hon. member's suggestion that the $336 million has been given out to the three majors in recent years is completely erroneous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I repeat the minister's own phrase "in recent years during the course of the auto pact". If the minister is not happy with my figures, I ask him to read the reports of the Auditor General of Canada. That is my source of the figures.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The Auditor General does not say it was $336 million to three major companies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, will he put it forthwith?


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE CANADA PRODUCES PROPER SHARE OF AUTO PARTS
John Edward Broadbent: I was just going to say, Mr. Speaker, that the sheep should check their facts before they cheer the minister because he is dead wrong.
My facts come from the minister's department and my question to the minister is about the present production of auto parts in Canada related to the consumption. Recent figures show we have been consuming in parts-I ask the minister not to confuse it with vehicles-some 12 per cent of the parts produced in Canada, but we produce only 7 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Edward Broadbent: The Canadian Automotive Parts Association and others have calculated that we are losing thousands of jobs because of this discrepancy. What steps is the minister taking now to remove that gap and to ensure that Canadian auto workers produce at least their share of the parts we consume in this country?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Let me make it abundantly clear for the hon. member that in the automotive trade, in complete automobile units, we have a net surplus over the United States of $1.5 billion. In the parts trade we have a minus of $2.6 million.


John Edward Broadbent: Heading for $3 billion.

October 27, 1977


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Heading for $3 million, according to the Broadbent bureau of statistics. I told the hon. member some weeks ago that we were meeting with the three major companies to see whether or not we could manufacture more parts in Canada. If time permits me, I will be meeting with one of them this afternoon to see whether or not we could have more parts manufactured in Canada. But we have to realize that the net goal is a balance of both units and parts in both countries. In other words, to make a deal it has to be good for both sides.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister's commitment to a balance is really very encouraging, but I ask him to read the report prepared in his department and tabled in the House last spring.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was before the 90 cent dollar.


John Edward Broadbent: In view of the fact that the report produced within his department shows that Canada is by no means getting its fair share from the auto pact, if we combine both parts and assembled vehicles, what is the minister putting before the heads of the major auto companies who are now in the process of negotiating contracts for parts production for next year's models? Is he insisting that we get our share of jobs?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are insisting. 1 told the hon. member that we are meeting with them, and I will meet with one of them this afternoon. That is exactly what we will be putting forward.


INDUSTRY
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, my question being directed either to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or to the Minister of Finance, they will have to decide who will reply. In view of the very serious job crisis, it is always a painful experience to see firms such as the Wayagamack Company, in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, shut down their operations and lay off hundreds of workers. Could the minister advise the House whether he has looked into the case of this company, and explain why the federal government has done nothing to prevent the closing of this plant?

Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, we are making every effort. My department is meeting with the officials of that plant and of several others to see what steps can be taken to keep them open.
Oral Questions


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary. I surely cannot be satisfied with such an answer since the company is now closing down. The problem is so urgent that I would like to put my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Finance since it is happening in his area and, moreover, he was previously responsible for that department. Besides, 1 know the Minister of Finance should be more aware of the problem. So, could he give us a much more concrete answer about the urgent problem of the Wayagamack closing down?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed aware of that case which was considered last summer. However, pulp and paper matters come specifically under provincial jurisdiction since they control the whole pulp and paper industry within the province; they have considered the case and supported the company's decision to close down. It was thus difficult for us to override the province's decision.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology, but he seems to have stepped out for the moment. Perhaps the Prime Minister would be good enough to answer the question for me.
My question refers to the fourth report of the special committee of the Senate on science policy, which is a scathing indictment of the government's failure in science policy. It begins with these words; "Throughout the years in Canada the stated science policy objectives of the government have not been those it implemented". When will the government implement recommendations made in this and earlier reports, particularly with regard to more resources for research and development and increased use of applied research in industries and universities?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the matter is of some importance but for my part I have not had the opportunity to read the report of which the hon. member speaks. I am convinced the minister has read it. 1 shall convey the question of the hon. member to the minister.


POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING GRANTS FOR RESEARCH-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am sorry the responsible minister is absent. My question is therefore directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Keeping in mind the very categorical statements and recommendations made in this report, the Lamontagne committee

October 27, 1977
Oral Questions
now accuses the government of having jeopardized the research potential in Canada by slashing research expenditures in an effort to fight inflation.
As credits and recommendations made a few years ago represented 2.5 per cent of the gross national product, which have now gone down to 1 per cent, it seems very clear, Mr. Speaker, that the committee report urgently requests additional funds proportionate to the problems we know.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us specifically whether he intends or not to recommend that, in the next budget, a positive reply be given to recommendations which strike me as very serious and which have not been made by a Conservative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a previous question 1 said that the matter is extremely important, that representations have been made to me personally by several members of the scientific community. We are all aware, of course, of the necessity for that community to forge ahead as quickly as possible. But the matter of funds provided by the government is always one of which the opposition is always aware as we are. The opposition always asks the government to cut down expenditures first and foremost. We did not reduce budgets in the field of science. We have merely increased them at a lower rate, and that has been the policy of the government in practically all fields.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we asked a number of questions concerning our economic situation as well as the lay-offs and we are concerned about the lack of precise answers. Today the right hon. Prime Minister showed good intentions about those recommendations and I think he agrees with us. It is obvious that this report shows there is not enough financing and research, and that directly relates to job creation. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to make personal recommendations at least to his Minister of Finance so that the next budget will include precise answers to these recommendations? In short, does he intend to respond to these recommendations of the committee, yes or no?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, a precise answer will obviously be given in the Blue Paper Book which will be tabled in this House at the usual time. The hon. member will then be able to see the amount of money we spend in the scientific field. What I say is that we are not always able to give to all sectors, scientific, artistic, educational or others, all they are asking for. We have to use in a rational way the taxpayer's money and try to make the best use of it in every field. We cannot fully satisfy everybody's desires.
(Mr. LaSalle.]


PERFORMING ARTS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State and relates to the present state of the feature film industry in this country. As the minister knows, the distribution of feature films in Canada is tightly controlled by seven American companies which receive 93 per cent of all film rental receipts in this country which last year amounted to some $63 million in profit. Can the minister indicate in light of the present discussion and concern about the film industry, when we will have a new policy which has as its cornerstone the principle that reasonable profits from the exhibition and distribution of films in Canada should be used to support the production of new Canadian and not foreign films?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, may I first say how much 1 welcome this question. It is very rarely that questions are posed to me about cultural policy. I think this is a very important aspect of the government's activities. In relation to film policy, I agree entirely with the hon. member that questions of distribution are key to a resolution of the problems which the industry faces. There are proposals which the government is now considering and I hope to be able to make an announcement before the end of this year as to the policy the government will pursue.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of a major article in last Sunday's New York Times with the intriguing headline "Will the next Robert Redford have to be Canadian?" And quoting a financial consultant-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps George Hees.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There might be a screen test for a number of hon. members, Your Honour. The financial consultant to Columbia Pictures was quoted as saying with regard to the effect on the United States film industry, that one likely effect is that "Canada will go from being an irrelevant source of film production to being one of the major film producing countries in the world." In light of this probable influx of American film-making can the minister guarantee that his new film policy will provide government assistance only for those films whose financial and creative control rests with Canadians, and particularly, will the definition of a Canadian film eligible for funding or tax assistance be tightened to specify that the production company itself must be Canadian?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the arrangement we now have, in a sense, assures that. The formula arrangements for the capital cost write-off require a very strong degree of Canadian participation. There are the joint production arrangements in which there may be occasions when the control of the production company is not in Canadian hands. These are areas we are
October 27, 1977

looking at. I think I should wait until the whole package of policy proposals is complete before I reply to that particular aspect of it.
As for a Canadian being the next Robert Redford, I would certainly be able to hold out that opportunity. I would suggest to hon. members opposite that they may be looking for alternative careers after the next election. I will make representations on their behalf-undoubtedly for the parts of villains.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether or not he has been consulted by President Carter on the United States' initiative in the United Nations Security Council for a mandatory arms embargo against South Africa, and does the Canadian government now favour such a mandatory embargo as the United States apparently does?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when I saw President Carter in September we did talk about the subject, but he did not give me any advance notice of this particular move.


INFORMATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State relates to the government's position on freedom of information. A report has been released today by the North-South Institute which reveals, among other things, that it was badly hampered by an unreasonably restrictive approach and inexcusable obstacles and by real or fancied security classifications by Canadian officials in its search for even the most basic information. This topic has been studied over and over again by committees and by the government. Will the minister undertake to bring forward without delay effective freedom of information legislation in this House so that we can dispose of it in this session of parliament?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have the information to which the hon. member referred. 1 think it is most improbable that the analysis he described is a true analysis of the situation. In relation to the second part of his question, I have promised to have the government's green paper referred to the joint committee so that we would have their views on the questions it raises before bringing in legislation. I would not be anxious to go back on my word when I had made that commitment. I
Oral Questions
think the proper course would be for us to propose legislation to the House after we have received the recommendations of that committee on the basis of the green paper report.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. I assure the minister there will be the utmost support from members on this side to expedite that process but I still think it is obligatory for the government to come forward and not continue its delay of effective freedom of information legislation. The North-South Institute rates as unsatisfactory the government's development of a comprehensive and organic approach to development co-operation. Could the Prime Minister tell the House what immediate steps he intends to take to rectify this situation and in addition what his position is with respect to freedom of information legislation so that we can dispose of it in this session at a very early date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 repeat the answer given by the Secretary of State. We want to proceed with legislation at an early date but we must have the comments of the opposition in the committee process. 1 believe 1 heard from the Leader of the Opposition the other day that the other side was not prepared to put anything constructive forward-maybe it was the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton. 1 see they are very anxious to put something forward now and we will look at it.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister, as head of the government, undertake now to use his good offices to insure that the appropriate committees are constituted and the joint committee is constituted and the green paper on freedom of information referred to that committee immediately? I assure the Prime Minister he will have the cooperation in that study from the official opposition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I welcome that very constructive suggestion. What the House leader intends to do, and we expect him back at the beginning of the week, is put before the opposition a package of proposals so that members on both sides can expeditiously use to the maximum benefit the time between now and the Christmas adjournment. There is a limited number of days. We would like the cooperation of all parties to try to program the time available in order to pass the maximum amount of measures, particularly on the economic side but not excluding such measures as freedom of information.
318

October 27, 1977
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR DISSIDENTS BY CZECHOSLOVAKIA- POSSIBILITY OF CANADIAN PROTEST
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. I think the Prime Minister's deep interest in fundamental freedoms fully qualifies him to answer the question. Is Canada making any protest to the government of Czechoslovakia with regard to the conviction and imprisonment of four dissidents whose sole offence appears to have been their support of the principles of freedoms expressed by the Helsinki agreement, this at a time when Czechoslovakia and Canada, both signatories to the Helsinki agreement, were meeting at Belgrade to discuss the extension and strengthening of the freedoms set out in the Helsinki charter?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker, the views of the Canadian government have been forcefully expressed in that specific area.


NAMIBIA-CANADIAN ACTION WITH REGARD TO ILLEGAL OCCUPATION BY SOUTH AFRICA
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also addressed to the Prime Minister. He may not choose to answer it, but I would like to address it to him nevertheless. It is supplementary to the question of the hon. member for York-Scarborough. I am not particularly concerned with what the President of the United States proposes to do about sanctions against the South African government in respect of their illegal occupation of Namibia. What I would like to know is what Canada proposes to do in this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that the parliamentary secretary who answers is answering in the absence of his minister. That is quite usual practice in this House. He answered quite properly that the department had made strong representations.
On the second question, I stated in my earlier answer that a large part of my discussions in September when I met President Carter were on the whole problem of Africa and that we reviewed in some detail the situation there, but particularly with regard to Namibia, we reviewed the role of the Group of Five, of which Canada is a member, in order to bring to a peaceful solution the problem of Namibia. We are making progress. We hope we will be successful with the Canadian initiative.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the National Capital Commission, namely the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Could he tell the House whether construction on Highway 50, within the Green Belt, will start in the fall? If so, what will be the federal participation in these works?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec public works minister and the provincial member, Mr. Alfred, recently gloated over the construction of that highway. They forgot to mention that it was thanks to an agreement signed with the former Liberal government in Quebec, in 1972, that such projects can be achieved and that the NCC will in fact contribute 50 per cent of the cost.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the minister's assurances to myself and to the mayor of Castlegar that there would be some provision in the recent subagreements signed with British Columbia to resolve the critical water shortage in Castlegar, and in view of the fact that a senior official of the minister's department has now indicated there are no provisions in these subagreements of any significant assistance to that city, is the minister now prepared to actively pursue a subagreement for Castlegar similar to the one which he signed for Fort Nelson?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, I never said there would be a specific reference for Castlegar in the subagreement. What I in fact said was that the subagreement will be a program to correct most of the problems whereby both governments will be able to get involved in such projects if both governments decide this is the project that should be given priority. To say that we have launched into new negotiations for a specific program for a specific city, I am not in a position to do that today.


Robert Hylton Brisco: In view of the fact the economy of Kootenay West is now demonstrating an upturn against the national trend, and in view of the fact that that upturn depends in no small measure on a guaranteed water supply for Castlegar on which another $500 million injection into the local economy is also dependent, will the minister now reconsider his answer

October 27, 1977

and address himself to the possibility of a subagreement of $3 million for the city of Castlegar?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the hon. member that when we had those discussions, I agreed with him and the provincial minister that if there was a need in that region, the province should submit it to us within the agreement which was signed and which provides for the possibility of interventions though not necessarily oriented towards the central element of this need that is a new water system. However, there might be other formulas through the present agreement which would allow us to solve at least partly the problem about which the hon. member is concerned.
However, on the whole, the agreement applies to this entire part of the province. I would like to correct the false impression that he may have created by saying that Kootenay West is not excluded from the agreement that has been signed.


TOURISM
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister spoke to the tourist industry in Toronto yesterday, pointing out that tourism is now Canada's largest single employer. It has a huge deficit this year in the travel account, almost $2 billion. The minister pointed out that travel costs are too high in Canada compared to the United States, air fares are too high and gasoline at the pump too expensive. Does the minister agree with the government's policy of moving to the world price for oil in view of his remarks or, in the alternative, will the government accept the suggestion of the tourist industry that the federal excise tax on a gallon of gasoline be reduced from ten cents to three cents to help with this problem?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is always gratifying to know that the opposition reads my speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With regard to the increase in Canadian prices in an attempt to reach world oil prices, the purpose is to encourage exploration so that we might perhaps reach the point in Canada of being able to boast that we are self-sufficient in oil and gas. I hope we have that capability and I hope we are able to do it.
With regard to the ten cent tax on gasoline, it has been disadvantageous to the tourist industry in Canada. However, I think recent increases in gasoline prices in the United States will put us in balance with that country. The value of our
Oral Questions
dollar today at 90 cents will encourage more American tourists to visit Canada. I think I can quite confidently say that next year the tourist trade imbalance will be considerably smaller than this year and the previous years.


John Carnell Crosbie: I always enjoy reading the minister's speeches, although he said yesterday he had no specific answers to the problems in the tourist industry. Air travel is much more expensive than abroad. In fact, to go from Toronto to Quebec, the consumer cost per mile is 400 per cent greater than to go from Toronto to Miami or Toronto to London. Will the minister take up with the Minister of Transport this ridiculous fare structure in Canada to get it changed so that Canadians will be encouraged to travel at home rather than to foreign countries?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, there is hope for everybody. If the hon. member had read a little further in that speech, he would have seen that I and my department clearly advocate that we want domestic advance charter bookings for Canadians travelling in Canada. The department has gone before the CTC. The CTC has finished their hearings on it. We expect a decision relatively soon, hopefully within the next couple of weeks.


PUBLIC SERVANTS STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. A week ago the hon. member for Ottawa West raised the question of whether any amendments would be forthcoming to the Public Servants Staff Relations Act? Could the right hon. gentleman advise the House whether amendments are coming forward this session and, if not, why not?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government will have to move amendments to that Act but I cannot undertake to say, now, at what point in the session they will be moved, whether in the first part or the second part, or, indeed, whether they will be moved at all in this session of parliament. It would depend upon the work program which the House leader is discussing with the other parties.


John Allen Fraser: Is there any reason why this item has not been placed on a priority list? After all, it is almost four years since the Finkelman report came down. Those affected are employees of the government and I think they are entitled to know what is going to happen and what the extensive Commons and Senate committee of inquiry achieved and when the recommendations will be put into effect. As time goes on, those findings may be less relevant to the situation than they are now.
80025-21 Vi

October 27, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with the hon. member that this is a priority question and I can tell him that it is on a priority list. I repeat what was said in the Speech from the Throne and what I have said since: in the first part of this session, we shall be dealing essentially with economic matters, budget bills and so on, and if we can proceed expeditiously with those matters we shall have time in the second part of the session to deal with other priorities such as the one mentioned by the hon. member.


POST OFFICE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Postmaster General. For some time, now, there have been rumours that the Post Office Department intends to discontinue Saturday delivery to rural box-holders. I do not believe the minister intends to do this, and I do not know how the rumour got started. Saturday mail is very important to rural boxholders; it affects delivery of the newspaper, which some of them get only on Saturdays. Can the minister confirm or deny that he plans to discontinue Saturday delivery to rural boxholders?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1 do not know where the rumour started either. In terms of the area in which the hon. gentleman lives, there is no plan afoot to cut back rural delivery.


CENTRAL MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It has to do with a questionnaire which was prepared by CMHC and circulated to senior citizens in Manitoba in which senior citizens were asked whether they would consider selling their homes to the government with the proviso that the government would allow them to continue to live in those homes as long as they wished. Is it CMHC policy to buy the homes of Manitoba senior citizens and then to place those senior citizens in public housing?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, this is not a policy of the corporation but an investigation carried out by a few social workers in that province simply for study purposes, with a view perhaps towards advising the government on new policies to assist in the construction of housing or the use of existing houses to offer more economical housing to senior citizens.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister tells us that the questionnaire was prepared by social workers. The fact of the matter is that the envelope is directed right back to the CMHC. Since this questionnaire is such as to intimidate senior citizens in Manitoba, would the hon. gentleman make an unequivocal statement that it is not the policy of the government to take away homes, the only security these people have, and place these senior citizens in public housing, as has been suggested on various occasions?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member believes that we want to deprive citizens of their houses, he is completely mistaken. I can immediately assure him that we have no such intention. However, I do not see why the hon. member blames the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for co-operating with people who want to find new solutions to offer more housing to senior citizens and at less cost. I believe this action is quite justified and easy to explain.


MANPOWER
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the intention of the Brunswick Mining & Smelting Company, near Bathurst, in New Brunswick, a subsidiary of Noranda Mines, to reduce its staff by about 200 employees, can the minister tell the House whether he will ensure that the worksharing program now provided under the Unemployment Insurance Act is offered to the employees and the company so as to avoid lay-offs? Can the minister also tell the House when the provisions of the act which provide for this program will be proclaimed?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Immediately upon receiving this information I ascertained that, fortuitously, my deputy minister was in the area. He did discuss the whole matter with both management and labour as well as with the deputy minister of labour for the province, indicating the resources which were available and which could be made available. In addition, I have had conversations with Premier Hatfield who has been successful in extending the lay-off timetable for a couple of weeks, I believe, so that we can look into the whole matter. We are examining it in some detail.
October 27, 1977


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I will pose my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government has imposed strict controls on working people, on business people, can he tell the House whether he is aware that Figures released to me by the government show that the government annually spends more than S5.5 million on hospitality and about $2 million on taxis? If so, would he not agree that these uncontrolled expenditures show that the government has one standard for itself and another much tougher standard for people in the rest of the country?
[ Translation}


Hon. Jean Chr6tien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is absent from the House because he is on a business trip. Of course, there are always expenses incurred by the government. Would the hon. member tell us if he absolutely wants us to cut all those things; for instance, there is the matter of taxis. Some employees, both men and women, are forced to work in the evening. There may be no bus service available at that time so the government must respect the collective agreements and supply a means of transportation. We should perhaps try to control them a little more closely but we developed some years ago a new system which further restricts the opportunity for employees to use taxis, and we always look very closely at this kind of expense.


POST OFFICE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Apparently the minister is satisfied that this $7.5 million is being well spent; he will have a hard time convincing the Canadian people, though.
My supplementary question is to the Postmaster General. In view of the massive Post Office deficit, may I ask whether the Postmaster General is aware that the government's bill for telegrams and cables in 1975 was more than $6 million and included expenditures of about $200,000 each for the Departments of Transport, Public Works, and Fisheries and the Environment? Is he aware that his own department, which regularly spends vast amounts to promote an increased use of the mails, spent more than $180,000 on telegrams and cables?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: We are well aware we are facing competition from faster services in the telecommunications area. That is the reality we are facing. Canada has one of the most sophisticated telecommunications systems in the world and the hon. gentleman is surely not insisting that
Oral Questions
in terms of administering the Post Office we ought not to be able to use the faster telecommunications system as in the same way as other citizens in the country?

Mr. Speaker, the Post Office is obviously a system for mail delivery, and there will be delays from time to time. Thus as a department, we cannot be prevented from using other quick means of telecommunications, like any Canadian, given that we have in Canada one of the most sophisticated and most developed telecommunication systems in the world.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Back in March, the minister who then held the hon. gentleman's portfolio stated that in October of this year, which is now, an announcement would be made of further assistance to our ailing shipbuilding industry in Canada. Is the minister now in a position to give some indication as to what measures of assistance the government will be taking to aid this very important industry so that every effort is made to maintain the 16,000 direct jobs and the 45,000 directly related jobs in the industry?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I intend to announce very soon continued support for the shipbuilding industry.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister very much for the answer but, whatever that aid may be, will he give serious consideration to matching the assistance which offshore shipbuilding companies are receiving from their governments so that our shipbuilding companies can compete on a more equal footing in tendering for orders?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are well aware of the various forms of assistance which other countries are giving their shipbuilding industry and we are trying to offset that as much as we can.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs based on the answer that he gave yesterday to my friend the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe to the effect that veterans on disability pensions will have to be satisfied

October 27, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
with an increase in January based on the rise in the consumer price index. In view of the fact that that answer fails to recognize that it is precisely because veterans' disability pensions have been increased only in accordance with the CPI that the gap of more than $500 per year has developed between the level that was set three or four years ago in relation to five categories in the public service and the amount that veterans are receiving. In view of all this, will the minister ask his cabinet colleagues to reconsider the urgent representations of veterans' organizations for the closing of that gap?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday to my colleague for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, the government has considered this. I tried to explain yesterday that due to fiscal restraints the veterans will receive the cost of living index as of January. I also want to leave the impression with the House of Commons that when fiscal conditions become a little better the government will certainly be looking at this again.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, either by bringing in legislation or in some other way, make the necessary arrangements so that these matters can be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and the government can have the views of that committee on this matter, on the question of the pension of widows, on World War I prisoners of war, and so on? Can we have some discussion in the committee at an early date?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I do not see any reason why this cannot be entertained, Mr. Speaker.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PRIME MINISTER OF GUYANA
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know hon. members would want to join with me in calling attention to the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Guyana, the Honourable L. F. S. Burnham.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: more sense to accumulate stockpiles like this and sell them off than it does to pay some $22 million out in unemployment insurance claims. In response to my suggestion of a stockpile the Prime Minister said that INCO has stockpiled for a period of 12 to 14 months, and as reported at page 217 he went on to say:
The question is: how much longer does the Leader of the New Democratic Party want the stockpiling to go on?
Here, Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that the Prime Minister's statement, if not factually wrong, is very misleading in terms of what was being proposed. They have been stockpiling-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, I have been listening carefully to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. On the first two aspects, he is dealing with the factual correctness of statements made during the question period, which I have traditionally allowed by way of a question of privilege. It seems to me that on his third point he is now launching into an area of disagreement or into a different interpretation to be put, which would not fall within a question of privilege. On the first two aspects, I have respected his right to raise a factual incorrectness by way of a question of privilege in order to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to correct the record.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling, of course, and I will not proceed with the third point, which is a matter of interpretation. I respectfully suggest that the two other points are very serious indeed and that the Prime Minister ought to clarify and correct the record.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, The Prime Minister would like to apologize; he has had to go to meet with the Prime Minister of Guyana so he would like to reserve his position in replying to the point made by the hon. member. I think we are always subject to differences of view, but I personally was present at the meeting before the announcement was made. I heard some of the facts stated by the Prime Minister in his reply and they were mentioned by the company throughout. Obviously, we were not talking to the same people within INCO, and we will have to check who is right. Evidently, we have received information from different sources.


MR MCGRATH-CLOSING OF FLUORSPAR MINE AT ST. LAWRENCE, NEWFOUNDLAND-MINISTER'S REPLY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my point of order refers to a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) yesterday arising out of an answer by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to my question. The record has to be corrected, and more importantly, because of the uncertainty facing the people of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, they deserve some direct response from the government of Canada as to the recommendation made to the government of Newfoundland in regard to tariffs and ways and means of protecting the jobs of those
Business of the House
people who are facing the consequences of a shutdown by Alcan.
In response to the hon. member for St. John's West, the minister indicated that it was not his intention to mislead the House. I am sure the minister realizes the gravity and seriou-ness of the situation. As reported at page 291 of Hansard dated October 26, 1977, the Minister of Finance is quoted as saying:
If I can provide an answer to both hon. members I will do so tomorrow or the day after.
In view of the fact that this is a serious matter, I wonder if the minister is prepared to correct the record now.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is prepared to correct the record, I would suggest he ought to do so with the consent of the House, which I presume will be forthcoming under the circumstances. Does the House consent to the minister making that correction?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have looked into the possibility of imposing a duty on fluorspar. The fluorspar which is imported will not be used in the same fashion as the fluorspar produced in Newfoundland. Therefore, the situation will not change. The matter is being investigated.
In regard to the future of this operation in St. John's, I did not realize all the aspects of the question yesterday. The hon. member should be informed that there have been consultations among the company, the provincial government of Newfoundland and the federal government. We have agreed to share the cost of a study being conducted in Newfoundland by a specialist from England. At this time there are discussions among the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the provincial authorities and Alcan in order to find the reason the operation must stop, and if there is any solution in order to maintain the operation.
Yesterday I was confusing this problem with another problem. I was aware of the problem, but at that point I did not realize it was the St. Lawrence operation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the government House leader, whom I understand is still quite ill, I wonder if I might ask the deputy House leader the government's intention with respect to House business. Perhaps he can inform the House regarding the discussions the House leader and I have had with respect of certain temporary changes in hours and rules, which I understand are agreeable to all parties.

October 27, 1977
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the business for next week?


Walter David Baker: 1 was including the business for next week, that goes without saying.


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to apologize to the other House leaders in that I have not been able to fulfil my expected intention which was announced last week. When 1 talked with them individually regarding the business before the House, I anticipated the government House leader would have returned to this Chamber by now. Therefore, that is the reason for my intention not being fulfilled.
I think I am about as sick as the government House leader at the present time; but the business of the House which will be called for Monday is the Canada Elections Act. Hopefully that will be dealt with in one day. It is not too controversial, but it is an important piece of legislation which needs to be passed expeditiously. Following that, we will deal with the report stage of the Air Canada bill and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. At the same time, when the Income Tax bill is brought before the House, it will take precedence over the bills I have announced already.
In so far as the other negotiations which have taken place earlier this day, they relate to three specific areas: first, a limitation on debate for the balance of the throne speech to 20 minutes, which has been agreed to by all House leaders; second, the possibility of a deferred vote, any vote which may be called tomorrow to be deferred until 9.45 p.m. on Tuesday next; and, third, relating to the hours of sitting during the month of November.
In regard to this latter point, I was approached as to whether we would sit next Friday because of the impending Progressive Conservative national convention. It is customary that we take cognizance of these things and adjust our schedule. In order to accommodate that, and the other matters I have referred to, I believe Your Honour will get unanimous agreement to the following order:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order, the House shall not sit November 4, 1977; and
That the House shall adjourn at 6:00 p.m. on November 3, 1977 and November 10, 1977; and
That, during the month of November, 1977, the ordinary time of daily adjournment shall be 10:30 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and 6:30 p.m. on Wednesdays, provided that, on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 40 shall be taken up between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.; and
That, for the remainder of the Debate on the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, no member shall speak for more than twenty minutes and, if a division is demanded on the said motion, it shall be deferred to 9:45 p.m., November 1, 1977.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we seem to be dealing with two things. First, we have questions about House business, and second, we have the proposed motion that the deputy House leader has just presented.
Under the heading of House business, may I ask the deputy House leader whether he has had any discussions with the government House leader concerning a bill respecting Herit-

age Day. We have been promised this legislation for three or four years now. When one asked questions about it in the early part of the year, he was told that February was a long way off. February is only four months away now, and I should like to know whether there will be legislation in this session with respect to Heritage Day, and will it be brought forward in time for it to be in effect in February, 1978?
With respect to the proposed motion regarding the hours of sitting, my party is in agreement with it. The main purpose for the cancelling of the sittings next Thursday night and Friday has to do with the Progressive Conservative Party convention which will be held in Quebec City. This is a courtesy which is usually extended to all parties. Certainly my party goes along with it. As a matter of fact, on the assumption that the convention might receive some television coverage, there would be pretty tough competition between this House and the Tory convention at the same time. So, I guess it is just as well for us to give the Tories the air.
With regard to the proposal that speeches be limited to 20 minutes for the remainder of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, we are prepared to agree to that as well. I would like to entei a caveat or make this comment, however, that we are having our usual difficulties getting places for all the speakers whom we think we should have, and since the purpose of cutting down speeches to 20 minutes is to get as many in as possible, my agreement to that is based on the fact that we would like to be sure of one speaker today and one speaker tomorrow. We are not asking for any additional speakers but we do not think we should be prevented from having members of our party who are entitled to it take part in this debate. But on that understanding, we are prepared to agree to the motion that is put. I hope I can have an answer about Heritage Day, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: As the House knows, the motion has to be presented at this time with the consent of the House because there has been no notice given. Furthermore, the House would have to deal with it only with consent, so I do not think we need a discussion of the conditions or agreements. However, the caveat was well advertised.
The House has listened carefully to the proposed motion put forward by the deputy House leader. Its terms relate to clear events relating to the Conservative convention and, following that, to the ability of members to participate in Cenotaph ceremonies on November 11 and then for 20 minutes in the remaining speeches in the debate on the Address in Reply.
Does the House consent to dealing with this motion at present?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
October 27, 1977
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the deputy government House leader and my colleagues on both sides of the House for the courtesy they have extended to our party.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rise to respond to the question put by the House leader of the NDP. He wanted to know if any discussions had been held with the House leader in respect of Heritage Day. To be quite specific, no, no discussions have been held directly between me and the House leader. But discussions have been held and I think this matter would be dealt with more appropriately by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) under whose office this bill would normally proceed. Perhaps he might be allowed to answer that question.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows of my own very strong desire to proceed with the implementation of the legislation which had been presented to the House in past sessions, although not passed. It is therefore with considerable regret that I have to tell him that, in view of the economic implications of the legislation, it is not the intention of the government to proceed with it in the coming session of parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another broken promise!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the business of the House in the interests of efficiency. Next week we are beginning to consider government legislation, the first item of which is Bill C-5, some 100 pages in length. Would it be possible for the government to give serious consideration to including an index in such bills, particularly major ones, in order that members can make much more efficient use of them? Our current procedure in presenting bills, sometimes of great length, without any index makes it cumbersome and time consuming to use these documents. I think it would not involve too much trouble in the future if these bills were printed with a workable index.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I would simply indicate that the concern expressed by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) is one that I, as a backbencher, have shared. Until such time as there is a new form of presentation of bills, I think that the committee to which the bill is referred should in fact turn over its own staff to try to arrange the bill in such a manner that it is more easily and expeditiously dealt with.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the announcement of the deputy House leader on the traditional statement prior to November 11. As you will recall, last year there were interferences in the form of questions of privilege and points of order which caused embarrassment across the country. I think it should be guaranteed that the statement by the minister on Remembrance Day take place at a certain time and take precedence over any other business of the House.
The Address-Mr. Tessier


Norman Augustine Cafik: I will simply respond, not by way of making a commitment, but by saying that discussions have been undertaken on whether the minister should in fact make his statement immediately at the opening of that particular day preceding the question period and for the question period to be extended beyond that period to make up for the difference in time. No decision has been made, but I can assure hon. members that I am quite aware of the concerns they have expressed and I hope an agreement can be reached to accommodate that type of arrangement.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Infiation Act, I wish to table in both official languages copies of reports sent to the Administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-8, entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code".


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

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dennis Dawson for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to the speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. Claude Tessier (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, the obligation and the duty for elected representatives to intervene periodically and more officially in this House have been today vested in me. I express my gratitude to the Prime Minister for the confidence he thus places in me. All citizens in Compton riding also appreciate that mark of confidence regarding their desire to make the reality known to all Canada, unfortunate though it may be.
326

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Tessier
Those preoccupations and the avenue open to them today would appear sterile and outrageous for some 70,000 of my fellow citizens from the province of Quebec if they endorsed without question the position of the government and particularly of the party to which I belong.
Would anyone dare presume of my convictions regarding my chief, my colleagues, my allegiance? I do not think so. Mr. Speaker, even if my modest contribution to the ideal we are striving for were in the denunciation of its weaknesses, I would be convinced to have honestly contributed and offered what I have left of sincerity as member of a party and as a member of the institution of the Parliament of Canada.
Compton riding would figure favourably in a global analysis of the situation in Quebec on the cultural, social and economic aspects. The population of Compton is 80 per cent Francophone and 20 per cent Anglophone. The level of unemployment is one of the highest in the country and we have no hope of an economic recovery as our economy has long been in a state of stagnation. The existing industry steadily curtails its operations and it seems almost impossible to get new markets.
The direct allusion made by Her Majesty in her Speech from the Throne concerning the imminence of feelings like alienation, hostility and resentment caused by a possible lack of stability and equity is now part of day-to-day reactions in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, although I loudly voice my appreciation, this does not mean that 1 do not endorse the views of hundreds of my fellow-citizens who fight constantly against the departure of our young people, the phasing out and reduction of our essential services such as rail transportation and even the postal services in some cases. Among other things and with the help of the federal government those generous citizens promoted a tourist resort in Coaticook and an outdoor recreational area in Lake Megantic that are practically unique in Quebec as regards their location and their size.
It is with satisfaction as well that I welcome the recent action taken by a few businessmen and some 360 factory workers to preserve Waterville's source of livelihood and its right to work. It is a perfect example that enables me to reassert my confidence in private enterprises while urging the government to support equitably.
Mr. Speaker, like most hon. members, I cannot dissociate the Speech from the Throne from the economic and fiscal statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). In fact, both statements appear to me as related and complementary.
The federal government can only prove its good intentions by showing positively and unequivocally its will to stimulate our economy as a whole. What about the proposals put forward by the Minister of Finance? Although commendable, do they really take into account the prime purpose, which is to establish an adequate infrastructure for the creation of permanent jobs? Unfortunately, we cannot overlook the three factors which, as the Minister of Finance stated, hinder our growth- the relative weakness of our export markets, the high cost of

our production, mainly due to ever increasing wage demands, and the loss of confidence brought about by our slow growth and the political uncertainty resulting from our threatened national unity.
I recognize that these problems are not peculiar to our country. However, whereas experts are considering development models for some third world countries, we fail to take in our country a systematic approach to strengthen our own economic structure, and this often under the pretence that we are rich and that our per capita income is higher than that of most other nations.
Mr. Speaker, the constituency of Compton wants to express today its dissatisfaction at the failure or incapacity of existing formulas to meet its need to survive economically. The problem lies in the incapacity of the government to conceive the existence of the rural environment. And yet, it exists and many feel that it offers some characteristics likely to facilitate the planning of tomorrow's society. There more than anywhere else, the physical and human environment still conveys our sense of belonging and our desire to participate in the social development of our community.
Should I stress officially the necessity of creating a department of rural development or some other body-the kind that our fathers called, quite rightly, the department of colonization, even though this term is now somewhat obsolete and has a bad connotation-at the risk of being taxed with disrespect in the history of our country of which we claim to be the actors? Of course, bureaucracy does not put up very well with such a justification, but you will agree with me that Canada means more than Montreal or Toronto and that non-metropolitan areas now provide the best conditions in which to attain our goals of social and economic development.
While Montreal is overpopulated and congested, East Angus is losing its people, with the danger of becoming a depressed area. The pulp and paper industry, one of the biggest sores in the constituency of Compton, needs the federal government to take an immediate stand. In that respect, the Quebec scheme seems to me to be very well thought out, and even our serene silence itself is no longer acceptable. The federal government must take a sensible and courageous position. Consultation between the various parties involved in this debate is both desirable and needed. The federal authorities have the legal right to act. Let us therefore recognize our clear responsibility to the thousands of workers who gave up as much as 40 years of their lives, only to fall victims of our silence at 55.
On the other hand, the textile industry is entitled to the protective measures announced in December 76 by the then Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Chretien. In a joint release issued last week, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced that negotiations would be held on bilateral protective agreements for a three-year period. That industry wished that the extension of those protective measures be immediately confirmed, so that they may go ahead and plan their production and marketing resources on a sound basis. This is not too much to ask in order to ensure the
October 27, 1977

stability of this vital sector of the economy of Compton and the Eastern Townships as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, the reference in the throne speech to the food industry warrants special attention. I have a duty to focus on it in view of the agricultural nature of my constituency and my awareness that the federal government will have very delicate responsibilities to assume in the coming months. 1 also have a conviction that certain farming groups will be listening to my remarks as much as they did to the simple reference in the throne speech to certain actions. I am also certain that my remarks will inform the government of certain facts, and such information will no doubt cause controversy among those mainly concerned.
Mr. Speaker, we must welcome a policy promoting agricultural development through a better utilization of our food industry's capacity. I also endorse any initiative to promote the convening of a national food conference in order to develop a strategy for the Canadian food sector. Such a conference will also insist on better information of producers, consumers and processors. It should also give renewed significance to a balanced representation at the marketing board level.
This, however, leads me to question certain apprehensions. They have to do with the role and the status of farm producers themselves, and any initiative by the federal government will have to be based on consultation with them. Here is why: they are the ones producing and the government must make sure they get a fair return for that production.
Our agricultural sector is considered as one to be copied by several other producing countries. I was myself informed during the consultations at Brussels of the envy felt by certain member countries of the European Community, and I would like here, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate on those doubts I expressed a moment ago. They have to do with the Canadian dairy policy. It would be regrettable indeed if a reputation so dearly acquired should be tarnished by a malaise that is now being felt by the government and the producers themselves.
In that sense, I do admit that some readjustments are necessary in the very short run, otherwise open pressures would be warranted to have a public inquiry carried out on the administration and publication of marketing quotas for the next four years. It seems obvious on this day that very questionable practices have crept into the distribution of those quotas and that those responsible for such an usurpation- often producers representatives themselves-are causing enormous financial harm to the majority of those producers whose honesty however is unquestioned. The awareness of that breach of right is starting to poison the relationships between the producers and the federal government, and that, Mr. Speaker, is unacceptable. The cause of the malaise is identified and that is the most relevant reason for having such an inquiry and at least the need to rethink the membership of the supply management committee. The principle of equity will then have to underly that required operation in terms of producers representation.
That will result in a more vigilant awareness of producers with respect to their official organizations and the dangers
The Address-Mr. Tessier
inherent in such a system, however democratic it may be, will be better controlled. It would be regrettable indeed, Mr. Speaker, if after blaming us for everything the producers were to start accusing one another.
These are my precise views on the matters which we should discuss within the next months. National unity requires that all our efforts be directed to implementing decent measures to insure stability and equity in the economy of Canada and to guarantee the support of the population of Compton riding in an eventual consultation on the benefits to Quebec of its participation in the Canadian political evolution. It is absolutely necessary that the federal government protect the integrity of Canada and propose, as I mentioned, concrete amendments to answer legitimate rights and feasible aspirations of the Quebecers, and of all other provinces.

Mr. Speaker, all the frustrations generated by three centuries of cultural confusion in Quebec make it more than ever necessary for all levels of government to approach this issue with an open and understanding mind. The political development of this beloved country of ours requires a positive attitude as well as ready acceptance of a reality that is challenging us, both as members of parliament and as private citizens. What are the solutions? There are some inasmuch as the very foundations of Canadian unity will be perceived as concrete realities by the Canadian people. In this matter, it is up to the federal government to substantiate or refute the views of those who question the basis of confederation. In trying to justify its existence, the federal government should not simply argue that it is the living symbol of the Canadian nation. Instead of indulging in such sophistry, it should endeavour to demonstrate the respective merits of centralization versus decentralization and account for its past and present policies. In this sense, cooperation between the federal and provincial secretariats appears essential in order to clarify or avoid the dualism which is at the root of our recent political evolution now being in jeopardy.
The present situation offers us the choice between several options, but it should not in any case justify our absence from several frontlines on which we are being attacked. It is imperative that immediate formulas provide for a louder presence of the various caucuses of Parliament in order to weaken a political strategy through which certain political authorities in Quebec intend to influence public opinion and try to make us appear as unable to consider any kind of changes.
Mr. Speaker, the present circumstances and the Speech from the Throne invite us to affirm clearly our presence as the spokesmen for a way of being which is indispensable to reach the objectives which the post-war generation has set for itself, a passionate generation to which I belong and whose need for clear-cut solutions I echo. One can therefore deduct from this affirmation that our young people should have a say in the coming decisions which will affect them. It is a legitimate
80025-22'/2

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Darling
concern after all. Let it then be explained at last that the very normal feeling of belonging to a culture and social ideals is not-and by far-incompatible with cooperation with other people from different origins whose aspirations are often the same. Let it be explained again the true reason for the existence of Canada, and we should never fear to insist too much about that, by testimonies going beyond the cult of personalities, thereby stressing the personal responsibility that each of us have in this matter. Let us finally claim, as members of the Quebec caucus, that respect which is now lacking. In short let the voices of its elected representatives in this House reflect Quebec as a distinct and special entity. And let the Lower Canada of the past century represent in the statutes of today and tomorrow the true status of Quebecers. That is my intimate perception of the existence of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that firmness which we must embody, I shall conclude on the major importance for regions such as the one I represent in this House to have access to the mechanisms of interventionism. That, I suggest, is a corollary to the feeling of participation in the Canadian community. Let our calamity become a reasonable challenge, let the creation of permanent jobs become a major concern for this House. Let harmony and vigour become our obligation for the forthcoming years. And if necessary, Mr. Speaker, we should be ready to coerce those Canadians who inherited, sometimes unwillingly, those leadership reflexes at the cultural, political or economic level. Those Canadians, maybe more than others, have a responsibility towards their countrymen and the first law they must abide by is that of mutual help and tolerance.
[English)


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. At the outset, I should like to express my appreciation and also congratulations to the two hon. members who moved and seconded the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). We were honoured to have Her Majesty read the Speech from the Throne and it is an event that members of parliament will remember all their days. I am not so enthusiastic about the contents of the speech. When I say that, I believe I am voicing the opinion of a great many people in Canada.
I congratulate the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on accepting the criticism and pressure put on government by many Canadians with regard to the iniquitous legislation which would have taxed life insurance proceeds. I received a great deal of mail condemning that proposal. Had that legislation been passed, we would have been the only country in the world taxing the proceeds of life insurance. It would have meant robbing the widows and orphans. I congratulate the government on that.
The government has finally recognized that the average Canadian is highly overtaxed. I do not know how many millions of dollars are involved, but tax reductions of $100 are

being given to the ordinary taxpayers. This amounts to a little under $2 a week. It is a small enough amount, but at least it is a step in the right direction. But to pretend that it is a solution to our great economic problems is absolutely ridiculous. Canadians are fed up. They do not want handouts or shortterm goodies. Why does the government not come up with serious solutions to end this economic uncertainty? The opinion of a great many people is that it is afraid to do that. The Minister of Finance made ever so slight suggestions that mistakes have been made in the past. Let's call a spade a spade. The Liberal government is responsible for the miserable state of our economy.
The latest depressing sequel to this economic mess is massive layoffs at INCO plants in Sudbury, Thompson, Manitoba, in the constituency of the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith), and Port Colborne. This will have drastic effects on the economies in those areas. I hope that something can be done to save those jobs which are so important not only to the workers and their families, but to the entire community.
Down through the years the government has provided assistance to big business. Certainly assistance to many businesses is necessary. I do not believe you have to put all your eggs in one basket. We should not put our entire faith and all our resources at the disposal of big business. We should give more assistance to small business. Small business provides 60 per cent of the jobs, the majority of jobs in this country. It accounts for more than 50 per cent of the value of business that is generated. I believe our gross national product is in the neighbourhood of $200 billion. I am sure most members will agree that this vital part of our economy was virtually ignored in the Speech from the Throne as well as in the minibudget which the Minister of Finance presented to the House last Thursday.
We do not have an overall policy dealing with small business and the problems relating to it. The United States has a very significant program geared to small business. Those who were in the House last week when our spokesman for small business participated in the debate heard the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) spell out the suggestions which the Conservative party recommends to assist small business.
As a rural member of parliament, I received innumerable calls from small businessmen. This morning I received a call from a businessman asking about the advantageous interest rates on small business loans. According to the government, this is something wonderful. It was extolled by the previous Minister of Finance. However, when it comes down to the cold, hard facts, when you are in the office of the bank manager, the advantageous rates for small business loans seem to be far off in never, never land. I hope the government will do something in this session to ensure that money is available to small business establishments at reasonable rates.
I believe that the rates of the Federal Business Development Bank are down slightly. This businessman who called me this morning had a $25,000 loan approved and processed a year ago at 12 per cent. He is trying to get the interest rate
October 27, 1977

adjusted. I assume that under his contract he is locked into a 12 per cent rate for the duration of the loan. When interest rates come down, the Federal Business Development Bank should be able to adjust rates to assist the small businessman. That is certainly worthy of consideration and, 1 hope, approval.
The Minister of Finance was pre-empted by the Prime Minister with regard to the $150 million that is to be pumped into the economy. We are still not clear how this will be administered and who will receive it. In a statement today, the Minister of Finance said it was going to certain departments. Possibly government agencies and departments will pump the money into various parts of the economy where the need is greatest. With a projected $4 billion bill for unemployment insurance before the year is over, it will certainly be needed.
There has been much talk about the auto pact. From Canada's point of view, we are now an importer of auto parts.
I am aware that the auto pact is a two-way street. There have been many heated questions, including today, on this very important segment of our economy.
Despite the fact that 1 represent the paradise vacationland of Canada, Parry Sound-Muskoka, there are some very good industries in my constituency. There are two plants which provide auto parts for the various automobile companies. One plant in particular is not a small plant trying to survive without any funds or assets. It is a branch of Rockwell International and is located in Parry Sound. Word has gone out that the staff of that plant is to be cut by more than 50 per cent, from 220 to 100. This is very serious in an area where there is a small population. The Rockwell plant was a corporate citizen.
I had the privilege of meeting with municipal officials as well as officials of the plant. The facts they presented were shocking. I am sure many members will be interested in this. In the past five years, this plant has been faced with huge increases. Hydro has increased by 128 per cent. Five years ago they paid $8,000 a month; now, it is $14,000. Their workmen's compensation board payments increased 271 per cent. Municipal taxes are up 54 per cent. Their OHIP payments are up by 191 per cent. Canada Pension Plan premiums have increased by 79 per cent; costs due to strikes and accidents have risen by 190 per cent and labour costs by 133 per cent. They ask: How can we compete successfully in the face of increases like this and keep the plant functioning at full capacity?
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Stanley Howard Knowles: One o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Address-Mr. Darling
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. At one o'clock the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) had the floor, and he has ten minutes left.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, when I called it one o'clock I was speaking about an industry in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka which was phasing down its operations, though we certainly hope it will not disappear entirely. I also cited some figures which were rather staggering and frightening, showing what this company, Rockwell, is being faced with by way of higher costs. However, I want to emphasize that the 122 jobs which are being lost are probably going to the southern states, to a branch plant of the same company in Mississippi, where the social benefits are not the same, where we know the wages are lower and workmen's compensation and other benefits, which are very excellent in Ontario and, indeed, in Canada, are not in the same category. We have no proof of this, but it is food for thought.
There is also reason to think that those southern states are subsidizing wages in some way and we are not in a position to compete. I hope the new Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) will give serious consideration to the tough competition which is faced by a good many Canadian industries in the auto parts industry. I was interested in the speech made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to a tourist group last night. He referred to the fact that we are not at the forefront in the tourist industry. This was of particular interest to me because I represent the finest tourist area in the entire Dominion of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I am sure the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) will agree with that, because he is a summer resident in my constituency. We are delighted to have him spending his summers there. In his speech the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce cited some very, very startling figures. He indicated that it costs too much to travel in Canada. That is no secret, so he has not given us any great pearls of wisdom. He also referred to the fact that hotels, food and gasoline cost a lot more in Canada. Again, we agree with this. He went on to say that the tourist industry has not been as friendly or courteous as it might be to tourists. Probably he was referring principally to American tourists, because the greatest bulk of our tourists come from south of the border. 1 will concede that there is probably some truth in this.
Our tourist operators are faced with higher costs because of higher taxes. The government instituted a ten-cent gasoline tax two years ago in order to cut down on the consumption of gasoline. It cut down gasoline consumption for the tourists, as well as a lot of Canadians. We are aware of the staggering tourist deficit of $1.2 billion last year. It is forecast as being as much as $2 billion this year. This indicates that Canadians are great travellers, but not in Canada.
The shy and retiring hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) spoke eloquently the day before yesterday and sug-

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Darling
gested that we should "ban the tan". His suggestion was that anyone returning from the United States, or any southern climate, with a tan should have to pay a tax, in an attempt to try to keep them here. A better way of trying to keep them here would be to make it more attractive to visit Canada.
There is a good deal of criticism which can be levelled at certain government agencies, unfriendly and discourteous government agencies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: I am thinking of the Department of National Revenue, the customs and excise branch. There were specific cases last year of Americans crossing the border who were treated as smugglers, as if they were bringing in arms and what not. Their cars were gone through with a fine-tooth comb. In some cases Americans were fined and charged duty on groceries they were bringing into Canada. There were carloads of fishermen coming for a week. One carload had $40 worth of groceries, and they were charged $6. Fortunately, they had the $6, but they swore on a stack of Bibles and a few other things, according to the information I received, that they would never return to Canada.
Another problem is the latest customs and excise deal where the department is going after American tourists who for generations have been leaving their boats in Canada. They will be charged duty on their boats unless they take them back when they return to the United States. With regard to boats of over 20 horsepower, the duty can be as much as 40 per cent of the market value. When I was in my constituency I spoke to one tourist. He pointed to his boat and said, "I brought that boat over here and I was going to leave it here. I could be paying storage charges of approximately $800 per year to a marina. But since your damn government is going to charge me $4,000 duty on the boat, I am going to take it back with me." He indicated that he was not going to give the government $4,000. Surely we can find an answer to alleviate this exacerbating problem which is making Americans angry.
I should like to refer to American tourist operators who have tourist establishments in Canada. The customs and excise branch hauled in one of these operators, after he had gone to pick up a few parcels and pay the duty on them, and told him that his car could only be driven by himself for pleasure. This is absolutely ridiculous.
We are trying to attract our American neighbours. I will concede that we have the 90-cent dollar in our favour in this regard. As far as our imports are concerned, certainly it is not in our favour. Then we come up with methods where customs officials are showing their authority and exercising the letter of the law, which will certainly go against our efforts to attract American tourists to visit Canada. I hope something will be done to give a lesson in public relations and courtesy to our government officials as well as our tourist operators. Probably there is fault on both sides. However, a great many of our officials at the border are courteous; I have checked this out with senior officers. We could not have a neighbour in the world better than our neighbours in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stan Darling: Yet we have strained and crazy relations with them at times. Our two countries engage in $40 billion worth of trade back and forth each year. In plain English, that is a hell of a lot of money. It is more than the trading which goes on between any two other countries in the world. There are 38 million border crossings each year between our two countries. Nationalists have been complaining about the United States taking over Canada. I understand the United States has $50 billion invested in Canada, which is a lot of money, with a population of 220 million. But Canadians have over $5 billion invested in the United States. That was before Canadian capital was scared out of the country, so I am not aware how high it is now. Nobody says anything about that.
These are matters which must be thought about. We must try to work with our big neighbour to the very best advantage in order that both of us may benefit. These are very, very important matters. Both our countries have so much in common, and we get along very well in so many things, that it is unfortunate the odd thing ruffles feathers. As a Canadian, I take exception to some of the things Americans say, and we cannot blame Americans for adopting the same attitude. We are first cousins; I suppose, brothers, when you come down to it. We are very fortunate to be situated side by side.
I know my time is running out, but I want to mention that I am a member of the housing committee. I was disappointed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).
[ Translation]


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled to speak during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, especially since Her Majesty herself delivered the speech.
Mr. Speaker, we could have expected on that occasion that the Speech from the Throne would be more substantial and show some maturity on the part of Parliament in general and the government in particular. Unfortunately, I think that it was a lost opportunity to make something interesting and original. On the contrary, it can be said that we heard the same trivia delivered in a royal fashion.
Mr. Speaker, within the present Canadian context it is extremely important that hon. members in this House cast aside their prejudices, parochialism and overcome their bitterness and disappointments. The time has come for us to demonstrate our maturity and serenity and try to resolve problems which are assuming crisis proportions.
Mr. Speaker, we must realize that, unfortunately, this government does not seem to have yet accepted the choice the province of Quebec made about a year ago. Cabinet members, starting from the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself, vent their bitterness and resentment and I am afraid,
October 27, 1977

and this is very serious, they are even trying to hinder the work of the Quebec government. Mr. Speaker, this is not mature behaviour. It is irresponsible and childish. On the election night, last year, we heard all kinds of poppycock by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) who went so far as to say: You will not get any more money in Quebec. That will teach you how to behave. After they got that off their chests, you could expect they would calm down and get off Quebec's back whether they liked its government or not.
Mr. Speaker, a year has now passed. It seems to me they should have regained their composure by now but they have not. And we saw the Prime Minister try a bit of brinkmanship and go down to Washington where he, a man credited with a high intellect, did something quite stupid: he said that Quebec independence was a crime against mankind. Mr. Speaker, what an irresponsible statement! It is going overboard! It is a total lack of respect for Canada. Yet he did not stop there. In the Speech from the Throne he decides on a referendum war. There will be a referendum and a cross-referendum. The Prime Minister will make people in Quebec and the rest of Canada say whatever he wants them to say. Where is his sense of responsibility, Mr. Speaker? When will our good friends opposite cease to equate red-blooded patriots with people bent on the destruction of our country?
Mr. Speaker, it is a falsehood. When our friends opposite claim that the hon. member for Champlain and the Quebec government and people are separatists they are making malicious allegations. As far as I know the Quebec government and the hon. member for Champlain feel the way the Socred M.P.s demonstrated they felt last week end. They want to live in harmony in this country. They want the real, concrete groups which make up this country to live their own lives and shape their own futures.
There is therefore nothing negative about the decision made by Quebecers last year. Why is the government taking such an attitude? Would it be, Mr. Speaker, to try to hide the enormous weaknesses in the economy? Would it be to make people forget about unemployment? Would it be to hide inflation? Would it be to make people forget the incompetence of cabinet members? Mr. Speaker, we may well wonder when we see a prime minister over-react and fight windmills like Don Quixote.
Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Parti Quebecois now in power in Quebec only said that it wanted a new agreement in Canada, that it wanted a new partnership based this time on the elementary justice principle of true equality. What is wrong with that? What is so wrong that we should go and say in Washington that it is a crime against humanity? Mr. Speaker, let us be calm and let us see things as they really are. Why should we want to convey a false impression to those who do not want Canada to survive, because if it does, it will be once again thanks to the spirit of Quebecers who until now have acted as a sort of buffer, as a catalyst to prevent Canada from being simply a geographic extension of the United States. We no longer want to play such a secondary role. We want a
The Address-Mr. Matte
positive role. We want to assert ourselves as we are. That is why, in my opinion, Quebec is now able to show the way towards the implementation of this new Canada, a Canada restructured according to everybody's needs, a Canada where everyone will be truly free to develop to one's liking, a Canada where there will finally be true equality, a Canada where there will no longer be absurdities as there now are.
I was listening the other day to the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve). I must say that I always thought she was very serious, but in her speech the day before yesterday, she did not speak very seriously since, when discussing language bill 101, she said that it ran counter to such and such a thing, in other words, that the Quebec government should not have passed it. Mr. Speaker, we have a democratically elected government who introduced legislation in the National Assembly and this legislation was passed in principle even unanimously in the National Assembly, since everyone recognized the need to legislate in this area because of the countless injustices that have always existed.
Mr. Speaker, when we have a prime minister and ministers who say: No, we shall not disallow Bill 101. It would be too dangerous, Quebecers as a whole would resent the government if it did, but we shall adopt an insidious strategy by paying those who want to test the legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is something diabolical about this. Why should the taxes of Rene Matte, member of parliament for Champlain, Quebec taxpayer, who is in perfect agreement with the Quebec government, be used to bring charges against me? We have been masochistic long enough without this. I was listening to the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle) yesterday. What he said was terrible. Perhaps the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier) had him in mind when he said that Quebec members are a "gang of nobodies". Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. The hon. member for Compton is reported as having said, and I quote:
As he stated in his document of last July, Mr. Tessier maintained yesterday that Quebec Liberal members have never taken the necessary steps to improve their image or to put forward Quebec's views.
Mr. Speaker, if there was no development in Hull, it is because some members, like the present member for Hull, have always managed to prevent development from taking place on both sides of the Ottawa river. I find he considers the federal government and the Parliament buildings in Ottawa as an umbrella, as a kind of Santa Claus. This hon. member is rather late, Mr. Speaker, whereas since Quebecers have decided on their own to bend down on their knees no longer, to creep no longer, they have decided to hold hands with the rest of Canada and to say from now on: Let us give this country a real striking force which will be held as an example throughout the world. Let us give everyone the opportunity to develop as he sees fit.
At noon I asked a question of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). Mr. Speaker, in the very region which the Minister of Finance represents a company has just laid off some 300 to 400 workers. What has the federal government done to prevent Wayagamack from closing down? What has it

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Matte
done? Nothing, because it would be quite pleased to see this company close down. It would be quite pleased to see Quebec at grips with an even higher unemployment rate, and then tell the people: Do not go off on your own, just see what will happen if you do! You will go bankrupt!
Mr. Speaker, such a behaviour is terrible. Somebody must denounce it. It is terrible, but that is what they are doing. So, the Minister of Finance who represents the riding of Saint-Maurice, 10 miles away from Wayagamack, prefers not to do anything in order to prove to the people in Quebec that they made a bad choice in the last election. It is shocking, but that's the way it is, Mr. Speaker.
And the threats made by the regional economic expansion minister (Mr. Lessard) are carried out. They will not save Quebec, and above all they do not want things to run smoothly in Quebec. What is one to think of people who act this way, Mr. Speaker? What is one to think of people like the Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) who also said, in order to prove that Quebecers all agree with the federal government and disagree with the Quebec government: In my riding, I have distributed 5,000 gadgets? Puzzles, Mr. Speaker, when I am considered a separatist. Good heavens, give us puzzles! Everybody also likes that in my constituency. Are we now to base our policies on gadgets and to determine what the people in Quebec want according to the distribution of gadgets? What a poor argument!
Mr. Speaker, since a solution has to be found to a global problem, let us stop the name-calling and let us start being positive. Maybe our party views the matter differently from the party now in power in Quebec, but it all comes to the same thing. We want all the provinces to consider completely renewing the Confederation, so that we may first negotiate an association on equal terms. If that does not work, we will fully agree to independence. Maybe the Parti Quebecois views this from another point of view because they say: First we become independent and then form an association. That is the only difference between our party and the Parti Quebecois.
From now on, Mr. Speaker, it must be known that our goal is simply to restructure Canada as we really want it to be, without being unfair to anybody, by creating a healthy climate instead of being mean or imputing motives to others.
And then, we will no longer have committees which we want to be unbiased while they are not. Every time I hear about committees on Canadian unity, I wonder what it means, in terms of what Canadian unity is related to the Prime Minister's conception of it. Is there anything wrong with a Canadian unity that would involve five areas where sovereign states would agree to draft a new constitution, where each would freely determine the fields that must be shared, which ones should not be affected?
Mr. Speaker, if we were sensible enough to reflect on such matters, we would see why this government is trying to create trouble where there is none. In yesterday's paper, there is a report of what Mr. Levesque said in British Columbia:

Mr. Levesque stated that he favours a proposal whereby a Canada made up of five partners each representing one large area of the country would negotiate a new form of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, far from being against the confederative principle, I should like Canada to become a real confederacy, that is to say a union of sovereign states. We should not forget something very important. Of course there are other issues, but because this includes all the others, I do not mind devoting some time to it. The necessity to deal objectively with this issue stems from the fact that the future of our country depends on it. If, from the point of view of history, Quebec insists on being considered as a separate entity, as a nation, nobody can blame it. If it can help Ontario adopt similar views for itself, why not make Ontario independent as well? Why not make the Prairies independent? Why not make British Columbia and the Maritimes independent? And with these five independent entities, we could build a marvelous and diversified Canada, yes, an harmonious Canada where it would be nice to live and where there would be no subordinates.
As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of such a proposal, far from seeking the destruction of our country, is to make it greater and progress still further. We shall achieve this purpose only if we realize the need to deal objectively with this issue, and later with other issues, such as the economy and social affairs. This is something important and urgent, Mr. Speaker, but it is a fact that Quebecers will no longer agree to go where the money is and forget about such things as pride and dignity, for I shall make a point of telling Quebecers and making them understand that wealth is the reward of pride and dignity.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the responsibilities of the Secretary of State are a little like a cafeteria; there is an enormous range of responsibilities, including official languages policy, protocol, state funerals and education. There are a variety of things I could speak about this afternoon, and I would like to speak about them all, but given the time constraints I will concentrate my remarks on the responsibilities I have in relation to official languages policy.
There is a very marked difference of view between the government and the official opposition in relation to official languages. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) regards two official languages in Canada as a divisive force within our country, almost a millstone around our necks, or at best, to be fair to him, he regards them as a regrettable necessity. We on the government side, on the contrary, regard our two official languages as an opportunity, something to be welcomed and something to be made a real and vital force in our society which will strengthen a distinctive Canadian identity.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) pretends that the official languages policy has been a cause of the present tensions in our country. That view of his is the reverse of the
October 27, 1977

truth. Of course there have been some errors in implementation, but by far the majority of our efforts have been successful. That is not merely the view of the government; that is the view, as well, of Mr. Spicer, the former Commissioner of Official Languages, who indicated that, in spite of some criticism, 80 per cent of our efforts were useful and successful. Nor, as the Leader of the Opposition would have us believe, are the forces of separation simply a reflection of Canada's economic problems. I do not minimize for a moment the importance of the economic challenges to this country-challenges to governments, to management and workers alike. But to believe that solving these economic problems will in itself lead to the end of the thrust for separation is either wilful misrepresentation or simple-minded innocence verging on irresponsibility.
The roots of separation in Quebec are much more complicated than that simple-minded analysis. The forces for separation have increased despite unprecedented prosperity in our country over the past 15 years. The thrust for separation reflects more than anything else a sense of insecurity, whether justified or not, and pessimism over the ability of the French language and culture not simply to survive but to thrive in a North American society which modern technology and communications make more and more complex and integrated.

We will succeed in staying the forces working for separation only if we can honestly say to French Canadians that one of our ultimate goals is to see to it that throughout Canada a climate proper to the development of French language and culture will prevail. And if Anglophones cannot find in themselves enough generosity to work toward this goal, if we cannot honestly give them this assurance, then Canada's days are numbered. The Leader of the Opposition did not understand that, and he takes a negative and pernicious approach on official languages.

I mentioned earlier that there has been a substantial measure of success in our official languages policy and its implementation. Nevertheless, all members of the House will recognize that this policy has continued to be the object of some large degree of misunderstanding on the part of certain sections of the Canadian public. In the face of this, the government felt it necessary to review its policies and develop a new expression of the proposals that have guided its actions in relation to official languages over the past ten years.
The newly expressed principles formed the core of the document "A National Understanding" which outlines the kind of relationship that must exist between Francophones and Anglophones in this country, a relationship based on equality. The document sets out in clear terms the basic principles that, taken together, constitute the official languages policy of Canada. It is the purpose of these principles to give concrete expression to the equality of status of English and French as the official languages of Canada. It is the hope of the federal government that these principles will be accepted by all Canadians and by the provincial governments, in order to
The Address-Mr. Roberts
safeguard the fundamental linguistic duality of Canada within the framework of its cultural diversity.
With this in mind, the federal government has reassessed its own situation in the public service and, given the progress made to date in providing services in both official languages, is now in a position to implement the gradual elimination of the special language training efforts in the public service, expecting that the educational system will thereafter provide the necessary bilingual candidates to meet its needs.
The emphasis that must be given to this area gives special importance to the negotiation of new education arrangements with the provinces which are presently under way. Let me add that those negotiations are not merely a recent response to the problem. Over the past decade, for about seven years the government has provided something like two-thirds of $1 billion to provincial governments to assist them in expanding their school systems for second and minority language education. We are concerned that the present negotiations make the objectives of the agreements more precise and establish criteria and methods of evaluation so that all levels of government may be aware of the degree of success of our joint efforts.
But I should make one thing clear. The federal government does not regard the efforts of the provinces in this area as a special concession or favour to the federal government. They are, rather, a response to the needs of the citizens of their provinces, and it is exactly the purpose of our statement in "A National Understanding" to urge the provincial governments to accept for themselves the application of official languages policy within their own areas of jurisdiction, including education.
We have all been encouraged by the response of the provincial premiers at their conference this summer in St. Andrews, New Brunswick where they committed themselves to working out ways of improving the educational facilities available to French-language citizens across Canada. We await the results of their studies with considerable interest and optimism.
I referred a few moments ago to the passage of the Official Languages Act. That was a crucial step. Those who argue that our official languages policy has been a cause of division in this country should pause for one moment and reflect honestly on what the situation would be if we had not undertaken this commitment. Assuredly, Mr. Speaker, we would not now be agonizing over keeping this country together. Failure to have embarked on the official languages policy would have torn the country apart long before this.
The Official Languages Act has stood the test of time well. There are, however, we believe, useful changes that could be made to it to reinforce its effectiveness. I shall, therefore, be presenting to the House amendments which will, especially, strengthen the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

We will see to it that the Commissioner of Official Languages, who is a representative of Parliament and has the

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Roberts
support of Parliament, can in the shortest possible time apply the principles of the official languages policy established by Parliament.
The situation of the official language minority groups in Canada is another area of very special concern. Every Canadian who has at heart the future of Confederation really must recognize how important it is to ensure in fact the survival of the official language minority groups, and their survival and development not as isolated enclaves but rather as integral parts of life in Canada. I am of course referring to the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec and English-speaking minorities in Quebec.
Our government really wants to see that French and English minorities get fair and equitable treatment and not be regarded as second-class citizens.
As for the French-speaking minority groups, last spring the government received a revealing report entitled "Lord Durham's Heirs". The study recommended many steps which could be taken to ensure real survival of Francophone groups outside Quebec. The government studied that document in very great detail.
After consultation with the hon. members who are the legitimate spokesmen of Francophone minorities outside Quebec, I intend to announce what the federal government proposes to do to serve them well. 1 trust I can hold those consultations within a month and, therefore, announce within a few weeks what new measures we intend to take.
Most of the recommendations contained in the report "Lord Durham's Heirs" apply to provincial and municipal governments. That is why, in fact, the government has suggested an amendment to the constitution, in line with the proposal made last month, in the field of education, to the provincial premiers, and also in line with the Victoria charter with regard to other aspects of the rights recognized in conjunction with the official languages. That would be the surest way of achieving our objectives. If Anglophone provinces see the need for amending our constitution in that way, they will thus prove to the francophone minorities, and even the Francophone majority in Quebec, that the whole country accepts the principle of the equality of both official languages, and that attitude should dissipate expectations of separation.
In this vital area, how to combat the forces of assimilation which threaten the survival of Francophones outside Quebec, co-operation between the federal and provincial governments is desirable. I shall, therefore, also be consulting with the provincial governments over the next few weeks on how we may best respond to the needs of these endangered communities.
When we speak of official language minorities, there is a tendency for some to think only of the Francophone communities living outside Quebec. But we must also remember that in Quebec there is another official language minority, the English-speaking population of 800,000. This minority, historically strongly established, now feels threatened. As a result of the present policies and future objectives of the present Quebec

government, the Anglophone community feels undermined and insecure. Many of its members feel that the objective of the present provincial government is to force them out of their province into other parts of Canada. The federal government, just as it is concerned with the threat of assimilation of Francophones outside Quebec, is concerned over the sense of insecurity presently felt by Anglophones inside Quebec.
I have recently received approaches from the community for help to document their concerns, especially with regard to the shifts in population as well as businesses, and to outline the economic effects of these changes. As with the Francophones outside Quebec and the help of a similar nature which we gave them some years ago, we feel disposed, in all fairness, to offer similar support to the Anglophones in Quebec if requested, so that they can better understand their future and make representations to the relevant authorities for their survival. We are prepared to support projects that encourage creative rapprochement between English and French-speaking Quebeckers, activities that assist English-speaking Quebeckers and their associations to become bilingual, and programs which enable English-speaking Quebeckers to preserve their cultural heritage.
In all the other provinces there are strong associations representing the Francophone minorities, but for a variety of historical circumstances such an association has not developed in Quebec. If it appears that English-speaking groups are now ready to co-operate with each other and develop the basis for an organization or structure of organizations representing them as an official language minority in Quebec, we would be prepared to encourage and support this development. I believe such a structure could be a positive intermediary between the English-speakers in Quebec and the provincial government, as well as a valid spokesman vis-a-vis the federal government. [Translation]
To give concrete proof of its interest in Francophones outside Quebec, and Anglophones within Quebec, the government has decided to increase considerably the credits earmarked for the official languages minority groups program. We intend to set aside for this program an amount of $75 million in the next five years. Thus, we will be better able to meet the needs of official language minority groups in the various parts of Canada.

My remarks this afternoon have focused on the language policy. I do not have time to describe at length the problems and opportunities we face in cultural policy, although this is an area of my department's responsibilities about which I have intense concern.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You told us earlier today you would.


John (Moody) Roberts: As the hon. member says, earlier in the question period today I did express my strong interest in this area of activity. I say to members of the House, frankly I would like to receive more questions and more inquiries about our cultural policy. It is an area of policy which is extremely
October 27, 1977

important and which, with exception of the parliamentary committee, has not been examined in great detail or depth by members of the House. 1 want to assure members of the House that this is an area of importance. I hope to be able to announce new directives in a variety of areas over the next few months; perhaps in the House, perhaps outside of it. My own preference, as hon. members know, is to present my views on this matter to members before speaking outside the House.
I do not have time to describe at great length the challenge to this country on cultural policy, the difficulties we have in maintaining within the Canadian market a place for the expression of Canadian creativity reflecting Canadian experience. There are difficulties which are particularly strong in areas where there is high commercial involvement, such as films, television, publishing, commercial objectives which are mingled with the cultural objectives we have. These areas are extremely complicated. Earlier in this House, during the question period, we touched on the aspect of distribution in relation to the film industry and the difficulties that poses for the expression of Canadian creativity. It is the problems of distribution which are the key in many of these areas-such as publishing, television, and records as well. It is my hope to be able to elaborate a detailed policy in these various domains in a few months. I will be anxious to discuss not only these problems, but the way in which we can respond to them, with members of the House at greater length. Perhaps the standing committee would be a useful vehicle for that examination.
1 had hoped to have 40 minutes to speak to members of the House. 1 find, for reasons which I understand very well, that 1 have been restricted to 20 minutes. Therefore, there is not time for me to develop today at great length the challenge that we face and our positive response to it. I wish to assure hon. members that that opportunity will come in the very near future.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) would permit one question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the minister accept a question from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Secretary of State why he has not chosen to speak about some of the other areas of his department, such as Canada Council grants, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has urged Canadians to get tough because they are getting too soft. Within the area of Canada Council grants we have an established writer living in Westmount who is getting a travel grant from the Canada Council. That may be one area in which the government can start getting tough. When is the Secretary of State going to start asking applicants to show a sense of need before they get a Canada Council grant, so that artists, pseudo-artists and dilettantes can be separated in the whole maze of applications?
The Address-Mr. Mitges


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question. I had intended to speak about the effects of the proclamation of the new citizenship act and the development of the citizenship policy, the establishment with the Council of Ministers of Education of a continuing arrangement to discuss mutual concerns relating to education. Also, the opening of negotiations with the provinces on agreements for the support of extending minority and second language education; a progress report on the performance of Open House Canada which will enable 20,000 young people to exchange visits across Canada.
I intended to talk about "a national understanding"; to recount to the House the progress we are making with the elaboration of Canada Day celebrations; the very marked advances we have made in relation to the migrated native peoples' program; the introduction of corps funding for native peoples' associations. 1 wanted to note the very good work that the Department of Secretary of State had done in arranging for the royal visit which all members of the House welcomed. I particularly wanted to discuss, for the hon. member's benefit, the expansion of $1316 million of funding, if parliament approves it, over the next 18 months for the support of the arts in Canada. This will enable the Canada Council to undertake more effectively its support for creative people in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. minister's time has expired.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I wish to begin with a few words on multiculturalism in Canada. 1 am not sure whether the intentions of the government in 1971 were serious when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced such a policy. 1 do not know whether that policy was introduced by the government for the purpose of political expediency, to woo the ethnic voters in Canada who comprise more than 30 per cent of our population.
I do not know whether it was an honest attempt to involve Canadians whose origin is other than that of the two founding nations, English and French, to bring them more into the mainstream of Canadian life and no longer regard them as second-class citizens. Whatever the motives of the government, 1 can assure them that with their introduction of a multicultural policy in Canada they now have a tiger by the tail and dare not let go.
Despite all the vehement protestations to the contrary by various spokesmen on multiculturalism on the government side, the objections of certain Quebec caucus members to multiculturalism have been so great that there is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister and the cabinet would have terminated this policy once and for all had there been any let-up in the flak produced by this side of the House and the protestations from many of the 71 or so ethnic groups against such a move.

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Mitges
Mr. Speaker, I like to look upon myself as an optimist as far as as multiculturalism in Canada is concerned. We now have a minister who I think is interested in the subject and sincere in his idea for the further progress of multiculturalism in Canada. This is not to detract from the three former ministers; 1 am sure they did their level best, under very trying circumstances and in the face of much cabinet opposition, to push forward programs designed to further multiculturalism. The new minister has come out vigorously in support of qualified persons of ethnic origin occupying more positions of high responsibility in government and in Crown corporations, the greater involvement of "ethnics" in the broadcasting field and other areas.
The minister may be filled with good intentions, and there is certainly nothing wrong with having good intentions. But it remains to be seen whether those good intentions will lead to action and firm direction, and how much influence the minister has with his cabinet colleagues. As the critic for multiculturalism on behalf of my party, 1 am willing to give the minister a little more rope, a little more time in which to familiarize himself with his new portfolio before I cross-examine him for the good of multiculturalism across Canada.
I should like to say a few words about our country. I shall speak very bluntly. It is necessary to be blunt, not because there is any particular virtue in inflaming passions, arousing resentment or making people uncomfortable, but because this country will only recover from its national despondency if we are all prepared to tell it as it is and, further, to persuade all our people that the country is worth saving. This means facing reality and understanding it, and having the moral courage to insist on the best that is in Canadians because the times demand the best.
There were, and still are, people who say the idea of Canada is illogical, that it cannot work, that assimilation by the United States is inevitable, that our country defies the laws of trade, and that it is impossible to contain in one country many different linguistic and cultural groups. Such arguments have been with us since the beginning. They are being resurrected again, not only in Quebec but in other parts of Canada. But the reality defies those arguments because, on the whole, since confederation we have been remarkably successful. We have built a great country under circumstances, at times, of immense difficulty. Moreover, this has been done within the framework of three parliamentary institutions and a high degree of civility under the rule of law. We have not been perfect, and given the nature of mankind we are unlikely ever to be perfect. But we most certainly have not been a failure. This is the first reality and it is the starting point for any debate on where we go from here.
The second reality is that the complaints raised with regard to our country have all been voiced before. Quebec separatism, or independence as Premier Levesque chooses to call it, is not new. A deep and constant sense of nationalism has always been part of the French-Canadian presence and in its extreme form has never been far from the idea of separation. Western alienation is not new. Atlantic Canada's grievances did not

begin yesterday. Because of the vast geographic size of Canada, its diverse economic opportunities and the linguistic and cultural differences which characterize it, there have been, and probably always will be, strains within confederation. That is no reason for wringing our hands and giving up. What it means is that we must resolve these problems, perhaps not to the satisfaction of every dissident in the country, because that is impossible, but to the satisfaction of the large majority of our people. It means we cannot take things for granted. It means that the dynamics of our society imply constant change, and that the task of government and citizenship is to face up to reality and find solutions.
Those of us whose heritage is neither British nor French realize that our cultural aspirations may well be severely limited during the next few years as the federal government and provincial governments continue their negotiations on the political integrity of Canada. We may well be asked to compromise certain of our multicultural ideals for the sake of accommodating the linguistic demands of the present Quebec government. The disturbing fact is that the government of Quebec is determined to protect the culture and linguistic rights of the French-speaking population of that province, while showing little concern for the rights of other minority groups, including those of French-Canadians outside Quebec. I should like to take a little time in which to review and examine the assumptions behind Canada's policy of multiculturalism in order to place my remarks into context.
There were several sound reasons for the development of a multicultural policy. Those reasons are as valid today as they were six years ago when the policy was first enunciated. Let us consider two of the assumptions behind that policy. First, the degree of cultural diversity which exists in Canada rules out the melting pot approach to national unity. It has been argued that cultural diversity has been of positive benefit to the development of Canadian society. There are few people who can look back over the last 20 years-to the Bill of Rights, to the centennial year and EXPO, to the Olympic Games and, more recently, to the establishment of a Human Rights Commission-and fail to realize to what extent these events have drawn upon the strength of a country whose culture rests upon the full and equal participation of all its ethnic groups. The events of the past year have not lessened the reality that Canada's vitality depends to a large extent on its cultural diversity. Indeed, many would claim that this is the example which Canada sets for the rest of the world.
In the second place, the cultural diversity of this country is a significant bulwark of our democratic principles. Tolerance of cultural diversity in a nation is one of the best measures of the strength of its democratic institutions. Conversely, when democracy is on the wane, minority groups are often the first to suffer. In this respect, I think any multiculturalism policy must establish very high standards of racial, religious and ethnic understanding for us all. I do not believe we are prepared, as a nation committed to democratic freedoms, to accept anything less.
October 27, 1977

We should now proceed to examine the role of the recently elected Quebec government in the context of our concern for the preservation of the cultural diversity of Canada and the security of our democratic traditions. Undoubtedly, there is a great deal of sympathy among Canada's ethnic minorities for the aspirations of Quebec's Francophone population-probably more than Rene Levesque is aware of. In particular, roots which have their origin in territories under Soviet occupation must possess an excellent understanding of the concern of French-Canadians for cultural survival.
Sympathy and understanding should not, however, stop us from being critical of the activities of the Parti Quebecois when it threatens our vision of a Canadian nation based on tolerance and encouragement of many different cultures, especially since that vision should not, and does not, conflict with the special rights of French-Canadians.
Two recent examples of the Levesque government's reaction to multiculturalism are its stand on native language rights and the imposition of bill 101. Both these situations leave much to be desired in terms of tolerance and respect for minority rights. The government's reaction to the James Bay natives demands that English continue to be their second language, a matter which is guaranteed by law, has the appearance of being very high-handed and something of an overreaction, to say the least. The situation respecting the educational freedoms of other minority groups further demonstrates that the Levesque government holds less than a sincere desire for a new and separate multicultural state which it continuously expounds.
On the basis of this kind of evidence, I believe Quebeckers have the responsibility to pay very close attention to the intentions of their government. The integrity of the Levesque government will depend, as far as the multicultural community is concerned, on the implementation of policies which match the democratic freedoms and cultural tolerance of our over-all Canadian society. There is no doubt that the Parti Quebecois has introduced an element of uncertainty with regard to Quebec's future, to say the least. Whatever the troubling aspects of the Quebec election, there is, in one sense, a possible benefit from it for the entire country. I think the election has started Canadians thinking seriously about what Canada means to them and what each of them would lose in both a material and an emotional sense if this country ever broke apart.
Those of us of non-British and non-French origin stand to lose if Quebec should leave confederation. In so doing, we must face certain realities, the first of which is that Canada might well not be a multicultural country if not for the French-Canadian presence. It is an accepted fact that the French-Canadian determination to preserve their language and culture provided the basis for other groups to make similar demands. The best evidence of this can be found in the proceedings of the bilingualism and biculturalism commission. It was not until a royal commission was set up to study the
The Address-Mr. Richardson
bicultural nature of Canada that members of Canada's other ethnic groups found the opportunity to demand official recognition of the multi-ethnic or multicultural character of Canadian society. However, just as the French-Canadians set an example by their struggle for cultural survival, they would also set an example by their secession. The fear that Canada's cultural diversity could contribute to the country's fragmentation would suddenly become a reality.
Ironically, however, French-Canadians have also provided some of the strongest opposition to multiculturalism. This opposition has stemmed largely from a fear that multiculturalism was oriented toward placing French-Canadians on the same level as other ethnic groups, and that this situation would lead to their slow but inevitable assimilation into the Anglophone community. This opposition to multiculturalism on the part of French-Canadians is the second reality that we must face. Thus, if we have concern for preserving Canada as a united and multicultural nation, we must accept certain obligations. Above all, we must counter the separatist argument that the Canadian kind of community is not worth preserving. The separatists offer different reasons for their position-some cultural and some economic. To all but the most romantic separatists, we can demonstrate that it makes better economic sense to change arrangements within the country than to set up a separate shop.
There is no question that we live in a world of mass production where economic security depends upon the production of large volumes of goods and, as well, access to large markets. In the modern world, as the Belgians, the British, the French, the Germans and others have found, the way to make more money and to keep more money is in having larger trading units, not smaller ones. One of the most effective weapons against the separatist inclination in Quebec, in the west or wherever else it might arise, would be a coherent national economic policy to stimulate steady economic growth, and to provide real job opportunities for all Canadians. But an equally compelling case is cultural. The culture we value, whether it is Quebecois, or Ukrainian-Canadian, Greek-Canadian or Albertan, can only thrive in a broad community like Canada whose tradition is to respect differences.
Multiculturalism works toward heightening the awareness of Canadians to the importance of cultural diversity. It sensitizes Canadians to the important connection between languages and culture. It refutes the argument that the minority must conform to the will of the majority on all issues. Any step in the direction of a more just and a more democratic society can only serve to benefit not only French-Canadians but all Canadians.
In conclusion, let us remember that only by recognizing the legitimate aspirations of others can we ensure the recognition of our own.


Hon. James Richardson (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne read to us by the Queen calls on Canadians to rediscover the spirit of unity. My purpose in entering this debate is to make what contribution I can to the achievement of that all-important goal. I fully agree with the

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Richardson
hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) when he said that national unity was the main subject contained in the Speech from the Throne. I should like to express my appreciation to him and to the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for the thoughtful and confident way in which they opened the debate. I might also include a word of congratulation to the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) who preceded me and also, if I may, to one of his colleagues, a fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), for the outstanding contribution which he made to the debate earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: 1 want to talk about national unity as I see it and as I understand it. As a member of this House for almost ten years, I say to colleagues on both sides that no one wishes to see a united Canada more than I; and no one wishes to have Quebec and Quebecers as a part of Canada more than I. 1 want to say with equal conviction and, I hope, Mr. Speaker, with equal clarity, that I believe the government has been trying to achieve unity in the wrong way. I believe the government has been leading us in the wrong direction. The evidence for what I am saying is everywhere. We are not achieving unity; the country is more divided than ever.
In these circumstances, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government have no choice but to ask themselves whether the policies that they have been advocating are in fact unifying, or have their policies contributed to the serious division that now exists in Canada? I believe there is an answer to Canadian unity, Mr. Speaker. I believe it is not too late for Canadians as one people to achieve true unity. But before we can state the answer clearly, we must find out what went wrong.
I should like to speak about four fundamental reasons why Canada is now a deeply divided country, four examples of the way Canadians have been led in the wrong direction. First of all, as many other members have done, we must look at our history. For the first 100 years we were on the right track. We were working together. We were building the grand design set out by the Fathers of Confederation. From confederation to Expo we showed every evidence of becoming the model nation of the world. We increased our productivity. We increased our population. We fought and helped to win two world wars in the cause of freedom. In this and in other ways we continuously increased the respect in which Canadians were held by other peoples around the world. At the end of our first hundred years Canada was standing on the threshold of greatness. What went wrong? I believe the verdict of history will show that the decade of the sixties was the decade of division. In the 1960s Canadians were taken off the track.
If we are to identify one day, one point in time and place where Canada took the wrong turn, that day would be July 19, 1963. It was on that day the government established the terms of reference of the Bilingual and Bicultural Commission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: For the first time Canadians were told by their government that they were not one people. In the terms of reference, the government instructed the commissioners to recommend the steps to be taken to develop the Canadian confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races. Canadians should realize that the concept of two founding races is a myth. All Canadians are builders and founders of Canada and it is wrong to suggest that there are only two founding races or two founding peoples.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: From that time on, instead of talking about all that unites us, led by the government, Canadians talked increasingly about what divides us. Instead of talking about unity, the government preached diversity, as the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) was still doing in the debate this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: Instead of talking about unity, the government talked about the duality of the Canadian personality. Since the mid-sixties, since the fatal turning point in 1963, we have increasingly been negotiating with each other, not so much as Canadians but as two separate and competing peoples, and we have been led to believe that the granting of concessions is somehow the road to unity. This is our second fundamental mistake.
I should like to say as clearly as I can that if the granting of concessions to Quebec, whether in the form of increased power for the government of Quebec or in the form of increased language rights, could achieve unity I would be the first to be calling for more concessions. But all the evidence and all our experience to date shows that instead of creating unity, the result of concessions of this kind is to increase disunity. The net effect is to strengthen Quebec nationalism, instead of strengthening Canadian nationalism. This paradox, that concessions that are intended to achieve unity actually result in disunity, has been set out clearly and explained in recent articles by Canada's most eminent historian, Donald Creighton.
A third cause for the deepening division within Canada is the conviction of the Prime Minister about the advantages of national bilingualism. Nowhere is the Prime Minister's misunderstanding of the reality of Canada more apparent than in his speech to the House last week. As reported on page 38 of Hansard for October 19, just after he talked about equality for the French and English languages the Prime Minister made these remarkable and revealing statements: "We are made for bilingualism", and "bilingualism is the very condition of our existence".
I listened to him say these words in the House and wondered how it was possible for anyone to so seriously misread and misunderstand the reality of Canada. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister to ponder his own words. Through you, I wish to tell the Prime Minister that millions of Canadians do not feel they are made for bilingualism.
October 27, 1977


An hon. Member:: Millions do.


James Armstrong Richardson: Millions of Canadians who fully respect the use of the French language in Quebec and who want to accommodate Quebec's aspirations within a stronger Canada do not believe that bilingualism is the very condition of their existence. Do the people of Halifax or Edmonton believe that they are made for bilingualism? Do the people of St. John's, Newfoundland or Vancouver, British Columbia, really believe that bilingualism is the very condition of their existence? If that is how the Prime Minister sees Canada, it is easy to understand why this country is so divided.
Another part of the Prime Minister's speech last week revealed the potentially most serious and dangerous cause of division in Canada, and that was in his reference to the constitution. If we read carefully the Prime Minister's words as set out on page 38 of Hansard of October 19, it is clear that he wants his words and his wishes, his kind of Canada, to be locked into the constitution. It is clear that the Prime Minister would like his vision of Canada to be placed above parliament and beyond the reach of parliament, now and in the future. He talks about arrangements to guarantee in the constitution that the French fact will be inalienable in Quebec by any government, any administration, any federal parliament.
To make his position clearer, he goes on to say that rights should be written into our constitution so that they become definitely inalienable and cannot be abolished through a whim or arbitrary decision by any government. Mr. Speaker, who is being arbitrary? When did the will of parliament become a whim? The Prime Minister knows that legislation passed through parliament by his majority can be amended or changed by parliamentarians in the future. He is not prepared to leave the judgment to future parliaments. He wants to entrench his vision of Canada, his concept of appropriate language rights, in the constitution. He seems determined to place these rights beyond the reach of parliament, beyond the democratic process.
The proposal he is now trying to sell to the provincial premiers is that language rights be entrenched in the Canadian constitution and that the constitution cannot be changed in the future without the approval of the province of Quebec. Of all the changes to the constitution being proposed by the Prime Minister, this House should be most concerned about the procedure being recommended to amend the constitution. This concept of a "single province" veto over changes in the constitution of Canada is undemocratic and unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: It is the majority of Canadians, not one province, who must have the right to approve or to disapprove changes in the constitution of Canada. Perhaps now that the Prime Minister has shown some interest in holding referen-dums, he will take up a suggestion I made more than a year ago and give consideration to the proposal that important changes in the constitution be made only with the approval of a national referendum. In this way the majority of Canadians
The Address-Mr. Richardson
could determine the kind of Canada they would like to have in the future.
My message has always been that it would be wise for Canada to keep our serious language difference at the level of statutory law, which is amendable, and not at the level of constitutional law, which is not amendable except by a rigid amending formula. Canada's Official Languages Act is amendable. In fact, the Speech from the Throne calls for amendments to the act, regardless of what those amendments are. None of us in this House should forget that it is the ability to amend statutory law that gives Canada the flexibility to grow and to change and which confirms the supremacy of parliament.
Surely this is not the time to try to make our differences permanent. I warn the House and I warn the Canadian people that if we entrench the concept of duality in our constitution, if we lock our difference into our fundamental law under a Quebec veto, we will have become two nations and we will have divided Canada forever. The Prime Minister and some others would like Canadians to believe that there are only two options: the separation of Quebec, or a bilingual Canada. This is not the case. By far the best option is to build in the future on the foundation set out by the Fathers of Confederation. It is not necessary to destroy Canada or to change Canada fundamentally in order to build the great Canada in which most of us believe. The Fathers of Confederation did not talk about two founding peoples. They did not talk about two equal national languages. They did not try to write into the constitution an amending procedure that would give a single province veto over future constitutional change.
Here in this House and across Canada, the only way we can be of use to each other is to be honest with each other. If truth is to be found anywhere, I have always believed it should be here on the floor of the House of Commons. It is in that spirit, Mr. Speaker, that I now want to state what I believe to be the answer for Canada. There is an answer that reflects the reality of Canada, a natural, common sense answer. The true answer is that there is only one Canada and Canadians are one people. The answer is to rediscover the spirit of one Canada which we have known in the past and which we can know again.
To do this we must learn that the true spirit of unity is not divisible. Unity can never be found by emphasizing duality and by accentuating diversity. To be one people we must increasingly find ways to be united by language instead of being divided by language. I believe we can do this and at the same time preserve the French language and culture. The answer is for two groups of Canadians to become increasingly bilingual. More English-speaking Canadians in Quebec should be learning French, and more French-speaking Canadians should be learning English. Fortunately, there are strong economic advantages, as well as cultural advantages, to be gained by both of these groups in learning, in each case, the majority language. It is obvious that English-speaking Canadians in

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Quebec are able to work more effectively when they are able to speak the majority language of Quebec.
It is equally obvious that opportunities for Quebecers are multiplied many times when they are able to live and work in the majority language of Canada and in the majority language of North America. It seems reasonable to believe that Englishspeaking Canadians who live in Quebec should want to learn the language of their province, and it is equally reasonable to expect that French-speaking Canadians should want to learn the language of their country. My heart tells me, and fortunately all the surveys confirm it, that the majority of Quebecers want to share in all of Canada and I know the overwhelming majority of Canadians want Quebecers to share equally in all of Canada. Once the reality of one Canada is understood and accepted, Canadians will be united as never before in our history.
The only workable, common sense goal for our country is an increasingly bilingual Quebec in a common language Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to enter this debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and I join others who have extended congratulations to the mover and to the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson), who is in the chamber this afternoon, and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood).
We have heard a very interesting speech by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson) a few moments ago on the issue of national unity as he sees it. I was interested in his remarks, spoken, as they were, with the greatest sincerity and with great attention to delivery. I recall that the hon. member for Winnipeg South is one of those who joined a number of members who have left the cabinet for reasons of their own. At the time that he left the cabinet he indicated that he was not in a position to give unlimited support to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the issue of national unity.
I also recall another very telling fact, I think. If I am not quoting him out of context, I believe he pointed out that in his estimation, having served in the cabinet for a considerable length of time, this administration did not have the interests of western Canada at heart and was not serving western Canadians in the way it should.
Like the hon. member for Winnipeg South, I also want to make some observations on the important issues before our country, and on this administration. I have had the opportunity to observe this government since my election to the House of Commons in 1974 and it is from that perspective that I want to address my remarks today. I came to the House in 1974 with certain ideas about the role which western Canadians in particular should play in the House of Commons, and the role we should all play with respect to the question of national unity. My concern at that time, which continues today, is for the future of our country.

I want to say at the outset that some of the statistics and facts which I may quote have given me cause for great concern, a concern which is probably felt by the majority of members of the House. The fact of the matter is-and the hon. member for Winnipeg South alluded to it in his remarks-that the Prime Minister and his administration have given their whole attention and priority, almost to the exclusion of everything else, to the so-called issue of national unity. There is not one of us in the House who would not support in general the "motherhood" concept of continuing as one country on terms that are most acceptable to the majority of Canadians, terms that are flexible enough to accommodate all people and all provinces in Canada. But what has concerned me more than anything is that, in light of our very serious economic situation today, it does no good for ministers to suggest that we in this country are better off than people are in Bangladesh, and that we have a better standard of living here. That is not what we are here for. We are here to look at the situation in Canada and try to accomplish this country's potential on the basis of the resources and the people in it. We are not here to compare ourselves with the lowest common denominator in the world, whatever that may be.
While we have these serious problems-and I hope to document and underline some of them-the Prime Minister continues to play a game of politics with the the national unity issue. I suggest that is irresponsible, and it will also be dangerous to the continuation of Canada as one country in the future if the Prime Minster is elected for another term. When this debate was focused on the problems of our economy, the Prime Minister attempted again, in a way only he is capable of doing, to divert and deflect the debate away from the serious economic problems we have, to the question of national unity, by dropping the suggestion that he was considering holding a referendum. I thought it was a possible deja vu for all of us. On the question of plebiscites and referenda, the Prime Minister was almost saying, as my colleague the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) said in her remarks, that we in Canada are faced with the proposition of a referendum if necessary, but not necessarily a referendum. It harks back to the old conscription controversy during the Second World War.
As head of this administration, the Prime Minister has given us a legacy, with respect to national unity and with respect to the economy of our country, in which we cannot take very much pride. I do not want to look back to ancient history, but I wish to point out some facts from the days when this parliament commenced in 1974 and compare with them some of the statistics and facts we are faced with today.
In June of 1974, 469,000 Canadians were unemployed. Today, that number is 886,000. In 1974, in my province of Saskatchewan, 9,000 people were out of work. Today, there are twice as many, approximately 18,000 persons out of work, and this in a province which has had one of the lowest inflation factors in the country. Since 1974, prices have risen in the vicinity of 30.4 per cent. When we talk about the success of
October 27, 1977

the anti-inflation program in holding down inflation, I am not sure that figure gives much comfort at all to the people of the country generally.
Less than one year ago, our dollar-which is a reflection of the confidence of the people around the world in Canada-was worth $1.04 in United States money. Since then it has slipped to a low of 89 cents, and there is no indication that it will stop there, and no reaction on the part of the government except that it wants the dollar to float to what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan), I believe it was, said would be a realistic rate of exchange in relation to the American dollar. In 1974, we had a $673 million government spending deficit. Now we have in the vicinity of a $9.2 billion deficit-almost one-twentieth of all the wealth we produce.
On the basis of these statistics and on the basis of the performance of the government in the last three years, if this administration is allowed to carry on for another three years the consequences will be catastrophic. In 1973, we had a balance of payments surplus. Now we have a $5 billion balance of payments deficit. In 1974, we exported crude oil. Now we import something like 365,000 barrels a day. In 1974, we had a relatively united country, compared with the situation today. Only last year the Prime Minister said that separatism was dead. Now we have Rene Levesque. In 1974, our real living standard rose by 4 per cent. Next year, in the final gasp of controls, workers will actually have their living standard reduced by about 2 per cent.
Those are the facts and the statistics we face as we start off this session of parliament and look toward the legislative program and measures this government is bringing before us for consideration. If the Prime Minister is sincerely interested in maintaining his cry for national unity, he will give priority to the state of our economy, because I suggest that that aspect of our business in this House is certainly an important factor in maintaining unity.
A person in Quebec who is unemployed is just as unemployed as a person in Saskatchewan. He has just as real a feeling of resentment about the system as an unemployed person in Saskatchewan. He has the same feeling, in every respect, that he is not being served by his government. While the question of the French language is important, it is not the only consideration. The sooner the Prime Minister discovers that, the better off our country will be.
I want to refer to the situation which existed at the time 1 entered this House, and to what has transpired since. I want to look back to some of the things we were promised in 1974. There were a number of promises and undertakings by the Prime Minister and this government. In the 1974 election campaign, the government promised a future far different from the one it actually delivered. In the elections of 1968 and 1972, the government bribed the electors with their own money. The government made $3 billion worth of promises. The government was far from telling Canadians, "They have to be told they are soft", to quote the Prime Minister, and "When the dollar falls about 10 per cent in one year it is because the world is telling us we are living beyond our
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
means". That is what the Prime Minister said last Sunday, October 23.
The Prime Minister also said that Canadians need discipline, "and if they don't discipline themselves, we will discipline them". By "discipline" the Prime Minister was apparently referring to the whole proposition of controls, or worse. The Prime Minister was presumably referring to the government's promise, made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) in his mini-budget, to limit increases in wages and salaries to 6 per cent in the last year of the program. As I mentioned before, this will result in a reduction of about 2 per cent in the living standard of a great many Canadians. Obviously, one had to read quite a lot between the lines of the 1974 election rhetoric to find this reality. Just before the Prime Minister came into this House in 1974, he said:
One thing about the freeze is clear. We can't freeze the prices on goods coming into Canada from other countries. They won't accept our freeze. So while your wages are frozen, those prices will be going up. Wage and price freezes have already been tried in the United States and Great Britain. It didn't work there. And they won't work here.
The hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), then the leader of the opposition, did not talk about reducing workers' incomes. The answer of the Prime Minister in 1974, in continuing his tradition as a confrontationist, was that he was going to wrestle inflation to the ground. On the basis of the statistics and the facts I have given, when the Prime Minister makes a statement of government policy I wonder whether we are to believe what we are hearing and whether we are to accept any statement of the Prime Minister as government policy.
One thing that has impressed me about the Prime Minister is that if he says something categorically, the chances are he will do the opposite, and if he equivocates the chances are that he will in some way carry out the proposition he has placed before the House.
I am glad to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in the House, because I want to remind him of some things that were said about transportation, particularly as it relates to western Canada. I recall when the minister told a public meeting that if the Liberal government were re-elected, not one railway branch line on the prairies would be abandoned as long as producers delivered to elevators on the line and the elevators continued to operate. It sounded something like an Indian treaty, Mr. Speaker-"as long as the grass is green and as long as the sky is blue". I ask the minister if he has changed his position from that time and whether this was a commitment on the part of the government, because we now find rail line abandonment taking place. Promises were made concerning agriculture, also, during the last election campaign.
Now 1 want to turn to something else that is of interest to me. In the field of energy, promises were made that have been kept in the same way as were those made about transportation. In the past few days there has been some discussion about nuclear policy and the allegations concerning an uranium cartel. I am concerned about this and the revelations which

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Joyal
have occurred in the last year, because of the substantial deposits of uranium in my province of Saskatchewan. During my time in this House I have been concerned about lack of a coherent policy for nuclear or uranium export and import. This area has been concealed by a cloak of secrecy almost as if we were still fighting World War II and were dealing with atom bomb secrets.
As far as I can make out, policy decisions regarding uranium exports and nuclear energy are made with very little, if any, public consultation. As a result, people have no way of assessing whether Canada is adopting the correct position regarding nuclear policy. A great number of matters have given rise to the fear that wrong decisions have been made in this area and that the federal government has not fulfilled its responsibilities.
Uranium is the responsibility of the federal government, yet we find this government has taken the "hands off' approach and has left it to provincial governments to hold public hearings on the matter. In Ontario there is the Porter commission dealing with nuclear energy, and in Saskatchewan there is the Bayda commission dealing with uranium policy. A good part of the terms of reference of that commission are outside the jurisdiction of the province and are within federal jurisdiction.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has called for a public inquiry by a standing committee of this House or some other agency to ensure that the national responsibility set out in law will be honoured. As yet there has been no response from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) or anyone on his behalf. The government has failed in this area of responsibility. On the basis of the things that have happened in this area with AECL, unless the government comes to terms with it we are not only failing in our moral responsibility to this country, but in the moral responsibility we have to the world.


Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, as the old saying would have it, history has whims but no habit. Speaking this afternoon after the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), I feel that this maxim is not entirely accurate. Some of my colleagues have recognized that the first paragraph of the throne speech took up again, one hundred years later, a statement made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1877:
We are here, said Sir Wilfrid, under the government of the Queen, happy and free.
It was during the reign of Queen Victoria at the time when the sun never set on the empire and when, to reassert the wish of Canada for its independence in front of its neighbouring republic, the monarchy seemed the best rampart. A hundred years have elpased since. The English sovereign, as the Canadian head of state, despite the pompous rhetoric and commotion surrounding her travels, is only a symbol.
Yet, if in earlier times we have been able to display the crown and the sceptre to show ourselves different from our neighbours, we must recognize today, as our country is going through an identity crisis, that the throne no longer hold its

mystic virtues, at least for most French-speaking Canadians. Being the well advised person she is, Queen Elizabeth was quite aware of this, for she stated during her Quebec visit in 1964:
A dynamic state should not be afraid of re-examining its political philosophy.
The soul, the character of a people is expressed through symbols. "Any culture", wrote Andre Malraux in Le Musee Imaginaire, "is the incarnation of a legendary soul; but no culture is based only on legends, and if ours is more than fairy tales for grown-ups, it is because for us the story of Antigone is that of brothers who were enemies ... Antigone was a young woman who, knowing that she may be buried alive, buries two princes who had died fighting-one for his country, the other against it-because they were her brothers..."
Sophocles' drama haunts our "national" conscience, so great is the risk of burying hope by staging a mortal combat pitting against one another two brothers whom history has changed into enemies.
Symbols are as essential to Canada's political culture, and thus to the knowledge of itself, as the imaginary and timelessness are to the arts of civilization. The legendary soul of a people does not express itself merely through its copper or stone monuments, figures that Beaudelaire calls "viable monsters", it continually feeds itself on the inexhaustible source of its symbols. Some authors, philosophers I must say, even maintain that the ills and crises of modern societies can indeed be explained by the absence of a myth particular to them. When Jung wrote one of his books Modern Man in Search of a Soul, he suggested that the modern world was in search of a new myth, which alone would enable it to find a new spiritual source and give it back its creative forces.
Pragmatists, and they are numerous in politics in the wake of Bentham, do not take exception to the obsolescence of the mythical language of Canada's political society. What is the use of symbols, they ask. This question, innocent in appearance, receives complex answers. Levi-Strauss, Barthes and Lefebvre have suggested difficult avenues. According to these authors, the symbol is exclusive: it should not be disputed in respect of its content, its sense, its meaning. The integrity of its qualities, they maintain, give it a power of gathering, of consensus. If it is contested, it loses its proper value, it cannot any longer be a mark of belonging.
By its very nature, said Levi-Strauss, a political society finds its own symbolic expression in institutions.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, symbolic efficiency is vital to the unity of the Canadian political society. Those who think that the symbolic language of our political culture is veracious, or that, in any case, the relevancy of the monarchy does not really matter, avoid part of the essential debates, that is to clarify the confusion which exists in the Canadian system between the function of Head of State of Canada and that of head of the government.
Anyone who claims to be honestly searching for a new sense to national unity will not forever be able to clarify that
October 27, 1977

ambiguousness. If we think that it is possible to build a politically mature country, we must ensure the relevancy of its symbolic vocabulary. Never will we succeed in unifying this country if its capacity for abstraction is cramped.
As long as the majority in the country forces upon the minority symbols which do not reflect its conception of the world, the Canadian society will go through growing pains which might not create a stir on the surface but will certainly prevent it from developing the same political culture-a body of references to an heritage which could be shared by two majorities.
In a study he published the year before the November 15 election, political scientist Leon Dion wrote, and I quote:
Rather, they concluded that to rule it was enough to provide bread and games-to alternate between the carrot and the stick-on the assumption that people, today as yesterday, are not very sophisticated in social and cultural matters. Here can we best see the importance the Parti Quebecois could have for French Canadians. The task that devolves upon that party is indeed far-reaching: will it be possible for that party to help giving at last a political expression to the culture peculiar to Quebecers as it is shown today by the "chansonniers", artists, labour unions, intellectuals, citizen groups and young people? This is ultimately the great, in fact the only challenge to be taken up by this party: independence and social democracy are only a political reduction of the real problem, a problem which concerns the "vouloir etre", the soul of the people.
The authors of the speech read last week would like to seek in the human mind the cause of the present state of dissatisfaction in the midst of plenty, concluding that this is also where the unity of the nation will have to take its roots. This thesis, taken from a Renan conference in the Sorbonne in 1882, leaves out one essential dimension:
Everything created by the mind, Giedion states, will have to be humanized, which means compensated by sensitiveness.
Too many Francophones, including a number of proponents of changes in the socio-cultural order, federal institutions have never been able to express completely the sensitiveness, the "vouloir etre" of the culture which is peculiar to French-speaking people. The great political debates which have agitated Canada have always left Francophones humiliated, wounded, offended in their "vouloir etre".
The majority of Canadians, in times of great decisions, used all their weight to break the differing will of its revolted minority. Though Francophones had to bow, in 1885, in 1917, in 1942 and again in June of last year before the fanaticism of the controllers and pilots, their right to differ, their will to resist have only grown stronger from it. And now I quote Karel Kocik:
From the political point of view, the vanquished is the one who allows the adversary to impose his views upon him, who judges his own actions through the eyes of his adversary.
If we are to rediscover a sense of unity, it will have to be through means entirely different from those taught us by the political history of Canada. Today, some would try to legitimize the political institutions established some 110 years ago by a national or local referendum. How demeaning for the lessons of history.
In October 1866, 21 Francophone members of parliament sent Lord Carnarvon, chief Secretary of State to His Majesty
The Address-Mr. Joyal
for the colonies, a petition requesting that the federal project be submitted to the approval of the population before receiving the royal sanction at Westminster. The petitioners, with judicious pen, wrote that if Confederation were accepted, and I quote:
... without the sanction of public opinion, and it is discovered at a later date that it is unacceptable to the majority of the people in some of the provinces, which (they believed) would certainly happen in Lower Canada, there will inevitably be violent unrest, either to have it recalled or to have it amended, which will lead to an era of trouble and dissatisfaction which will be highly detrimental to the interests of the various provinces and very awkward for the statesmen of the Empire.
This request was never granted, Mr. Speaker. The assembly disposed of the project of Confederation by a rather embarrassing vote; 26 French-speaking and 11 English-speaking members voted in favour, 22 French-speaking and three English-speaking members voted against. To submit to public approval a constitutional piece of legislation passed 110 years ago, after having rejected public consultation on the same issue, would be forgetting history. We must read over the speeches of the supporters of public consultation before Confederation came into being to realize that, long before us, members from Quebec had seen in the public will the basis of the political institutions of a nation.
It seems unacceptable to me that one should think of forcing a majority of Quebecers to stay within the present institutions because that is what the rest of the country wants. Nor could we reasonably want to have a constitutional framework approved today, when their representatives were denied public ratification 111 years ago. If this constitutional referendum that the federal government is considering is to have any meaning, it can only be after a new proposed constitution would have defined a new form of political society and provided French Canadians with new guarantees. Some will argue that all this is already in the legislation, the commitments, the statements of the federal government. It would be ignoring the reality to think that existing formulas are perfect and that we only have to adjust their implementation.
It is not enough to proclaim the equality of languages for this to become a fact in institutions and in practice. It is not enough to proclaim the equality of opportunities to make people forget that political dynamics is essentially a relation of strength in which the majority always wins when it wants to, unless the rules are rigorously modified, otherwise the objectives will be completely distorted.
A constitutional referendum is therefore simply a strategy to surprise or defeat adversaries. It comes first of all from the profound conviction that the participation of citizens in decisions which affect their future is a basic democratic value. Therefore, it should be determined if it is through a desire to apply this concept of democracy and include it in the constitutional amendment process that the federal government will introduce a referendum bill. Otherwise, it will be diverting for its own purposes a form of democratic institution whose contents and meaning are far above tricks and strategies.
When we go through democratic channels to decide the faith of states, we must ensure identical requirements and

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Joyal
meanings for rights and freedoms. After the events of October 1970, members of the federal government denounced publicly the weaknesses of Canadian legislation, and the War Measures Act in particular, to meet such exceptional situations while respecting as much as possible civil and political rights and liberties. It is unfortunate that despite the commitment made by the government leader in the House on October 27, 1975, a bill designed for such situations has not yet been introduced and the government has made no mention of it in its inaugural message.
As soon as there is a conflict-
-wrote Julien Freund-
-man is immediately willing to take side with one of the opposing parties, precisely to give it a retributive value, even by distributing guilt unilaterally. Is this not an admission that we give strength to the value of a judgment when we recognize that the cause of one of the opponents or antagonists is good and just and that of the adversary is wrong and iniquitous?
The crisis with which we are now faced is too likely to give rise to bellicose manicheism for us not to recognize as urgent the need to restrict the power of the state. The commitment to serve rights and liberties can be measured first of all by the urgency with which we prevent and solve situations where they could be threatened. The elimination from our statutes of potential abuses of power is a necessity which must command all our attention in our present uncertain situation.
To exist as a country, can Canada have other institutions than those defined in the act of 1867? That is the question that many of our fellow citizens, including sincere men and women whose commitment to the defense of a more open and more just society has been proven, are asking themselves about the alternatives that have been identified as a "third option."
Those people are indignant because of past injustice, worried, perhaps in a Montaigne kind of way. People who do not want destruction or disruption, those frequently used words in politics, but try in sober thought and in respecting other people's opinions, to reach a consensus around values which might bring about a common will to live which is closer to everyone's aspirations. That approach, which is essential in the definition of the balance we are aiming at, lies in fact on two virtues: tolerance and idealism.
The first comes from what Mounier once called "la dramati-que d'autrui". The second comes from an understanding of freedom which says that "the theory where truth will arise is the attitude of a man who distrusts himself'.
That should reassure all those to which individual as well as national independence are not absolutes. To try and specify values which the act of 1867 did not foresee is a process which cannot find a solution in obsolete formulas.
Far from being the so-called wizards of constitutional alchemy who unwittingly fell into the semantic trap, the "damned of the third option" stand a far better chance of being the explorers of the rediscovery of the sense of unity than of being the heretics of the official orthodoxy.
The inaugural address dealt at length with the present economic conditions; if it suggests immediate steps to face the
(Mr. Joyal.)
setbacks of an ailing economy, it barely touched on the more exacting concerns of those who beyond the immediate feel as Pisar that "the economic and moral aspects of our future cannot be dissociated".
This awareness of the stakes conveyed by the trend of the economic growth is not ignored by some government members. Did the Minister of National Health and Welfare not state on November 3, 1975 that:
Few are aware, for example, that in 1973, the families included in the lower 20 per cent of the economic ladder received only some 6 per cent of the total income, while one Fifth of the people at the higher level got about 39 per cent. It has been extremely difficult to alter those ratios throughout the years, the gap being almost similar in Canada in 1951 as it is 25 years later.
This cool and clear-headed finding appeared a few weeks later in the Prime Minister's remarks at the end of the year:
We have not been capable of making good use of our free market system. What this system has eventually brought us is nothing but very high unemployment and inflation rates. We cannot go back and keep the same habits, the same behaviour, the same institutions.
There is no need to recall, Mr. Speaker, the outcry that these remarks generated mainly from banking and credit circles. The present structures simply cannot modify the power relation that has been established in this country between its various economic components. Although Canada sets aside more than 28 per cent of its budget for transfer payments, such operations have only helped at best in freezing the gap between incomes as it stood in 1951. They do not contain the seeds of a reduction of that gap. It seems that we have reached a certain ceiling in the capacity of the present programs to modify the scale of incomes. In a study released in March 1976 by a committee formed under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs called "Dynamic change and accountability in a Canadian market economy", the elements of a new approach were formulated which opened avenues for a redefining of the role and the limit of government action within the framework of a free market economy.
The lack of reference to this subject in the Speech from the Throne leads us to believe that for the present, the government is more concerned about lowering the rates shown by statistics than about performing an exercise of deep reflection on the orientations, the choices and the inequalities brought along by our present economic structures.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying that our country is engaged in a period of deep and intense reflection. Simplifications, historical shortcuts and mystifications must not prevail and make us lose track of what has always inspired the century-old resistance of Francophones throughout the times-their refusal to become assimilated and be part of an homogeneous society.
They have historically asked for justice; they have always recognized their own minority rights which were broader than they ever were granted elsewhere in Canada. They have always thought that being just was a way of questioning freedom as practised by the various seats of power, be they of a governmental or business nature. They have come to a moment in their history when they will no longer plead or beg
October 27, 1977

for the right to be different, they just want to "live their difference".
This is the sole responsibility resting upon us: to review entirely our political society to make sure that the laws and institutions of the country are a guarantee and reflect, in their action and their operation, the difference which has always characterized us.


Benno Friesen: Would the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont permit a question?


Serge Joyal: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Benno Friesen: Thank you. I noted with interest that the hon. member referred to a play by Sophocles, the play "Antigone", in which the central character was driven by what the critics call hubris to separate himself so much from society that finally he destroyed himself. I wonder why the hon. member did not elaborate on that aspect, rather than on one of the minor elements of that play.


Serge Joyal: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 will gladly remind my colleague on the other side of the House, that Antigone did not commit suicide, but was condemned to be buried alive and that she symbolized love in mythology, in classical drama. As she was being walled in Antigone said: "I was not born for hatred but for love". And both her brothers lost in action specifically represent the hope she entertained of symbolizing love when, accepting the verdict of the jury, she preserved the two forces which had led to her death-hatred and love.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I shall pursue that line of debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: I am delighted to take part in the discussion of the Speech from the Throne. It is a great honour to have such an opportunity after the recent opening of parliament by Her Majesty the Queen.
October 18, the day of the throne speech, was a day of very special meaning to me, because it marked the first anniversary of my election to parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: So it was especially meaningful to me to hear the fine moving and seconding speeches of two members who also came into parliament as a result of by-elections. This first year has brought many insights and a new appreciation of the extent to which the spirit and decisions of this House reach out into our national life. I am proud to represent the people of Ottawa-Carleton. They have taught me, inspired me and shown me time and time again that it is not the great systems
The Address-Mrs. Pigott
or the great laws which make a nation, but the life of its people.
The one event of the royal visit which stood out for me was the mingling of people of all faiths and ages, some of them in wheel-chairs, at the interfaith service as they gathered beneath the beautiful Peace Tower to pray for Canada. I felt hopeful that morning.
1 do not wish to get into a debate at this time about the role of the monarchy in Canadian history, but I should like to mention one thing: during the royal visit, our attention was drawn to a woman who has performed her duty for 25 years in a most outstanding way as Queen of a Commonwealth embracing 36 nations and a quarter of the world's population. The superb record of Her Majesty the Queen is a great example to the government of this country which has repeatedly promised that the role of women is going to be more fully recognized, though I am afraid they have paid only lip service to that idea. Why could not the government have marked the visit of this outstanding woman by making a firm commitment to appoint a significant number of women to all boards and commissions, in appreciation of the role of women in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Cultural and linguistic equality are important, but sex equality is also important to this country.
I would like to speak for a few minutes about decentralization, Mr. Speaker. There are many upsetting aspects of the recently announced program of decentralization of government departments. Most disturbing to me is the fact that planned decentralization, which could well have been a positive step, has been replaced by a kind of manipulation and blatant political opportunism which has created what a local newspaper has called "The new Acadians."
Public servants recognize that many companies in private industry move their employees, and it is an accepted practice in the armed services. The method of decentralization, however, leaves much to be desired. So much of decentralization has placed planning second to political expediency that public servants, 1 am certain, feel like chessmen on a board-pawns in a game.
Would it not, Mr. Speaker, have been more humane to decentralize by establishing new government agencies away from Ottawa, as was done, for example, with Petro-Can, rather than moving existing operations? If we examine the decentralization being carried out as an investment in human and financial terms, little credit can be given to the "broker". There is, for example, little indication that local labour markets will be improved by jobs moved to the regions from Ottawa and staffed from the capital too. Duplicate staffing is inevitable in order to facilitate communication between Ottawa and the regions. Overhead costs will rise as new buildings are erected to replace existing government-owned space left empty in Ottawa. As my colleague, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), explained in his fine

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mrs. Pigott
speech the other day, it is silly to argue that decentralization will help unemployment when specialized agencies are moved to other parts of Canada.
The most critical weakness in decentralization planning is that it overlooks the fact that people are being moved, not just entries on an organizational chart, or desks and chairs. The government cannot claim to have the best interests of Canadians at heart when decentralization is being carried out without consultation, and when 13 or 15 units being moved are destined for areas important to Liberal election hopes. As one observer pointed out, if private industry attempted such a move, the government would step in to protect the workers on the grounds that it was not part of the original agreement when they were hired.
There has been no consultation. The Public Service Alliance of Canada has called for a committee comprising government representatives, departmental people and union officials to work together in planning decentralization. Lack of such consultation poses a serious threat to morale in the public service. The task force on decentralization is an internal inquiry. The cost of decentralization is unknown. No master plan is available. The government has argued that only 11 per cent of the United States public service is based in Washington-ignoring the fact that 80 per cent of the so-called decentralized units are within 40 miles of that capital city. In any case, is the U.S. example appropriate to the Canadian situation?
This lack of information is compounded by the fact that many employees affected by the moves learn of the decision through newscasts or a memorandum issued on the same day that the moves are announced. The number one employer in Canada gives little evidence that it comprehends or cares about the lives of its employees. Planning appears to be a game in which a roll of the dice determines how many people will move, and a spin of the political dial determines where.
I should like to speak for a moment about housing and urban affairs, for me a new area of concern. Mr. Disraeli said: "Man is not the creature of circumstances. Circumstances are the creatures of men." Housing in Canada is proof of Disraeli's words. Over two-thirds of Canadians live in urban areas. Housing and urban development are important issues in this country. Canadian housing policy must recognize the wide-ranging nature of the housing sector. Suitable shelter is a basic right of every Canadian. Housing is a consumer item; it is the major investment of most families, and it is a part of industry, providing jobs, income and tax revenue. The development of our urban areas is a critical part of the quality of life of Canadians.
One of the most significant aspects of the housing sector which faces those forming policy is its extreme regional nature. Local conditions accelerate fluctuations on the urban scene as economic and social factors change rapidly. The steadying hand of long-term objectives and meaningful consultation among all levels of government must guide short-term measures aimed at specific problems. The present ministry of

housing and urban affairs has grown in isolation, losing its flexibility and sacrificing consultation for expediency.
The recently announced home insulation program is a sad example of this situation. Since the fall of 1975, the Progressive Conservative party has urged that energy supply measures be matched by energy conservation measures. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) made this point clearly during the special energy debate in August, 1977. The International Energy Agency has questioned the apparent gap between promises and performance on the part of the government in relation to energy conservation.
I think the insulation program came into being because there was an August or September election looming in the distance, but a look at the insulation program discloses that it is discriminatory in that larger, non-taxable grants are allotted to the two provinces which, curiously enough, have Liberal governments. The program is inadequate. The estimated cost of insulating an average home is $900, while the maximum grant is $350. The head office for this program has been placed in a province which is not taking part in the insulation program. The lack of adequate regulation in this program has been a windfall for "quick buck operators". Inept installation and outright opportunism could cost Canadians more than money. As my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), has said, many people are turning their homes into fire traps.
I should also like to mention an area of concern to me which is very much part of my responsibilities but, more than that, for me is the focus of great interest. I refer to the handicapped. In mentioning a revised social services act, the Speech from the Throne touched on an area which is of great concern to me-the future of the one in seven Canadians who are handicapped. We too easily assume that an arthritic person is lazy or that a deaf person is slow. It is convenient to be sympathetic and patient about the obvious disadvantages of the handicapped. We do not often consider that we have our own, less visible handicaps which they must tolerate.
The Canadian Council on Social Development has pointed out that much of present policy as it affects the handicapped is fragmented, badly co-ordinated and inadequate. In fact, we must recognize that disabled citizens are entitled to access to the same community services as other Canadians. Birth defects could be prevented, rather than cured, if budgets were revised. Medical rehabilitation is a hit and miss affair. Responsibilities are so scattered that integration of services to the disabled is impossible. Disability payments are often wasted on administration instead of services. We have made age a handicap. How much consideration has been given to some sort of phased retirement, short work week or part-time work for the elderly?
On June 11, 1977, redistribution became official and new electoral boundaries were established in Canada. Since the Chief Electoral Officer is charged, among other things, with issuing instructions to election officers, and since the Chief Electoral Officer is responsible to the President of the Privy Council, a great opportunity exists for the government to issue specific orders to local deputy returning officers in each of the
October 27, 1977

federal constituencies to ensure complete accessibility of polling stations to those Canadians who are handicapped, especially the 100,000 or so Canadians who are wheel-chair users. I urge the government to consider these measures not as a matter of charity but as a matter of right. Harry Kemp once said:
I pitied him in his blindness But can I boast, "I see"?
Perhaps there walks a spirit Close by, who pities me.
Just a word about the future. Events of the past year have turned the thoughts and concerns of Canadians toward the future of our country. Options of many kinds have been brought forward. Changes in attitudes, however, may be more important than constitutional changes. The strains on national unity reflect many other serious problems. The spirit of trust necessary to sustain and build a strong Canada will develop only when citizens from all parts of Canada are able to explore solutions to our problems together and in good faith. We should remember that we talk of our resources and still largely ignore the energy and management potential of the half of our population who are women. Government employees are expected to be public servants, but they have so small a role in the decision to decentralize that they might as well be slaves.
Our urban centres, the largest of which could be provinces in their own right, must develop while coping with a lack of guidance, co-ordination and consultation, from an Ottawa government which does not co-operate or consult with the provincial governments about their concerns. We talk of democracy and then effectively block the ballot box for one in seven of our voters.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Our future will be assured when this government begins to listen to the voices of the people and replaces the kind of politics which respond only to election promises.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege to participate in the throne speech debate, especially in the Silver Jubilee year of the reign of our sovereign, Queen Elizabeth II. We were honoured, and indeed grateful, to have had Her Majesty participate in the opening of the third session of the Thirtieth Parliament of Canada.
I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
As I make my speech today, I vividly recall my emotions of excitement and humility when I delivered my maiden speech in 1957, at which time the Queen opened the first session of the Twenty-Third Parliament of Canada. Today, 20 years later, as we begin this session under the glare of television lights and the scrutiny of several cameras, my feelings are no less intense.
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
I hope televising our deliberations in this chamber will help to make our work more efficient and, above all, give our people a chance to see parliament in action.
Also, I welcome this opportunity to say how proud and grateful I am to represent the people of Parkdale in the House of Commons. They reside in an attractive part of west end Toronto on the shore of Lake Ontario. Parkdale has an interesting history of tradition and change about which we will hear more as its residents prepare for the celebration of its centennial in 1979. Many of my constituents were born in this great country, but many are immigrants or first generation descendants of immigrants who have adopted Canada as their country and, with their fellow Canadians, are generously contributing their work and their talents to make Canada an even better place in which to live and raise their children.
Parkdale is a reflection of the Canadian multicultural mosaic. Its people have family ties in other parts of the world and, therefore, international developments interest them very much. Many of them are closely following the Belgrade review meeting of the Helsinki agreement and the final act of the conference on European co-operation and security to which Canada was a signatory nation, along with 34 others, on August 1, 1975, in Helsinki.
As in some other countries, we have organized a parliamentary Helsinki group, reading the reports from Belgrade and watching the actions of governments. We have a parliamentary observer group in Belgrade and a group in Canada keeping in touch with concerned Canadians. The Helsinki agreement review conference, without a thorough examination of respect for human rights would be a mockery of the solemn commitments of 1975 and an abdication of the responsibility of governments to their people. I am sure the Canadian government will not be dissuaded from pursuing its humanitarian concerns so nobly begun and carried out during the initial negotiations of this conference.
We are particularly happy to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the goal of enhancing the rights and freedoms of Canadians can also be pursued through commitment to the principle of open government. An example of that commitment was the enactment of the Human Rights Act, the recent appointment of the Human Rights Commission and the Privacy Commissioner. In the future promotion of open government, parliament will be asked to approve the establishment of the office of ombudsman to deal with complaints arising from federal administrative actions.
As a member of parliament during the past several years, 1 have been astounded by the number of complaints from my constituents. Unfortunately, it is difficult to help them, in view of the bureaucracy and lack of such an office as that of federal ombudsman. Many of us who have been advocating such an office welcome this announcement of our government and hope it will bring greater and swifter redress to those Canadians who have been wronged.
I truly believe that the present session of parliament is shaping up into the most important and the most crucial session in our parliamentary career. Canada and the world are

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
confronted with many serious problems. Our industrial civilization is very seriously challenged by the energy crisis, inflation and unemployment. Governments and their people must rally and mobilize their will and resources to fight this grave threat to our socioeconomic survival.
Along with other members of the House, I welcome the government's initiatives announced in the Speech from the Throne which are evidence of the federal government's determination to give political leadership, strong government and an unwavering confidence to Canadians who are impatiently awaiting our best efforts in these difficult times. Therefore, this is not the time for half measures or petty politics.
During this period of wage and price controls, which had to be adopted to fight galloping inflation, Canadians have co-operated to restrain their demands on the economy and have achieved some successes. As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) reported to us in his mini-budget address last Thursday, many companies have learned to deal with the problems of rising prices. We welcome the minister's announcement of measures designed to achieve a sustained growth in our economy of between 5 per cent and 6 per cent in order to bring down the unemployment rate and that the expansion should be led by exports and business investment.
As well, the minister explained the operation of the three root causes of our economy's setback, namely, weakened exports, increased costs of production, and lack of confidence. Then he proposed a five-point program to stimulate the economy without increasing the danger of inflation, namely, a phase-out of controls beginning April 14, 1978, a personal income tax cut of up to $100 for low and middle income taxpayers; further job creation programs; an employment credit for job creation, and the maintenance of strict restraint on government expenditures.
Also, he appealed for the help of all Canadians because government cannot do everything itself. He appealed to the opposition members in parliament to stop politicking and to start swiftly enacting measures proposed in the last budget and in the mini-budget of last Thursday. Time is precious, and each hour lost delays the benefits to our people and increases costs in general.
In the long term we must try to get all sectors of our population to co-operate with the government in developing without further delay an economic and an industrial strategy. Many of us have been asking for this for a long time, and I hope we will not have to wait much longer. The battle to provide more jobs, increase growth and ensure a stable economy will not be won without firm action and definite planning, and especially without the consultation and co-operation of business, labour and, indeed, all levels of government.
The recent reports of the Science Council of Canada and of our Liberal caucus's industrial policy committee should be given serious attention by our government in planning future economic and industrial strategy. In particular, the Canadian manufacturing industry should be strengthened in the face of

lower tariffs which are now being negotiated in Geneva at the GATT meeting. Some economists are even advocating a "Buy Canada Act", and others are recommending a greater effort to buy goods made in Canada. At this time I would like to appeal to the ministers in charge of the large economic portfolios to do everything possible to help save the jobs of employers of Northern Telecom, Anaconda Brass, and INCO where we hear that mass lay-offs are impending.
In harnessing our major programs to the objectives of a national industrial policy, we should try to create tax revenues instead of giving subsidies, and to develop industrial competence instead of relying on research from abroad. But the tax environment is very important to all such linked industrial objectives as specialization, research and development, and the processing of raw materials. The tax regime must be set so as to reinforce other measures and be related to achieving competitiveness. I think, also, it is time to re-examine and reform our tax structure as it applies to primary resources and secondary manufacturing industries, and to encourage the initiative of our businessmen, with tax incentives, to build and invest in Canada. Unfortunately, we hear that too many of our business and financial institutions are investing in states such as Florida where the tax structure is more favourable to them. These businessmen and investors are asking for more stable tax policies which would give them time to make long-term plans.
I also agree with the government that a special, comprehensive small businesses act is urgently needed to serve the needs of the smaller owner-managed sector of our economy, and that at this time of high unemployment our manpower training programs should be upgraded and made more practical, such as, for example, that the unemployed on these retraining programs be trained on the job. I think this will go a long way toward successfully relocating the unemployed people of our country.
We are particularly happy to hear from the Minister of Finance that this year and next year the government will be spending over $1 billion on direct job creation, and also the announcement by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) that a special fund of $5 million will be made available to train our unemployed youth. We should also implement the 14-point program announced by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), together with the establishment of a national consultative forum and fair comparison bargaining in public and essential services, as they are important elements of an over-all industrial strategy.
Some philosophers state that we are what we think, and some nutritionists state that we are what we eat. I believe that both are right. I also believe in the adage attributed to Juvenal about a sound mind in a sound body. That is why I was happy to hear about the new national policies on food and amateur sport. We are awaiting with impatience the forthcoming policy on recreation and physical fitness which is an important part of the government's legislative program for this and the coming year.
We learned with satisfaction, in the throne speech, that the government is taking new initiatives in the development of a
October 27, 1977

comprehensive national food policy by calling a national food conference next February after having received submissions from major sectors in this field. Canada does need an up-to-date food strategy, and I hope that during that conference expert nutritionists will be present who will study the problem of nutrition in Canada and, above all, the effect of the many food additives that are being allowed in our food products at this time.
The world is facing a food crisis which may be even more serious than the energy crisis. World stocks of grain are at a very low level, and there is increasing evidence that the pressure on food resources will not lessen. As was stated yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), Canada has a unique and immense potential to increase its food production, in spite of its severe climate. The Canadian labour force and investment community have the capacity to develop a gigantic food industry in this country, as some economists have stated, such as Dr. G. Korey and Professor K. Eckhard, who in a major paper presented not long ago stated that Canada has the potential to become a world food bank, not only by bolstering secondary industry and becoming a great food exporter, and thereby reducing our trade deficits.
As a physician, I cannot refrain from reiterating my appeal to the government to increase its vigilance over the many new chemicals and other products introduced into our work and home environments. These new chemicals are dangerously altering our environment and are exposing man to growing amounts of harmful pollutants. As a result, today we are faced with the great problem of environmental diseases, including cancer, caused by asbestos, vinylchloride and other substances. We are faced with other environmental diseases, including birth defects, mercury and arsenic poisoning, chronic respiratory diseases, deafness, and many others. However, the proposal of the Minister of Labour for the establishment of an industrial safety and health centre should help to identify occupational health hazards and recommend any changes that are necessary as well as the strict enforcement of regulations.
1 should like to propose, also, that the federal government enact laws and regulations regarding special toxic substances, making it the responsibility of manufacturers to prove that their products are safe before they are put on the market. Such measures would help prevent new toxic substances entering the environment and endangering our health and lives, as well as upsetting the delicate ecology of our earth. We Canadians have reached a crossroad in our national life. Redesigning national socioeconomic policies is fundamental to the achievement of national unity. The urgency of constitutional reform and an economic strategy is made more acute by the separatist challenge from the Parti Quebecois government elected last November 15. So we welcome the intiatives of the government and the leadership of the Prime Minister expressed in his statement, that he is profoundly dedicated to the spirit and achievement of unity. The work of the task force on Canadian unity should assist Canadians to participate more actively in the debate and make a greater contribution to the future shaping of our country.
The Address-Mr. Haidasz
We are looking forward to the measures relating to the constitution of Canada so that a new federalism will emerge and receive the support and devotion of Canadians everywhere. We welcome the historic "Statement on Language" approved at the meeting of provincial Premiers last August, and the proposal to entrench in the constitution language rights in education. At this time I want to join with those Canadians who abhor the abrogation of English language rights in Quebec's language bill 101, and appeal to the government to assist the minority of Quebec to fight for its language rights.
I am sure we all welcome the government's proposal to amend the Official Languages Act and to clarify the role of the courts in safeguarding the equality of status of the official languages within the jurisdiction of the government of Canada, and the government's commitment to ensure greater availability of education in both official languages. 1 am sure we all agree that the great majority of Canadians are dedicated to the strengthening of bonds between Canadians speaking our two official languages and those belonging to our many different cultural backgrounds.


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


Mr. Ellis:: I am sorry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There not being unanimous consent, with the permission of hon. members 1 would like to make the House aware of the proceedings on the adjournment motion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 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 Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Bilingualism-Suggested amendment of Official Languages Act to eliminate certain injustices; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Housing- Reason for failure to protect home buyer; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Veterans Affairs-Amendment to provide for widows of veterans receiving less than 48 per cent disability pension-Government position.
350

The Address-Mr. Oberle


THE SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
October 27, 1977

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dawson for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in being able to participate in this debate because it allows hon. members to digress from the tedious rigidity of normal debate and to elaborate on some of the problems which are of particular concern to us, our regions, our provinces and our constituencies.
This is a particularly critical time in our country's history. It seems that every conceivable challenge which must from time to time be met by governments in the free world has been thrown at us. We are divided from within, in terms of geography and cultural goals and objectives. We have lost the confidence of our friends abroad, who are expressing discontent to us in economic terms. We are forced to direct all our attention to issues of national unity and to making patchwork repairs to our national fibre. This leaves us little time to address ourselves to the massive problems of unemployment and inflation which have caused much anxiety and fear among our population.
Many of the problems we now face cannot be isolated because they are all interrelated, one being the cause of the other and one equally and potentially as dangerous and disruptive as the other. Up to a year ago the government was able to compare our situation with that of other free countries around the world. Economic difficulties were a global problem brought on by the energy crisis, shortages and over-supplies of essential commodities, and significant changes in the behavioural attitude of people in the free world.
However, no longer can we make an analogy with other nations. The problems to which this government must address itself immediately are now peculiar to our own situation only. It almost seems that the methods and procedures which have been developed under our constitution-or the constitution itself-are no longer sufficient and broad enough in scope to accommodate the necessary changes which need to be made in order to correct some of the most serious imbalances which have occurred in our system.
In one of the brighter phrases of his speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave us an indication that he, too, has considered constitutional reform and Senate reform, using other countries as models, to satisfy the needs and objectives of regions and provinces. The Prime Minister made comparisons with the constitutional model of West Germany, where the upper House is appointed by region, which gives the senators a real presence in the nation's capital, allows them to take a real part in the decision-making process and allows them the power an upper House should have with respect to matters which relate to regional concerns and regional differences. It is obvious to me that that kind of reform is essential for us in
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
Canada if we hope to keep our country together. We must decentralize, not just the bureaucracy but the decision-making process as well.
Premiers' conferences are not enough, although the Prime Minister would likely prefer that. This would give the Prime Minister an opportunity to play the House of Commons off against the Premiers, and vice versa, an exercise in which he has already developed impressive skills. These skills are particularly evident when we assess the Prime Minister's behaviour in the establishment of bipartite negotiations with labour and business. The Prime Minister does not believe in tripartite negotiations in which three partners sit at one table in one room. He believes in talking to one partner at a time, exposing the other partner as the villain and never accepting any blame himself.
The reforms made in our system must be more fundamental than those we have seen. In spite of all the technological achievements over the past 50 years, we have not been able to bring our country closer together. We are, and likely always will be, dislocated by geography and economic and social realities. There is no amount of legislation which can bridge the gaps which will divide us into a number of regions with peculiar problems, but with unique opportunities as well. Our regions have developed their own priorities and objectives, and I consider it not to be of the gravest consequence that one of the priorities of the Quebec region, for instance, should not be to insist on linguistic duality at the moment but, rather, to assure that the great culture which has always been inherent in the French culture and linguistic group is preserved and that it be allowed to catch up in the economic area as well.
Our compatriots in the province of Quebec are not the ones who need to continue to chase after an illusive cultural identity, as we in the rest of the country need to do. Our compatriots in Quebec have other objectives, and they should have the right to pursue those objectives in a confederation.
As a matter of fact, having regard to the reality of Prince George, the Peace River country and all of British Columbia I fail to detect any enthusiasm toward the other official language. In fact, I could cite numerous examples of discontent which has been expressed to me in connection with the obsession of the Prime Minister to bring the French fact beyond an irreversible position in this country. It has been a divisive tool the Prime Minister has used to keep our country together, and his objectives have not been met.
All of us who have command of another language can appreciate the tremendous asset such skills can be, and our whole society would be enriched by the acquisition of such skills, but of so many other things which the individual likes to decide for himself this is probably the most critical one.
Parents who trace their ancestry back to cultures which do not find their roots in either the French and English cultures would likely aspire for their children to be able to acquire the language their forefathers spoke. Once upon a time, hon. members will recall, the government actively encouraged new Canadians to preserve language and cultural values they brought with them to their new homeland. Multiculturalism
October 27, 1977

has become a rather seasonal thing-the seasons change and advance with the prospect of a new election.
Like their compatriots in the province of Quebec, my constituents are not so much concerned about the fact that they may have trouble communicating with their government in two languages as they are concerned about communicating with it at all. The concern for the biggest part of my constituency is not the lack of a French channel on television, but the absence of any kind of television at all. Come to think of it, there are major settlements along the Alaska Highway that have no radio reception, and the great proud public institution known as Canadian National Telecommunications has yet to figure out how to keep a telephone working along the 500 miles of the Alaska Highway, which is in my constituency. The telephone line, like the highway itself, was inherited from the United States in 1943 and little has been done to improve the service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, 1 am speaking about the same Alaska Highway which is about to become the main staging area for the construction of the Alcan pipeline. As 1 do every year, Mr. Speaker, 1 travelled the route this summer. Already, there is excitement and activity related to the pipeline. For one thing, the oil industry is busy drilling for and developing the reserves of natural gas located in northeastern British Columbia. I assume that the industry is gambling that the government will allow it to export some of its harvest to the United States under the exchange or swap arrangement everybody talks about so much. It would deliver the overage of natural gas in our country to the United States, and take it back once the Alaska pipeline is built. Nobody knows, of course, and the people who will eventually make a decision are not yet saying.
There are surveyors, prospectors, engineers and entrepreneurs, but none knows what they are doing. They are not even telling each other. Residents along the highway are convinced that they really do not know themselves. What residents do know is that those who are most affected by what is to take place will be the last to find out. We have become accustomed to that. The pipeline will be no different than any other of the massive projects which have been conceived, planned, and put in place by some faceless industrial and social engineer in one of the concrete jungles in the south.
The highway itself was built under a crisis situation as a defence project. To those who had to live and work on the highway it has been a crisis ever since. The Peace River dam, the B.C. Railway, the pipelines which are already in existence, all have been built without any consultation with local and regional governments and agencies, service organizations or the people.
All have caused unimaginable hardship to local residents who are faced with all the negative side effects such projects bring with them, particularly during construction. It is almost as if it were the responsibility of people living in the frontier areas of our country to assure for their contemporaries in the cities and concrete jungles all the comforts of modern life, without ever being eligible for some of them themselves.
The Address-Mr. Oberle
The resources which are harvested in the north sell for one third less 900 miles to the south. A gallon of gasoline costs $1.50 in some places along the highway. This includes a 17 cents road tax the government of British Columbia adds for good measure to the 10 cents federal tax. The fact that the British Columbia government does not spend a nickel on the road which is entirely under federal jurisdiction does not need to be considered. But then the federal government disclaims any jurisdiction as well, so it is probably all right for the province to charge road tax.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, my assiduous attempts to get the former minister of Indian affairs and northern development to consider the broadening of the terms of reference of the Lysyk Commission to add northeastern British Columbia to the study of the Yukon. The minister announced that he has no jurisdiction for areas within the provinces. This confuses particularly the native people in the area who look only to the federal government as the guardian of their special rights. Special rights indeed!
How unfortunate, for with the least bit of foresight and co-ordination of planning, a project such as the Alcan pipeline could accommodate without additional cost the legitimate aspirations of the people in the area. Who else but they themselves know best how to approach such a project from the human standpoint at least-how to work in the harsh, often inhospitable climate-how to use nature's incredible might to aid, not hinder, man's progress-how to arrange things in a way by which the finished product will have some lasting benefit-how to transform the facilities which will be required to service the construction crews, to serve the communities in the north, and give them greater stability once the project is finished.
Let me give you an example of what will happen instead. Because there are no facilities it will be necessary for the pipeline planners and contractors to build their own. They will require a very sophisticated communications network. Every hour of down-time can mean millions of dollars. They will build airstrips, machine shops, roads, camps with elaborate recreational facilities, power stations, waterworks and other services, the likes of which have never been seen in the north. After all, it will be mostly workers from the south doing the job who are not prepared to forgo any part of their accustomed lifestyle.
Northerners will watch in awe. It will seem like a scene from a science fiction movie, but they will not be allowed to play. The toys will all be taken away or bulldozed over once the last scene is shot. Scientists and engineers will let their imagination run wild. The latest technology will put the dream in place; then it will all be gone. It will even all be paid for- added to the cost of the gas which will keep southerners comfortable. Then it will be gone-just as quick as it all came. It is too bad it could not all have been planned just a little differently.
The only thing we in the north have to be thankful for is that gone as well will be the gamblers, the pimps and the prostitutes, leaving behind only their ugly memory-the rem-
80025 -2 3 Vi

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Oberle
nants of a bad dream-or would nightmare be a better description?
My constituents, residents along the Alaska highway, will go back to staring at a blank television screen and waiting for a week at a time to use the telephone to communicate with the outside world-driving through mud, potholes, and dust to go to the doctor or dentist-taking their lives into their hands to pick up the mail 30 miles away.
I also travelled to Alaska this past summer to look at another pipeline. This one is finished. The boom has come and gone but some things will never be the same again, of course, for the people who were touched by the intrustion of the Alyeska project. Even cities like Fairbanks, well established, having been born out of the first major discovery of northern resources, gold, will have serious difficulties overcoming the shock southern planners and social engineers have perpetrated on it. They built new cities as well. There is a place that looks like a moon landscape-large buildings, pump stations, power stations, at Prudhoe Bay. There was nothing there before- just ice and snow, and a sparse growth of moss that makes up the tundra and provides food for the caribou.
Here the planners really had a runaway. There are beautiful parks under glass, with even some live southern species of trees. But most of everything else is made from a byproduct of the oil harvest. There is even a new futuristic social order which not only discourages intimate social contact between male and female workers but actually prohibits husband and wife from living together in the new plastic society. Our guide told us that sex is a misdemeanor and any infraction results in immediate dismissal of both partners. One of the workers gave us his definition of the term misdemeanor. He said the more we miss it, the meaner we get.
About the only scene visible in the area which bore any semblance to reality was a small number of caribou who were going about their business seemingly undisturbed by all the nonsense going on around them.
Isn't it ironic, Mr. Speaker, that the part of nature about which we were most concerned will be the least affected when all is said and done. However, the incredible human sacrifices that have to be made to satisfy the modern time social engineers who build the projects are most significant.
Let me serve notice on those who are about to embark on phase two of the Prudhoe Bay energy development that my constituents will want to have something to say about the sacrifices they will have to make. I would, however, also like to make it clear that we in northern British Columbia welcome that type of development. Unlike most other observers who pass their judgment from York University, we have learned to appreciate the stabilizing effect such a project can have on small communities, struggling to afford some of the most basic amenities of modern life.
The tax base and influx of permanent jobs in connection with the operation and maintenance of the pipeline is a welcome feature. In most cases we found that pipelines even

offer some positive features in terms of the environment. The rights of way provide better access to other resources. Moose and deer like the growth on the right of way and can therefore be seen in abundance, but most of the prosperity inherent in such a project will accrue to all Canadians.
We hear that $4 billion will be spent on Canadian material and supplies, and thousands of manhours will help to ease the unemployment situation. Is it therefore not reasonable to insist that the negative side-effects will, as well, be shared throughout our country?
Over the past few days 1 have demanded from various ministries the establishment of a technical planning committee to plan for the part of the country which I represent. I have demanded the ministry get involved and study what has happened in other projects and safeguard against negative side-effects in those areas so that my constituents will have a rightful place in Canadian society, like all Canadians, and be able to make their contribution to our country.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend briefly but sincerely personal congratulations to the television crew members in the House and the production staff. As a member of the special House committee which was given the mandate to implement television broadcasting of the House of Commons, I want to say that I am extremely satisfied with the tremendously good job of the CBC and the technical personnel whom they have hired to carry it out.
As with any throne speech, we are dealing with generalities.
I am now well into my seventh year in this House. It is not exactly a track record. However, in the time that I have been here I have not listened to a throne speech so lacking in national direction. As well, the mini-budget repeated the same policies that the Liberal government has been attempting to implement since 1963.
Let us not forget that the Liberal party has been in power continuously since 1963. It is very easy for a member on this side to say it is time for a change. That is a worn out phrase. However, if you look at what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) had to say last Thursday, you will see that his department is still bankrupt of new ideas, policies, fiscal and monetary, and directions.
We are still talking in terms of solutions to problems which have not worked. We are still having legislation introduced that will give corporations large tax breaks, exemptions, and deferrals.
I was in this House two or three years ago when the former minister of finance, the Hon. John Turner, introduced a budget which was designed to create jobs and lessen unemployment. That budget was to stimulate the economy by putting more investment money in the hands of corporations. Several months after his budget, the then minister of finance sent a questionnaire to many of the large corporations directly affected by his budgetary measures. The reply that came back was very clear. The tax breaks, tax deferrals, rapid write-offs, depletion allowances and so on, had not in fact contributed to an increase in new jobs or a decrease in unemployment.
October 27, 1977

However, last Thursday evening we got another dose of the same old medicine.
I am beginning to wonder how much longer the Canadian people, whether they are aligned to my party, the Liberal party or the Progressive Conservative party, particularly the million plus out of work, the underemployed and the youth who have been educated at great cost but cannot find jobs suited to their education, will continue to accept the same old medicine that has not cured the economic ills of this country for the past ten years, particularly the last three or four.
I sincerely hope the majority of Canadians will think intelligently about the economic issues facing this country. 1 suggest, with great sincerity, that this is tied in with the national unity debate, crisis or issue.
I wish to make a few references to the national unity situation. 1 am convinced that if the economy were buoyant and unemployment were low in the province of Quebec, the young people in that province, as well as the middle aged and the older, would not consider separatism such a dynamic force. Let there be no mistake about it. Even though perhaps 30, 35 or 40 per cent of Quebecers would like to separate, and perhaps even fewer, there is the feeling in the province of Quebec that somehow they have developed despite Confederation. There is a feeling they have been able to preserve and develop their language and their culture in a sea of 220 million English-speaking North Americans. This has resulted in a tremendous sense of pride in the manner in which they have maintained their identity.
In fact-and I am speaking of Francophone Quebecers- they are a nation in the French meaning of that word. 1 am not quarrelling with that attitude nor am 1 quarrelling with this insularity, because they have had to promote themselves in order to survive. But I am convinced the average Francophone Quebecer would feel much more at home in Canada if the party presently in power federally, and in particular the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a Francophone himself, had understood, not only in a cold and academic way but from the heart, the real feelings of the province of Quebec.
Some may say the hon. member who is presently on his feet represents a riding in southwestern Ontario. That is so. But, Mr. Speaker, on my mother's side 1 come from five generations of English-speaking Quebecers and 1 can tell you that I am not proud of the way in which some of my ancestors treated French-speaking Quebecers in rural Quebec, specifically in the Eastern Townships.
My grandfather refused to learn to speak French. My mother attempted to speak French but left the province for the prairies and, when she did, she forgot the French language. 1 can recall on the 11th range, not far from South Durham, little French children of my age-I am going back, now, to the 1940's-running around in the summertime without shoes, half-clad and poverty-stricken, in contrast to the children of English-speaking farmers who were not rich but who were certainly much better off. There has always been antagonism
The Address-Mr. Blackburn
between such groups. Speaking in terms of Montreal, it was between those who sat in the front offices and the Francophone workers who were behind on the assembly lines or production lines. It was the same in the rural areas. Very often the poorest farms were owned by French-speaking Quebecers while the best land was owned by English-speaking Quebecers.
The question I am getting at is this: what has the present Prime Minister done in the past ten years to try to explain the growing bitterness in Quebec, first apparent in the quiet revolution of the early 'sixties in the "maitres chez nous" period and reaching a dramatic conclusion on November 15 with the election of Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois, which was really a ceremonial seal being placed upon what had already occurred? If we are to understand the aspirations and determination of Quebecers we must bear these things in mind.
Let there be no mistake about it, Quebec is potentially a very rich geographic entity. It could trade with France and the French-speaking community overseas. It could "go it alone" although there might be years of trial and difficulty. Let us not forget that if they are determined enough to go, they will go. I think that it is finally incumbent upon us in English-speaking Canada to take a new look at the Quebec fact and at the French fact in that province.
1 should like to draw an historical analogy with events in the United States. I realize that when one becomes involved in historical analogies there is always the problem that the facts do not fit together completely. But let us cast our minds back to the United States in the 1850's. When I was in high school I was taught that slavery was the major issue in the war between the states, but if one reads those American historians who give more weight to the economic situation at the time, one finds that slavery was not the cause, or the major cause, of the war of secession. It was the politicizing of slavery, the extension of slavery into the territories in the west, the states of Kansas, Nebraska and so on.
The American constitution lays it down that each state shall have two senators, regardless of the size of its population. When it became clear to the political leaders of the south, many of whom had begun to free their slaves, that it was no longer financially and materially profitable for them to remain within the union, when it became clear that they had lost their balance of power in the United States Senate, it was then and then only that they decided to secede. 1 believe there is an analogy there.
1 believe French-speaking Quebecers feel today that it is no longer financially, materially and politically advantageous for them to remain within the present structure of Confederation. But have we heard from the Prime Minister on this question? When the travelling circus-pardon me, the travelling caucus-was in Brantford, was anything discussed there by any of the three cabinet ministers or any of the three Liberal MPs along these lines? Did they address themselves to this great national issue? No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan) got the headlines in the Brantford Expositor. They were to the effect that the government might

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. H. Gray
tamper with the old age security program and cut back children's allowances.
I say to hon. members on the other side, as a matter of interest to them, that it would have been better had the Liberal travelling circus, or caucus, not gone to Brantford. No important national issue was discussed there. They came to listen, and all they did was talk. That is not the way to enter into a dialogue with constituents. I have not heard of them travelling to ridings represented by Liberal members, though 1 could be wrong.
The unity issue in this country is tied in directly with the economic prospect facing us. Unless and until we can come to grips with unemployment, with job insecurity which causes emotional instability, nervous breakdowns, disruption of families, and juvenile delinquency, it will be extremely difficult to resolve. All of these flow from economic problems plaguing the nation.
1 am very happy to see the Minister of Finance enter the Chamber. He is a busy man these days and he personally is a very likable man. But unless he can come up with something a little more innovative, a little more creative and dynamic, something which comes more from the heart than just the mind, then what he said last Thursday night is not going to solve our basic economic problems. It is not going to solve the unemployment crisis. We already have on record the fact that it did not work with Mr. Turner's budget, and it did not work with the budget of the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald). Yet we are getting the same dose of medicine for the same disease.
I love my country, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to see it break up. I do not want to see divisiveness in the west or in Quebec or in the maritimes. But when you consider that in a riding such as Brant, in the so-called affluent part of Canada, southwestern Ontario, the real unemployment rate is around 11 per cent, the highest since the great depression, and when you consider the unemployment rate in parts of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Cape Breton Island and the northern areas of our country, is it little wonder that people are asking why they should even bother to go out and vote on election day? They ask: "What is the point? Can they do anything? Will the government do anything?"
These are fundamental questions which we have to ask ourselves. We have to come to grips with our problems in this country in a spirit of unity. In summation, we in Ottawa have to create an environment in which Quebec City is just as important a provincial capital as Regina, Victoria, Toronto or any of the other provincial capitals. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do it with the stroke of a pen on a legal or constitutional document; it has to come from the government-from us-directly to the Canadian people. Whether we are Francophone or Anglophone, we must work together.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the throne speech speaks of "the urgent need for important structural

adjustments' in the Canadian economy. The prices and incomes controls program, which began some two years ago, was intended to provide a breathing space for the government to put in place, "structural policies to ensure a more efficient and competitive economy". These were the words of the white paper entitled "Attack on Inflation" which the government tabled when the controls program was first announced.
The date for a phased out ending of controls, April 14 of next year, has finally been announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), and this means that that breathing space provided by the controls will soon be ending. Yet there is a tremendous amount to be done to make Canada a more efficient economy, one which is more competitive both here and abroad. The government must use the time remaining while the controls continue to apply to deal with the structural problems in question, even though it is clear that much will remain to be done after the controls have gone.
In the white paper tabled just before the October, 1976, throne speech entitled "The Way Ahead", the government spoke of the need to improve and strengthen competition policy as a way of bringing about needed structural change in the market place. The government made it clear in that white paper that it would be relying primarily on the market system as a means of enabling Canadians to achieve their economic and social goals.
Another government policy paper, "Agenda for Co-operation", was published earlier this year, and it too stressed the importance for a post-controls society of a complete reform of competition policy. In addition, it stressed the importance of implementing the borrowers' and depositors' protection act to improve the operation of the market place for credit and to strike at the loan sharking operations that tarnish the market place and harm consumers generally.
The stage two competition bill was given first reading this year. Its subject matter was studied by the finance committee, which issued a detailed report of its findings and recommendations. The borrowers' and depositors' protection act received second reading and was in the final stages of committee consideration when the session adjourned.
In light of the importance that these measures have in terms of bringing about the needed structural changes in the market place, I think it is disturbing that they are not mentioned at all in the Speech from the Throne. It is true that earlier this week the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), in a speech outside the House, said that these bills would be reintroduced. However, one can wonder as to the implications of the failure to mention these two important measures in any way in the throne speech itself. Certainly a reference to them in the speech would have confirmed the commitment by the government as a whole to implement these two key measures, measures which are vital to the effective operation of the market place and to the well-being of business and consumers alike.
Government and business spokesmen have been saying that uncertainty has been hampering the development of business confidence necessary for the recovery of the economy. I think
October 27, 1977

the lack of final parliamentary decisions on these two measures helps to add to the very uncertainty the government wishes to eliminate. Perhaps the government is holding back because of what appears to be the developing and seemingly well orchestrated campaign whereby certain elements express the views of the largely big business sector of the economy in opposition to these bills. They argue that these measures would hamper the proper operation of the market place; they argue that they are among the factors convincing some Canadian businessmen to invest in the United States and in other foreign countries rather than Canada.
These are strange arguments, Mr. Speaker. They are wrong arguments. They turn reality upside down. The two bills are not designed to be the instruments for improper government interference or over-regulation of an already properly operating market place. Instead, they are aimed at ensuring its effective operation in the interests of all Canadians, a market place which is free from domination by a few large firms. Surely enabling the proper operation of market forces is exactly what those opposing the adoption of the bill are supposed to favour.
In addition, those who say that the proposed competition policy is encouraging them to invest in the United States are talking about going to a country whose present anti-trust laws, their competition laws, are already tougher and more bureaucratically interventionist than anything proposed by the government in the stage two competition policy bill. In fact all of the western countries, even that bastion of free enterprise, West Germany, have been updating and tightening their competition laws.
But it is not correct that all business generally opposes the bills 1 have been talking about, especially the stage two bill. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the National Automotive Trades Association, for example, are the legitimate voices of broad segments of the business community. They support the stage two bill and are calling for its early implementation.
The government's resolve, its sincerity in getting on with completing the long delayed reform of competition policy and the equally much needed updating of the federal consumer credit law, will not be demonstrated just by the early reintroduction of these two bills. More important, this resolve and sincerity will be demonstrated by the government through its giving the necessary priority on the agenda of parliament to moving them along to the final stages of decision-making as soon as possible. I am not saying, in doing this, that valid points for the improvement of the two bills made by business and consumer groups during their original consideration in the last session should be ignored. These points can and should be dealt with; but this can be done and the bills be moved along without delay to their final adoption and implementation.
The passing of these two measures will serve the best interests of all those businessmen who really believe what so many of them have been preaching about the market system.
The Address-Mr. H. Gray
It will serve the best interests of consumers and small business in particular but, more important, it will serve the best interests of Canadians generally.
Food was another structural problem area raised by the 1975 "Attack on Inflation" white paper. The Speech from the Throne has a section dealing with the implementation of the government's food strategy. This strategy appeared to have been set out in the policy paper entitled "A Food Strategy for Canada", tabled jointly by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the then minister of consumer and corporate affairs last June. It set out what the government considered to be "the basic principles of a food strategy for Canada to assure all Canadians that its policies and programs ensure adequate supplies of safe and nutritious foods at prices which are reasonable to both producers and consumers." In doing so, it admitted that "in the past principles and procedures have not been used to co-ordinate all relevant elements of Canada's food policy."
With few exceptions, little was said in the paper about specific operating programs to implement the strategy. One of the specific pledges in it was that the government will ensure "in any appointments to boards and agencies ... the views of producers, processors and consumers are adequately represented." Another was that the government "will provide regular price information to consumers on a selected set of basic foods." But nothing whatsoever has been done since last June to put into place, or even to announce formally, these two programs or any of the others specifically set out or hinted at in the strategy document. However, they did resurface in identical form in the throne speech. It also promised that a national food conference would be held, although it is not clear to what extent the implementation of the two specific programs I mentioned are linked to that conference first having taken place.
The throne speech indicates that the conference " will bring together representatives of governments, producers, consumers and food industry to work together toward a national agreement on how Canada's food strategy should be further developed and implemented." The House should bear in mind that the objectives for food strategy I have quoted from the government document of last June appeared in rather similar terms in the February, 1974, throne speech over three years ago. That was the one that was presented not long before the 1974 general election. In that throne speech the objectives are described as being a "policy on food" which "the government is developing." At best, the process of development seems to have been and continues to be rather slow and laborious.
The February, 1974, throne speech indicated that "the government will wish to consult with provincial governments, consumer groups and producers" in developing its food policy. This was what was said in 1974. Yet the Minister of Agriculture recently announced that the national food conference finally promised in the current throne speech will not take place until next February. He has called for briefs from various organizations to be submitted to the government by December. He said that certain of the organizations presenting

The Address-Mr. H. Gray
briefs will be allowed to discuss them with a panel of ministers in December. He said that this panel will be drawn from among a number of ministers including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. What is surprising about this announcement is that it would appear from it that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will not be allowed, as a matter of course, to be involved in each and every discussion. This means the cabinet representative of the voice of individual Canadians as consumers will be absent from some of these important discussions this coming December.
In 1973 the House of Commons set up, at the government's request, a special all-party committee on food price trends. It heard witnesses from all areas of the food system. Also in that year the government created the Food Prices Review Board. Its members represented not just consumers but manufacturers, producers, and business as well. Both of these bodies issued extensive reports proposing changes and improvements in food policy. So the government has already had before it for some time results of a consultative process involving these two organizations. These reports will likely cover much of the same ground as one could expect would be covered by the food conference. In any event, it would not be fully realistic to expect producers, consumers and manufacturers to agree on a single program which all sides would consider equally fair to them in every possible respect.
Consultation is a necessary and worth-while part of working out government policies in a country like Canada. But in areas where complete agreement by all parties to be affected by government policies is not possible, the government has a responsibility to show leadership and to take action in the over-all interest of the public. Therefore I hope, if the national agreement sought by the government does not prove to be possible, that the government will not use its absence as an excuse for delaying meaningful action to put in place necessary elements of a true, comprehensive food policy.
It is interesting to see the recent efforts by the Minister of Agriculture to promote his department as the new protector of the consumer in the food area; but even with the re-organization he has recently announced, it is likely going to be a long time before it has any real credibility for this purpose in the eyes of most consumers as being able, and in fact willing, to deal fairly with their interests.
Also nothing was said in his speech in the House yesterday specifically about providing foods "at prices which are reasonable to consumers" as a component of the agricultural development strategy he was outlining as an obviously necessary and desirable part of a total food strategy. Yet these words which were absent from his speech are an important part of what the government said last June were its objectives for food strategy. Instead, in his speech, the minister spoke of stable prices. This is not necessarily the same thing as reasonable prices. The best interests of both consumers and producers will be served if the government puts in place measures to provide prices for them which are at one and the same time stable and reasonable. That is not an easy task, to be sure, but one which should be among the overriding objectives of a national food strategy. I

October 27, 1977
would hope the promises of consultation in a national food conference will not turn out to be excuses for government inaction.
Turning to the matter of the economy generally, regretfully I have doubts that the tax cuts announced by the Minister of Finance last week will do much to add to consumer demand and reduce our chronic and all too high level of unemployment in any substantive way. The Minister of Finance has in fact tightened up the guideline for allowable wage increases for the period of the controls program just begun. The government will not be allowing wages to increase sufficiently to keep in step with the actual degree to which inflation has exceeded 6 per cent, contrary to the promise it made to workers that it would do this kind of thing when the controls program was first announced. Therefore, the tax cut will not be likely to give consumers a sufficient degree of additional buying power. Instead it will be cancelled by the tighter wage guidelines.
The size of the deficit obviously provides constraints on what the government might be able to do, but surely government efforts to stimulate the economy would have the effect of reducing the deficit rather than increasing it. Government programs stimulating the economy, which got people back to productive work, would mean much less money being paid out by the government for unemployment insurance, welfare and the like than at present. Also the government would gain more tax revenues, not only from workers back in productive jobs, but also from business as it increases its activity.
I think the government before too long will have to do more than was announced last Thursday to stimulate the buying power of Canadians and generally to get the economy moving.
I will abbreviate my remarks somewhat because of the order adopted by the House earlier today to limit the time of speeches to 20 minutes, but it is my intention to release my notes as a statement of my views on those areas on which I will not comment in detail today. I hope they will prove to be of interest to members of the House and to the public generally. Also I should like to say that my comments, as always, are being made in a constructive sense. I am making them as a Liberal, someone who supports the government, believing it is certainly preferable to the alternatives, but also as someone who wants it to be a Liberal government not just in name but in policy orientation and action, in the belief that this is the desire of most Canadians as well.
I have been talking about structural problems. The ultimate challenge to the federal government and to all of us is to preserve and to improve the structure of Canada itself as a united country. The throne speech, as I and others have been pointing out since last November should be the case, recognizes that the economy and national unity are not separate issues, that they are closely intertwined. As I have been saying, the ability of the federal government, our national government, to show that it can deal effectively with problems such as the economy, that are real to people everywhere in Canada, helps to demonstrate the value of having one country for Quebecers
October 27, 1977

and all Canadians. This means that the federal government must show leadership in dealing with economic and social problems which, if unsolved, can call into question in the minds of people in some parts of the country the value of being part of a united Canada. It means ensuring through federal government leadership and action that all can feel, and in fact will be, equally at home in this country whether they are French-speaking or English-speaking, and this must include both the French language minority groups outside of Quebec and the English language minority group in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It means federal government leadership and action to bring about changes and adjustments where necessary to our federal structure aimed at improving its functioning in a way that recognizes regional and other differences, but which does not weaken that structure to the extent that we no longer have in fact one country. Finally, it means the strong efforts of all of us here in this House of Commons and all of us who believe in a united Canada, not just to preserve it but to improve it, to preserve and improve our country so as to bring about the development of its potential, both material and human, in the best interests of all its people.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate and to contribute my point of view both for the record and for the consideration of people in Canada.
I would like to extend traditional greetings of good will to the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and to wish them and the new members who were elected in the by-elections success in their role as members of parliament.
As a westerner I am especially happy that the Queen was able to open this parliament. Also, as a westerner I have long been of the opinion that the monarchy has played an important role in this century in tying together the many ethnic groups which have come to the West, particularly in the first part of this century.
There are those who may have said cynically that perhaps if Louis Riel and his dream of a republic on the prairies had succeeded, we might now have been better off, but 1 must say that I believe in the monarchy and that the role of British insitutions has been important in binding western Canada to Confederation, at least in the early part of this century. I think the considerable divisiveness that has occurred in the country has been the result of the loss of symbols that monarchy has represented. The British empire has disappeared and the British nation no longer plays the role that it previously played in the world, but until a few decades ago it still represented a bulwark against the south. It may be said that some of our failures and the divisiveness which we are experiencing in Canada today might be the result of our failure to create new symbols to replace the old.
Now before I should like to turn to the issue of national unity and the economy and to express two concerns of a
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
regional nature, one affecting my riding especially. The first one to which I will refer is with regard to the failure of the Department of the Environment to establish in the town of Swan River a meteorological office which has been promised for the last ten years. For some reason, while the government expends vast sums of money in many ways on such programs as language training, it fails to provide the basic structure on which communities exist.
The area of Swan River in my riding has no adequate weather forecasting service because the present stations are located too far away. Weather conditions there are variable. This area needs a weather forecasting station in particular because its geographic location places it on the borderline between the weather systems from the northwest Alaska and weather systems from the western United States. Small aircraft, in particular, need more adequate weather forecasting in this area than is being provided at present. The Department of the Environment has demonstrated a cavalier attitude for the last ten years in regularly including the establishment of such a station in the area in its estimates, only to change its mind at the last minute. This has made the citizens in the area feel that they are being discriminated against by the Ottawa bureaucracy.
There is one other subject of a somewhat parochial nature which I should like to talk about, that is, the matter of the grading of wheat under the new grading rules of the Canadian Grain Commission. It has become obvious now that the new grading system heavily favours those areas of the prairies that grow the so-called No. 1 Hard Red spring wheat to the detriment of areas such as the Parkland regions in the prairies where a lower protein quality of wheat is grown. The recent long wet spell has reduced the quality of much of the wheat grown in the Parkland region to No. 3 utility, and there is a large spread between No. 3 Red and No. 3 utility, amounting to 50 cents a bushel. This is causing great concern and unhappiness among the growers.
The new grading system which allows for only three grades in the Canada west red variety applies only to top quality wheat, and it seems that all other grades of wheat are to be consigned to No. 3 utility. Under the old grading system there were six grades of wheat and one grade of feed wheat, which allowed for a price spread differential between all grades. It is obvious that on occasion the Parkland area particularly will produce mostly No. 3 utility wheat. It seems that the Wheat Board finds it convenient not to have to deal with as many grades as it did formerly.
Certainly the new grading system makes it easier for the Wheat Board to sell grain because it does not need to deal with the number of grades which existed under the previous grading system. Furthermore, the introduction of the new grading system means that in effect the Wheat Board, which is a selling agency, does not need to deal with lower grades of millable wheat. It prefers to sell merely No. 3 utility at feed wheat prices, although, on occasion, much of this grain will enter the markets of the world as millable wheat. This means a considerable loss to growers, amounting to tens of millions of
358

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
dollars, if not hundreds of million of dollars. The Board of Grain Commissioners should consider adding a fourth grade of grain between No. 3 red and No. 3 utility.
I believe that this grading system of wheat discourages farmers from growing wheat in the Parkland area in particular, and over a period of time it could seriously discourage the production of wheat in these areas. Therefore 1 think this matter should be resolved by the Board of Grain Commissioners and the Canadian Wheat Board.
Next 1 wish to speak on the economic situation of this country, but as it is nearly six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner hour I was about to discuss the economic condition of our country. After nine years of this government under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) we have severe economic conditions; we have the problems of high inflation, high unemployment, and diminished economic activity. That we should be in this situation had been foreseen for a long time. We are not entirely alone in this situation, as witness the problems of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, and our neighbour to the south.
Essentially inflation will occur when governments overspend. Governments do little in the way of production, but they are always happy to promote spending and to see the production of workers in society expanded. The vast expansion of governments in particular fields where governments have declared an interest, such as health, education, and welfare, has really meant that a large number of people have been taking, and this problem has grown to the monster it is now so that it is threatening the economic base of the country.
Perhaps we could keep going on this course more easily if the energy crisis had not come along. It is obvious that much of the advance in affluence in countries around the world was based on cheap oil and energy prices. As the availability of cheap energy comes to an end-it is now essentially under the control of the Arab nations which are intent on making the best use of their good fortunes-we are witnessing an abrupt end to the continuing expansion of the good life we have had for the past 25 years.

The Prime Minister has suggested that even though Canadians have developed a high standard of living over the past 25 years they are more unhappy and more disunited than ever before, and he wonders why. I agree that per capita it can be shown that Canadians are about twice as well off as they were 25 years ago. Perhaps it is a very human reaction that when there are good times, regardless of productivity, individuals in society do not relate their good fortunes to the productivity of their fellow workers but regard affluence as a happening to which they are entitled.
Twenty-five years ago the role of government was much simpler. When governments involved themselves in the fields of health, welfare, and education, it was at the local level, and citizens were very much more aware of the true cost of the services they received. The involvement of the government in our social programs has created uncontrolled expenditure, and the end is not yet in sight. The federal government has involved itself in hospitalization, medical care, drug care, social security and, to a lesser extent, education, to the point that reasonable prudence is not being observed. Furthermore, vast amounts of taxation come to Ottawa and are then redistributed to the regions, and this only heightens the divisiveness within Canada.
In today's Globe and Mail Mr. Ronald Anderson has this to
say:
Real incomes rose strongly and it became economically possible and politically necessary for politicians to improve the quality of social services and to work toward a fairer distribution of incomes.
These social measures-in the fields, for example, of pensions, health care, education, unemployment insurance and other transfer payments-may well have created an inflationary bias. Probably public sector activity increased too rapidly. But this is an area in which there is considerable room for debate. The question is not whether improvement in social programs was needed, but whether the structure, scale and timing of the new measures were appropriate.
I think it can be said that the federal government must take the blame for many of these programs that were pushed too fast.
The malaise that affects our economy will not soon go away, because we have spent 30 years creating the situation we now face. During the past 30 years we have had a change of attitude and a change of circumstances within our society so far as the individual is concerned. An individual in the past had to be prudent; he saved money for his old age because he was expected to look after himself. But now things are changed. At the present time an individual can have a modest living from the old age pension and the supplement and Canada Pension, unless he is in peculiar circumstances. He finds that from the cradle to the grave there is no need to worry about paying physicians for health care or paying hospitals for hospital care. All of these are provided by the state out of general revenue. Is it any wonder that people are providing themselves with holidays in far-away places?
With the inflation the way it is, the value savings in mortgages, bonds and bank accounts is being halved every few years. Some would say this may well be a change in our society's structure and that we are in the post industrial state.
October 27, 1977

Then again, there is the media's view of what politicians should do as regards spending programs. A politician who votes against the major spending programs is regarded as negative or lacking in compassion, while the politician who votes for vast government social enterprises is regarded as positive or compassionate. What is positive about a government that runs a national deficit of over $9 billion and prints money to finance it? What is positive or compassionate about a constant inflation rate of 8 per cent to 10 per cent, a rate at which half of an individual's life savings is destroyed every eight years? What is positive about a government whose regulations cost consumers billions of dollars each year? And what is positive about a government that is printing money at a rate almost twice as fast as the rate that the nation's economy is growing? We need a rethinking of our economic and political structure in this country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this leads into what I would like to say and what is beginning to emerge in discussions about the future of this country. There seems to be a general agreement that there needs to be a re-arranging to the federal-provincial powers for all the regions if this diverse country is to function. It has been pointed out by some that we are already a fairly decentralized country. Mr. Speaker, before the federal government assumed a high portion of the social costs in the last 25 years we had quite a decentralized country and we functioned reasonably effectively. The fall of the Canadian dollar, obscured and cushioned by the precipitous fall of the American dollar, points up the serious economic conditions in which this country finds itself. The mere fact that today the Canadian dollar was at its lowest in 45 years only indicates the gravity of the situation.
Speaking of regions, Mr. Speaker, an article in the Manitoba Co-operator of March 20, 1977, referring to The Financial Post 'Think West' Conference Edmonton recently had this to say about regions:
There has to be a new deal for Confederation. Lougheed puts it this way when he says change is necessary "but it can't be legalistic, it can't be tied in with the constitution. It must be a matter of attitude and spirit and co-operation-not a legal document. It can't have special status for any one province, but it must recognize that provinces are different and that each should have the opportunity to find its way in the areas that are important to it".
The strain on national unity makes the revival of Canada's industrial activity an urgent priority-and the location for new efforts should be dictated by economic imperatives, not traditional habit.
But, Mr. Speaker, if the economic situation is grave, the political situation can only be described as disastrous. The Prime Minister seems to be getting ready to run on the favourable Liberal wheelhorse that only the Liberal government can guarantee Canadian unity. Let us look at the history of this contention. Since 1896, when Sir Wilfrid Laurier assumed power in Canada, the Liberal party has governed for 60 years. Only on three short occasions was the Conservative party in power, while on two occasions during this time there were serious political problems facing the country. The first was the First World War that taxed the resources of Canada to the utmost, and the second was the great depression.
The Address-Mr. Ritchie
Furthermore, during that time the province of Quebec contributed three Prime Ministers whose tenure of office spread over some 35 years. It has been recognized by political adversaries that the province of Quebec, through solemnly supporting the Liberal party for a century, has had a major say in the direction that the government of this country has taken. So strong is the feeling of western Canadians that the government of this country has been dominated by the wishes of central Canada that they have become alienated and have less than absolute loyalties to the Canadian state.
The passage of the bilingual law which had the effect of closing to unilingual people in the civil service, the armed forces, the RCMP through language requirements, the normal advancement that they might expect, has created violent animosities in that part of Canada that might have been sympathetic and viewed favourably the Canadian experience. Yet it is that part of Canada that has had the most influence in shaping the government of our country that is now demanding that separation take place. Certainly there are problems with any nation with two languages and any nation that tries to give them equal status. It seems to me that Belgium is an example of a small country that has attempted to solve its language problem by separating the two language groups.
English-speaking Canada has largely been a bystander in this debate that is in progress and that is looming for the future. Why has French Canada a monopoly on this issue, whether it is federalist or separatist in nature? Part of it is a recognition by many English Canadians that, given the circumstances, it will be up to the Quebecers to decide the future of Quebec. Anyone who thinks differently might consider the reaction in the Quebec National Assembly to the suggestion of the Prime Minister that there be a referendum. All parties opposed to the Parti Quebecois in that legislature consider themselves federalists and oppose Quebec independence, but they seem to have rallied behind Quebec's right to decide its own future. Frustration and anger are growing in English Canada at the long debate, particularly within a province that seems to have gained greatly in its political and economic status by belonging to the Canadian federation. Furthermore, it is obvious that there is growing in the rest of Canada not more spirit of compromise but a greater spirit of antagonism.
The Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne said that we should press forward with greater language training in the second official language. Well, the second official language has been available for years, even in my maligned province of Manitoba and, as one who had studied that language, French, to gain an entrance to university, 1 can attest that there has always been second training available. Incidentally, it was the first Quebec Prime Minister of Canada, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who approved in fact the actions of the government of Manitoba in 1894, and it was the federal Conservative government of Sir Mackenzie Bowell which was readying legislation to remedy the situation and that was filibustered by the Liberals under Sir Wilfrid Laurier so that the legislation was never passed.
8002 5-2414

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Horner
Those who think second language training will make a material difference to the Canadian unity problem, I think are sadly mistaken. Facility in the use of second languages in the majority of the population only comes about when there is a need to speak two languages. Therefore, in the sea of English in North America, to expect that by offering language training in schools in English-speaking provinces there will be a great espousing of the French language is unrealistic.
During the debate on the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister indicated that he would set up legislation to allow for referendums for various possible political decisions. Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher), seconded by me, introduced private member's Bill C-412, called "An Act Respecting the Holding of a National Plebiscite on the Separation of Quebec from Canada".
Referendums have serious disadvantages. Even in the province of Quebec it could be that a federal referendum might turn those who are not disposed to independence toward that goal if they felt that the national federalism were steamrolling their province. Furthermore, a federal referendum would have little effect on the outcome of a referendum in the province of Quebec alone. It has always been assumed that a national unity referendum would show an overwhelming majority of Canadians in other provinces are for the maintenance of the Canadian federation, as we learned in the referendum on conscription in 1942. This great outpouring of good will has been generated in English Canada from churches. Chambers of Commerce, and professional groups.
Everyone outside Quebec suggests that he loves Canada and wants Quebec to remain because they are cherished and needed. However, there is a substantial group in English Canada, perhaps still a minority, but in my estimation perhaps as large a group as 25 per cent, and in certain areas as large as 50 per cent-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate 1 want first to compliment the mover of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Louis-Heb-ert (Mr. Dawson). He made an admirable speech, his maiden speech in the House of Commons. 1 also want to thank the seconder, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood), who made a very interesting speech about a province he dearly loves and showed his deep concern about the people and problems of that province.
Today I wish to talk about some of the issues raised during this debate. As the minister in charge of working for a strong domestic industry and a strong export trade, I am sure members on all sides will agree that we need a healthier economy at home than we now have, and a far healthier world economy than now exists. Some members suggest, but I do not agree, that you can separate the two, the domestic and world econo-

mies and come up with bandages applied to domestic ailments. Those bandages will not stick.
What we can do is support and encourage Canadian industry to cope best with the competitive world forces that are in fact developing. One can question whether they are or are not developing. One can talk about the drop of the Canadian dollar. The fact is there has been a significant drop of the U.S. dollar in relation to the Japanese yen and the German mark. That is an indication that we in this country are confronted with a world economic force.
We are in more than a cyclical downturn of world and Canadian economic performance. Fundamental changes are occurring which require strong readjustment in manufacturing, processing, tourism, and other types of industry.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Tell us about mining.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That readjustment, sometimes locally painful, requires a strong sense of urgency about developing more efficient industry competing in the world in the things we do best. Mining may be one of them. I will be glad to tell the hon. member something about mining. Apparently the letters I have exchanged with him he cannot read, so I will gladly explain to him.


John R. Rodriguez: I don't think you can write.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I believe we have seen some forward thinking in this debate. I was especially interested in the speech of the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). He is looking for more competitive industry and an expanded manufacturing sector. If the hon. member wants to try reading, 1 suggest he read the speech on pages 82 and 83 of Hansard.


John R. Rodriguez: Read mine on page 115.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will do that.
He is looking for more competitive industry and an expanded manufacturing sector, specializing in what we are best fitted to do by natural or other advantages, with companies encouraged to merge and specialize where that would lead to greater ability to serve the Canadian and export markets. With all that I fully agree, and indeed my department is working, with other parts of government, on action proposals.
Much consultation is necessary with business, labour, provincial governments, seeking some kind of strategic consensus-even a basic shaking up, first, of complacency, and resistance to change that still underlies all the talk about the terrible fix we are supposed to be in.
I will have more to say about the world trading scene that the hon. member addressed himself to, the need to accept greater competition in trading as an opportunity for Canada more than a treat, but I thank him for a real contribution.


John R. Rodriguez: Tell us about mining.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As I pointed out already, I wish more members had paid attention to that speech.
October 27, 1977

Looking at some of the speeches that have been made, 1 note that the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) made a very interesting comment. At page 48 he was reported to have said:
The only organization that can live beyond its means in this country is the federal government.
Surely the hon. member with his stature and recognition as an economist knows better than that. He went on to say:
The myth that has been spread that innation in this country has been caused by people wanting too much, by unions demanding too much, by corporations demanding too much, is wrong.
The hon. member who professes to be an economist says it is a myth that unions and management demanding too much contribute to inflation, that the only one responsible is the federal government. According to that, no responsibility is needed on the part of those making wage demands, demands which in fact were 22 per cent before the AIB took over. Would a resurgence of strikes which have fallen off by more than 63 per cent from this time last year be all right to the hon. member for Don Valley after the AIB controls come off April 14? Would he leave it solely up to the federal government to be responsible for some of the concessions made prior to AIB?
This government is restraining public service salaries, having them follow, not lead, salaries in the private sector. That, to me, puts on private sector management, and on unions, the onus for wage restraint, especially after the controls end. For too long, before controls came in, too much of management did not negotiate hard enough, because they would either pass on increases to consumers or they would look to government to step in. During controls, they could shelter under the control levels. They can do that for a little while, but not much longer. Then there will be a heavy onus on firms to negotiate hard and, at times, to hang tough. The hon. member for Don Valley does not accept this as a responsibility. He wishes that off on the federal government.


John Carnell Crosbie: He does not have to take Trudeau's orders.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hear the hon. member who is concerned about fluorspar in Newfoundland. Maybe if management had hung tough and the unions had not been so hard-


John R. Rodriguez: Come off it.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There was a strike in that plant in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975 and 1976.
Similarly with prices and profits, the hon. member suggests there is no responsibility on the part of business. They may demand all they can get and damn the torpedoes. The torpedoes could sink us, but that would be the fault of the federal government.
I cannot believe that only the federal government must exercise restraint and only it must impose restraint. There is too much federal, provincial and other government intervention, regulation, cushioning us, as it is. 1 believe in less
The Address-Mr. Horner
government control and regulation, but the other side of that coin is individual responsibility.
If the federal government is the only organization that can live within its means and others are not responsible, you are talking about a Canada so centralized and rigidly planned that Canadians would not stand still for it. But that seems to be the rather odd direction one wing of today's Progressive Conservative party is going, always dependent upon and looking up to big brother, asking the federal government to control everything. Apparently that is what the hon. member for Don Valley seems to be suggesting. In his eyes it is wishful desire for strong leadership in his own party and finding an absence there.


John R. Rodriguez: Be honest, Jack.


John Carnell Crosbie: At least he didn't leave in a pique, he stayed with us.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In any event, to go on, we recognize we are in serious times, times of soft markets abroad and accelerated, even cut-throat competition internationally. Prices and costs are still too high here and productivity is too low. There are many problems, but 1 will mention four which are basic to the Canadian economy. Put simply, there are vastly more goods competing on the markets of the world than there were even four or five years ago. World industrial capacity, especially with respect to manufactured products, has grown enormously-from the EEC and especially from the Japanese and German economies, from developing countries pouring out goods produced by labour and under easier environmental rules. We have to be very sophisticated in our products as well as price-competitive in order to compete-and that means here in our home markets as well as abroad.
Increased foreign industrial capacity can be a strength for Canada. We are geared to supplying that capacity not only with primary and processed products but also with manufactured and capital goods for other industries. Thus, world economic slowdown hits hard at our trading economy. But we should be poised to capitalize on international recovery.
Another important factor is that Canada's population growth is levelling out and immigration is slowing down. This should reduce the underlying pressure for domestic growth. We can see the results of this in certain sectors already, such as education, some areas of health care, housing, and in connection with products for use by the young. I do not wish to make too much of this aspect. We still are going to need, and will sustain, a significant growth rate in the years ahead. But we may not, and we should not, expect to get back to the extremely high growth rate of the 1950's and 1960's. What I am saying is that when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) forecasts a growth rate for next year of 5 per cent, the knee-jerk reaction should not be that this is a sluggish rate. Such a rate will be good going, and I pray we can keep it up year after year.

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Horner
The third basic problem facing Canada is the rapid increase in costs and the consequent drop, over the last three or four years, in our ability to compete. This government, to be frank, protected Canadians against world-wide price increases for energy, for some foods and for certain industrial commodities. Canadians tried to protect themselves by raising their incomes as fast as, or faster than, prices.
As a result, wage rates climbed as high as, or higher than those in the United States, with productivity 15 to 20 per cent lower. We sold less abroad and this resulted in giant deficits along with huge interest payments. Even worse, the situation led to increasing inroads into our own domestic markets by imports.
The fourth and most dramatic problem has been the well-recognized revolution in oil prices and its particular effect on energy-intensive western economies.
Just as 1 have not tried to gloss over our situation, Mr. Speaker, neither should it be painted hopelessly black. All those problem situations I referred to-the other industrialized nations face them as well. In a depressed and psychologically shell-shocked world we have performed remarkably well. We have a sound foundation on which to build.
Since 1973 Canadian manufacturing output has held up much better than in most western economies. It declined in the period 1973-1975 by 2.5 per cent. But in the United States the decline was 10 per cent; in Japan it was 14 per cent, and it was almost 9 per cent in West Germany. Manufacturing now accounts for about 20 per cent of total Canadian production as compared to between 22 and 24 per cent for the years 195173, a drop precisely the same as that which took place in the United States and other countries where the services sector is going ahead. Productivity over the 25 years to 1975 consistently narrowed the giant gap between ourselves and the United States. We slipped back in 1976, but are gaining again this year. Manufactured exports still pay for 80 per cent of the manufactured goods we import so heavily. In terms of over-all economic growth, only Japan and Germany, recovering from very low levels of post-war industrial activity, have better over-all records.
Improvements and opportunities exist to allow us to build on our good base. First, Canadian wages and costs are now growing no more rapidly than in the U.S. We have not recovered the ground lost in the last three years, but the gap is not getting any worse. Indeed it is narrowing. Second, the lower Canadian dollar helps our competitive position. It does raise the cost of our imports, but at least it helps our sales if we do not fritter away this helpful reprieve through a further round of wage and cost increase. That is why I was so shocked to hear the hon. member for Don Valley suggest that as far as those responsible for demands on wages are concerned it was all up to the government. I was shocked to hear him say this, because we cannot afford to fritter away the gains we have made in this regard. We must continue to make what I would call long term gains in productivity as compared with the United States. This will take a long time, perhaps, but we are on our way back and should do well.

Third, the lifting of controls over the next year will remove an element of uncertainty from business by bringing the market system back into place in the determination of prices and wages. It is under these conditions that business can best be relied upon to generate the capital necessary for expansion and increased activities. I hope that when controls come off on April 14 they will be followed by a monitoring device which will encourage business and the unions to adopt a far more responsible attitude than the hon. member for Don Valley has suggested.
Fourth, governments in Canada have got their houses in better order. Federal government expenditures have been held to the growth rate of the GNP. Public service hiring is under one per cent. Even in the face of high unemployment, new money for job creation was found within the existing budget. Public sector wages are not any more leading private sector averages for similar skills.
In the midst of unemployment and continuing inflation, then, Canada is in a better position, presently and potentially, than one would imagine from the excess of gloom around. What is needed is business confidence in our basic advantages if we streamline, modernize, cut costs, specialize, and work hard. We need to restructure, adjust, merge, and tighten up. We need to upgrade our resources and negotiate better markets for them, whether they be petrochemicals, beef exported to the United States, grain exported almost everywhere. Fisheries and forest products can be sold abroad and within this country. On all of these things the federal government is now working.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure and privilege for me to participate in today's debate. I want to join with all previous speakers in commending the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson), and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood).
This throne speech, delivered in a most excellent, capable and graceful manner by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, even in complimentary terms can only be described as a vague and feeble attempt to revive the government's sagging fortunes. The government has seized upon a moment of great public attention to make excuses for itself and to point the finger of blame at everybody and everything in sight. Indeed, the only impressive thing about the throne speech is the fact that it was given by Her Majesty and presented in truly a magnificent fashion.
Given the record of this government and the attention, or more accurately the lack of attention, given to the throne speech proclamations, one comes to the conclusion that its
October 27, 1977

contents are really meaningless. The speech is a form of window dressing which only momentarily lifts the hopes and aspirations of Canadians. You cannot, under any circumstances, hope to maintain the trust of people by completely ignoring their problems or difficulties, or by continuously taking the attitude that governments are always right and that the people are always wrong. This government has been so wrong on so many occasions, on so many issues, during the years of its administration.
Last Wednesday my colleague and leader led off this debate in a manner in keeping with his traditional debating excellence. He spoke with knowledge, compassion, and understanding, and addressed his remarks squarely to the issues and problems perplexing Canada and bothering Canadians today. He spoke eloquently about the great gift and the great opportunity given this government and this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when taking office.
What has happened and what has developed since that time under this government's administration, Mr. Speaker, is really nothing short of a national disaster and, speaking in human terms, a national disgrace. Phrases like "separation is dead", "national unity will be achieved", "the land is strong , "the just society", "inflation will be wrestled to the ground"-and the list goes on-are simply cliches, hackneyed phrases, empty words which only hold out false hopes for Canadians.
1 have with me, with the compliments of my colleague from the riding of Norfolk-Hildimand (Mr. Knowles), recorded excerpts from a well respected newspaper which are typical of many which appeared immediately after the 1968 general election. This particular one is dated the day after, June 26, 1968, and the headline reads "Canadian Unity Assured". The lead line of the editorial begins: "That above all is the meaning of yesterday's election". A typical paragraph reads:
So we shall have a Liberal government for the next few years led by a tuned in, turned on intellectual who must demonstrate he can wield together a cabinet of diverse personalities, administer a government and resolve the country's problems of national unity and of economic stability and develop its human and regional resources.
The words of that editorial, written some nine and a half years ago, held out, 1 must admit, great expectations, and reflected to a very large extent the feeling of Canadians of that day. But if Canadians would simply judge the performance of this government by its record-and I am certain that they will, given the opportunity-then its members, and particularly those who are members of the cabinet, would go to the foot of the line, to the bottom of the class.
It is true that the government has, during its term of office, established many records-record inflation, the highest in the country's history and still rising; record unemployment, higher than in the great depression and still rising; record spending, with a total budget of somewhere in the vicinity of $48 billion and the government still spending; a record deficit which will be somewhere in the vicinity of $9 billion, an amount greater than the total budget at the time this government took office in 1968 under the same leadership it has today. In addition we have an 89 cent dollar, the lowest value since the 1930's and the product of a weak, high cost, underproductive economy.
The Address-Mr. Wise
It is not my intention or my wish to quarrel with some of the tax measures brought forth last Thursday evening by the newest Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). Indeed, many such measures had been requested for months by members on this side of the House. But I doubt, Mr. Speaker, given the present high degree of uncertainty, that they will provide a sufficient incentive for investors, business and industry to respond as they would wish.
I welcome the proposal to provide tax credits to the private sector for the purpose of job creation. Indeed I firmly believe that the job retraining and apprenticeship programs should even be expanded. One area that the government is neglecting to recognize, however, is the cost to the employer of training employees who are on these programs. This cost is extremely substantial and often discourages many employers from participating in such programs.
This is a very important area because, at a time when we have over one million people unemployed, we have in some areas-not in all, but in some-jobs going unfilled. These jobs more often than not are of a skilled or semi-skilled nature. If these programs met the cost of trainee and employer, many of these jobs could be filled and considerable savings would result from not financing Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits, welfare, and other costly social programs.
Further to this, Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have over one million unemployed we are again experiencing the sad and unbelievable situation in which there is a lack of adequate and suitable manpower to harvest many labour intensive farm commodities. Students from our secondary schools and universities, coupled with offshore workers, generally speaking make up the only reliable source of harvest labour. This tells me- and 1 hope it registers with the government-that there is a desperate need to rededicate many Canadians in certain regions to the work ethic and to the imperative need to encourage individual self-motivation. I am happy to see the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in the House tonight, and I would just remind him that he must totally reject the advice that he will be getting from his officials. He must retain the offshore labour program for as long as this condition exists in Canada.
In the brief time allotted to me I want to bring to the attention of the government a few of the ongoing, or in many cases worsening, problems experienced by the agricultural industry. Let me begin by citing a report from Statistics Canada which indicates that a decline in farm cash receipts occurred in 1976. These were down some $140 million, which means a drop of over 20 per cent. In 1977 it is obvious that farm incomes will again decline. This year's reduction in net farm income could well register a further 10 per cent. For the first eight months farm income is down in British Columbia, it is down in Saskatchewan to the extent of 50 per cent, and it is down in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. It is only up slightly in Alberta, and it is up slightly in Nova Scotia. In a brief conversation with the former premier of that province, he indicated that the situation in the province of Nova Scotia really had no way to go but up.

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Wise
In addition to this, I should like to point out that increases in farm input costs far exceed those of farm incomes, and by an ever-increasing margin. Farm operating costs for 1976 jumped by approximately 11 per cent, and another inflationary jump of 10 per cent could be expected this year.
On the subject of farm machinery, a more recent and worrisome statistic is available. Purchases of farm machinery are down by 10 per cent over the past year. For example, in Saskatchewan farm machinery sales have dropped 24 per cent; in Manitoba they have dropped 19 per cent; and Alberta has suffered an 11 per cent reduction as well. These factors have devastating effects on the economies of rural towns and villages throughout the entire country. For example, a 100 horsepower tractor which could be purchased in 1972 for $9,800, now costs around $20,000. A combine priced at $15,000 in 1972 now carries a price tag in excess of $30,000. Diesel fuel has doubled in price during the last five years, and more increases are expected in the future. In the midst of these cost increases, grain prices have decreased sharply, many to the extent of 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hundreds of other examples could be cited; but whqt is really happening under this government is that farm incomes are sinking and farm input prices are rising. The farm profit margin, if indeed any exists, continues to shrink. It should be obvious to all members that the agricultural producer has the right to a fair return for his investment, labour, management, and his risks.
In a recent speech given by Peter Hannam, the relatively newly elected president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, in the city of London, he indicated that a study had been completed by that organization, and the results were that if farmers charged absolutely nothing for their investment, labour, and management-in other words, if they simply donated all the products and commodities they produced-the saving to every consumer would be 23 cents a day. Mr. Speaker, that is less than the price of a cup of coffee or a chocolate bar.
Our fruit and vegetable industries continue to suffer under an antiquated tariff and duty policy. To date there is no indication of acceptance by the government of the Tariff Board report which recommends immediate adjustments and the conversion to an ad valorem system to remove inequities which have existed for over a quarter of a century. There is no indication that seasonal surcharges will be implemented, even when surplus production from outside sources floods Canadian markets and depresses local prices below costs of domestic production. There is no encouraging sign of a government commitment to create an environment for Canadian producers to supply a greater percentage of the domestic market, nor any evidence of aggressive sales programs to expand or seek out new export markets abroad.
We should consider ourselves fortunate as of today that there is no indication that the government intends further studies or inquiries into the beef industry. It has been papered to death. We have had the commission of inquiry and the
(Mr. Wise.]
Senate inquiry-both credible documents-although I question the necessity of public expenditure for the latter. Had the minister the good sense to listen to our recommendations made repeatedly over past months, particularly by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurlburt), the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and others, he could have received his answers and saved Canadian taxpayers and farm organizations over a million dollars and improved the position of those in the agricultural industry, particularly those in the beef industry.
If I could make one point tonight, it would be that 1 want to remind the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that we have been consistent in our call and recommendations for a Canadian meat import law. In his speech yesterday the minister hinted, after several years of prodding, at the introduction of some similar type of legislation. I say to the minister: bring on your legislation, and if it qualifies in our opinion and measures up to our wishes, and has the teeth to do the job, then we on this side of the House will support it. What further commitment does he require than that? It appears that finally we might have some attention given to the matter of foodland preservation. Although we recognize and respect the fact that this matter is primarily a joint provincial and municipal legislative matter, because of its national importance we continue to urge federal assistance, support and co-operation.
Time does not permit me to deal tonight with such a problem as the explosive situation which exists in the dairy industry, or the ridiculous granting of precious and shamefully inadequate research funds to a former employee and consultant for the Interprovincial Pipeline Company to do a study on the "effects of pipeline construction on the productivity of soils in western Quebec and eastern Ontario." Although such a study is necessary and we would support it without question, this is a scandalous appointment at a cost of nearly $40,000. How can one possibly accept the credibility of the results when the engineer who was hired has testified in courts and supplied information to the courts which has been used against farmers? It is a clear conflict of interest and another prime example of bad judgment and poor judgment on behalf of the government. Peter Lewington, an Ilderton farmer and writer, sums it up accurately by saying, "It's like letting the fox mind the chicken coop".
The Minister of Agriculture in his usual display of buffoonery justified the move of Farm Credit Corporation's head office from Ottawa to Camrose, a move which was purely political. This represents another example of the government's use of power and politics despite the will of the people and the absence of good common sense.
We are concerned about the effects and the results of the recent reorganizational changes in the Department of Agriculture, particularly at a time when a greater flow of information is necessary between the producers, consumers and people in the food industry. The food systems branch created in 1972 to handle this much needed service has been dissolved. Concern has been raised over the possible erosion of authority from the Department of Agriculture to other government departments.
October 27, 1977

For example, there is a current rumour that quality standards and grading could be moved from the Department of Agriculture and shifted to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
We are concerned about the implications of any new competition bill introduced by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and its effect on the well regulated and adequately supervised orderly marketing systems we have in Canada. What kind of legislation does the minister have in mind when he speaks about consumer representation on all national and provincial marketing boards? Will such members be democratically elected, or will they be unilaterally appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps even worse, by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand)?
We welcome the invitation given by the government for the submission of briefs by the provinces and producer groups leading up to national food strategy conferences in the month of February next year. But we have seen this approach used before, with the end result being that what happens in the formation of policy and the setting of programs is that the government simply imposes its own rights and its own ideas.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, as I see that my time has almost expired, 1 should like to say that the attention which the government pays to the problems of the agricultural industry in Canada cannot come in sporadic bursts, but rather those problems must be met by far-sighted policies shaped in consultation with those who are directly concerned and directly involved. Unfortunately I do not see any evidence of such a federal commitment, either now or in the foreseeable future, and certainly as long as this government holds office.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join in this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. 1 want to congratulate the two members who moved the Address in Reply, the hon. member for Louis-Heb-ert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). They both acquitted themselves in this debate admirably well for two new young members, just as they did in the by-elections last spring. So 1 congratulate them, as many members of the House have done.
I think this will be a very special session of parliament because, for one thing, it is the first time in some 20 years that Her Majesty has officially opened parliament. She certainly did it with style, grace and elegance, which made it a very special and memorable occasion for all of us. Surely this will likely be the last session of this parliament, so that is another reason for saying it is a very special occasion. The third reason that makes this new session very special, of course, is the fact that for the first time it is being televised, and 1 would like to compliment the government for taking the initiative of bringing television to the House, thus bringing the House closer to the Canadian people and making this place more relevant for Canadians. Someone said recently that this might be called the
The Address-Mr. Foster
"new suit" session of parliament, with everyone getting decked out in their new fancy duds to look great on the new media.
1 think that the throne speech emphasized most properly three areas; the economy, inflation, unemployment and the energy situation in our country. It referred to energy conservation and the development of renewable resources which will be so important in the general energy picture, especially in the future. It mentioned as well the production of gas and oil in the west and in the Arctic. We have had some very encouraging signs this year in the increased production of gas in western Canada. There have been several developments in that regard which, I think, are very encouraging and positive. 1 hope to see the Quebec and maritime natural gas pipeline go ahead, as has been announced during the past few months. Likewise, there is increased interest in gas exploration in the high Arctic islands, and drilling is going forward in the Beaufort Sea. Perhaps the most important energy question that will be before this session of parliament will be legislation relating to the ALCAN pipeline. This is a historic issue which will be put before the House and the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works in this session.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) spoke about the government resorting to confrontation, bullying the provinces. It is interesting to note that throughout discussions leading to the ALCAN agreement which was negotiated last August and September not only with the government in Washington but also with the governments of the three western provinces, none of them of the same political stripe as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), during negotiations for the largest private enterprise project in the history of Canada which will cost some $10 billion, there were no signs of any confrontation with the western premiers, of any bullying. Obviously if there ever was an issue with a potential for many conflicts, it is this project. Yet when I was in Alberta a few weeks ago, some of the Tory provincial members of parliament complimented me on the consultation which took place between the Prime Minister and the premier of that province during the discussions which took place leading up to the agreement with the U.S. government. So 1 think we have to take with a grain of salt what the Leader of the Opposition said about confrontation and bullying as the tactics of this government and realize that it is mostly political talk on his part. I think it is very appropriate, especially this week, after having watched the confrontation in the past year during which the Leader of the Opposition settled who will be the candidate for the Bow River riding, resorting to bullying and perhaps even revenge. It seems to me that if we really want to take the Leader of the Opposition seriously we must wonder how he would ever be able to run the country if he were to be prime minister when he cannot even look after the fights and defections in his own caucus.
As we go into this session of parliament and come to grips with the tremendous problems of the economy, unemployment, inflation and setting up new energy systems for our country, we will be facing an additional problem, that is the achievement of national unity in this country. At no time in our history have we had to face the same kind of challenge that the

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. Foster
federal government and this parliament will have to face in this session after the election of the separatist government in Quebec last fall.
It seems to me that the PQ government has moved rapidly in the course of the past year toward their primary aim of establishing a separate country. It seems to me that we will have to bring to bear every bit of wit and wisdom that we can muster in this place to meet this challenge in the next few months and in the next year or so. Certainly after reading the statements of the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent), and of the Prime Minister in this debate, I think there is no question about who is the party leader with the greatest understanding of this problem, the greatests appreciation of it, and the most ability. That is the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. McKenzie:: You certainly need a big drink of water after that one.


Maurice Brydon Foster: I want to compliment the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on his appointment in the last few months. He is a very courageous man to be taking such an important responsibility at a time when every world government faces such tremendous economic problems, problems of unemployment and of high inflation. Canada's problems in this regard are perhaps as great as are those of some of the other industrialized countries, but not as bad as those of many other countries. When one considers the growth that has taken place in the labour force in Canada as compared with other countries in the last eight or ten years, and our exposure to world inflation because of the high proportion of our gross national product being realized from trade, one realizes that this makes us more liable to encounter the very serious problems of unemployment and high inflation, but it does not lessen our responsibility to come to grips with them and to overcome them.
I believe the Minister of Finance in his speech faced these problems with candor, with courage and with honesty, speaking to the members of this House and to the Canadian people. He proposed important steps to overcome our problems and to improve our situation. He announced, for instance, a tax reduction of $100 for low income families, and geared it so that that reduction in taxes would come during January and February of this coming winter and so that it would provide a stimulus to the economy of some $700 million during that two month period, a period when consumer spending is often down. It should give a tremendous shot in the arm to consumer spending during that two month period.
The minister announced that the government will continue its program of restraint in spending. It has been indicated that the increase in government spending during the first half of 1977 was held at 5.2 per cent over 1976. That is even below the estimate of 7 per cent the President of the Treasury Board

(Mr. Andras) announced in his spending estimates last February.
The rate of increase in the civil service is being held at less than one per cent over last year. The minister announced the discontinuation of the Anti-Inflation Board as of April 14, 1978, so that both business and labour will know the plans of the government. This will create a great deal of certainty in the business community.
The Minister of Finance announced that a $150 million additional direct job creation fund would be provided for this coming winter. This is on top of the $450 million already announced this year. The minister also indicated that this level of spending for Canada Works would continue into next year, providing over $1 billion for direct job creation during the two-year period. This is important to the Algoma riding where there is persistently high seasonal unemployment because our construction industry is seasonal. During this coming winter we will be spending $1.8 million in the Algoma riding on Canada Works projects. Some 60 projects have now been approved. These projects will create over 500 jobs throughout the Algoma-Manitoulin area.
I certainly hope that some of the additional $150 million which is to be provided for direct job creation through the federal Labour Intensive Program will be provided to the small craft harbours branch. This is the branch of the Department of the Environment which provides marine facilities throughout our country. Surely with a negative balance in our tourism account with the United States we need to create the best possible tourist facilities we can to encourage our American friends to come and visit in Canada during the holiday season.
I was pleased that the Minister of Finance announced a $100 million incentive program to provide employment to private business. It seems to me that there is a limit to the amount of spending which can be done for direct job creation. We should be providing incentives to the private sector. Surely $100 million will provide a substantial incentive, and of course these jobs tend to be long lasting and permanent, whereas direct job creation jobs are not.
We all get very interesting letters from our constituents suggesting all kinds of projects and programs in which the government should be involved. I received one last week which suggested that we create a registered educational savings program which would operate similar to the registered retirement savings program or the registered home ownership program. Under this proposed program an employed person could put funds into a tax shelter during his high income working years. These funds would then be available to be withdrawn when that person wants to take advanced training in his own field. The money could be used to fund refresher courses in the person's present area of unemployment, or it could be used by a person training for a second career part way through his working life.
I have heard it said that persons being trained today should be prepared to change jobs at least three or four times during their active career. Surely that is true of politicians if not of the general population, but it seems to me that this proposal of
October 27, 1977

one of my constituents is a very good one. It would provide funds for this kind of retraining. The people themselves would be putting up the funds. It would not be put up by the government or by employers. People retraining for a year or so would not be in the labour force during that period. I certainly hope that the Minister of Finance will consider this suggestion in his next budget.
Yesterday I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) speak in the House. I thought he made a very good speech, with all deference to the hon. member from the opposition who spoke just a few moments ago. I heard the minister mention that high on the list of priorities at the federal-provincial meetings which will be taking place in the next few weeks will be farm stabilization. I was glad to hear that because many sectors of Canadian agriculture, especially cow-calf operators, have gone through perhaps one of the most difficult periods ever in Canadian agricultural history during the past three years. I was encouraged that prices in Algoma-Manitoulin this year moved up somewhat, but cow-calf operators are still not getting a decent return for the work, the investment, and the management they provide to their farm operations. I hope that the stabilization will not be necessary as prices move up in the future, but surely we need to have a stronger and better program in place because of the cyclical nature of this industry.
The Minister of Agriculture also mentioned that he was prepared to bring in control legislation for imports of beef to maintain them at a reasonable level so that we do not get dumping on the Canadian market. I hope the minister will go ahead with this legislation. He indicated that he wanted some indication from the opposition that it would be prepared to support such legislation, and I hope that can be worked out.
In northern Ontario we were shocked last week at the announcement by INCO that it was planning to lay off some 2,800 people in the Sudbury district. That announcement not only affects the city of Sudbury but the entire district of Sudbury, much of which is in the eastern part of the Algoma riding. Some young workers who live in my constituency will be laid off by INCO.
To me it is almost unbelievable that a company as large and as important as INCO is to the Canadian economy would unilaterally make this decision without any consultation or without any notice to the government or to the labour unions involved. Surely this kind of action belongs to the dark ages of industrial relations and not in a modern industrial society. No responsible employer should lay off 2,800 workers in the dead of winter without prior consultation. All too often, and in too many communities in northern Ontario we have had to face this kind of situation in the past.
In Elliott Lake we faced this problem in the early 1960's when the United States government failed to pick up its option to purchase additional supplies of Canadian uranium. We saw the population of that community drop from around 25,000 to about 6,000 during those years, and the price of uranium dropped from about $13 a pound to about $4 or $5 a pound. The number of mines operating in that community dropped
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
from 13 to 2 during the 1960's. However, the federal government acted to save the town of Elliot Lake and the Township of Elliot Lake during those years. It decentralized the laboratories of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It established the Elliot Lake Centre for Continuing Education in co-operation with the Ontario Department of Education. It established a program of uranium stockpiling which, during the 1960's, cost $100 million, and in the early 1970's cost $29 million. In the early 1970's it worked with other uranium producing countries to establish a floor price for export sales to maintain the mines and industry in communities like Elliot Lake and Uranium City.
Our Tory friends across the floor have often been critical of this action by the government. But if those mines had shut down in the early 1970's-as most would have-and had filled up with water and had to be pumped out and were just now starting into production, rather than being in full production and expanding in the last couple of years, what would the price of uranium be? It would certainly be much higher than $40 or $42 per pound.


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


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly looked forward to participating in this debate. Unfortunately, I cannot offer congratulations to the two members who moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, as that would be hypocritical of me. 1 cannot congratulate anybody who is supporting and congratulating this government with its record. I look at these two members with disdain. It amazes me that they could get on their feet to support and praise this government.
I am very disappointed that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) left the Chamber because I have some very strong comments to make, both about his speech tonight and his past actions. I would have no hesitation about saying this to him if he were here. I will say it now, knowing that he reads Hansard every day and so will read my comments tomorrow. He is the Christine Jorgensen of the Canadian political scene. How anybody could do what he did, with his record of 19 years opposing the Liberals, is beyond comprehension. It is unbelievable the way he has spoiled himself.
The minister talked about a strong domestic climate. What a statement to come from him. I shall return to that in a moment. He gave some false information in this Chamber tonight about public hiring and said it is being restricted to 1 per cent. It is not 1 per cent at all, Mr. Speaker. Every cabinet minister is hiring through private employment agencies by the thousands and I have the figures to prove it. Also, every cabinet minister is hiring retired civil servants in the thousands on a contract basis. The amount for 1975-76 is $130 million. Yet they have the audacity to stand in this Chamber, and to

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
wander around the country saying they are restricting the growth of the civil service. I will have the rest of the figures before much longer, Mr. Speaker.
1 should like to comment now on the remarks made by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) regarding the Bow River confrontation and the nominating meeting there. He tried to intimate that the Conservative party is the only party where there is a contest for a nomination. That is utter nonsense. I can remember St. Boniface in 1968 when the present member for that riding contested a cabinet minister. There was a kafuffle and they had to have two nominating meetings. I can remember a cabinet minister in Quebec in the same year who was challenged. He was defeated so he went to another riding, but he was defeated again. 1 remember another recent provincial Liberal nomination in Ontario where the leader of the Liberals had to rule things out of order and everything had to be done over again. There have been recent nominations in Manitoba where NDP cabinet ministers were contested. Let us not have this nonsense that the Conservative party is the only one that has contested nomination meetings. It is a lot of nonsense.


Benno Friesen: How did Lachance get in here?


A. Daniel McKenzie: That is another one. They did not want his father here.
The hon. member for Algoma spoke of the $100 million incentive to business. That does not mean anything at all. The tax incentives are not going to keep business in Canada, and I shall go into more detail later. He spoke of mines closing. The mining industry has been driven out of this country with the double taxation. Between the Liberal government's involvement in taxing the mining industry, the former NDP government in Manitoba and the former Barrett government, mining has been driven out of the country. They are not going to go back and forth-once those companies are driven out, that is the end.
I have another comment about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who has become an apologist for the Liberal party. It is unbelievable to see him stand in this Chamber reading a speech. 1 remember when he was a constructive member of parliament and did not need a prepared speech. He knew how to give emphasis without reading a document prepared by some parliamentary assistant or whoever drafted it. The minister knows how I feel about him and 1 will say these things to his face tomorrow. Indeed, 1 have already done it. I have expressed my opinion on how I feel about the minister.
I want to get on now to economic issues, Mr. Speaker, as 1 do not like to express personal opinions but like to deal with facts. I should like to read some press comments on Canada's economic health.
A report of the OECD and World Bank states that Canada's standard of living has dropped to seventh place in the world compared to other nations. My colleagues tell me it has just dropped to ten-probably it will be twelfth tomorrow. A report in the Financial Times tells us that Canada's economy

lags still further behind the United States. Diane Cohn has reported that controls are now part of the inflation problem. The business section of the Winnipeg Free Press reports that Canadians are being ripped off by the GNP shortfall, and it is reported in the Globe and Mail that Canadians lead all foreigners in investing in the United States. This is something I want to comment upon tonight, Mr. Speaker.
This flow of capital to the United States will continue. In questions put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on July 19 in regard to this outflow of investment capital it was pointed out that Canadians are the number one investors in the United States. Mr. Speaker, this is an indication that they have absolutely no faith in Canada, and $100 million is not going to keep them here. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) on that occasion, the Prime Minister replied:
As far as Canadian capital being invested elsewhere is concerned, there are no exchange controls on the Canadian dollar, and the Canadian investor is free to invest wherever he will get the maximum return for his dollar.
Who could argue with that, Mr. Speaker? What we want to know is what he is going to do to keep the investment dollar here. Apparently he is going to do absolutely nothing. I put a similar question to the great hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on October 19, and he replied:
I should like to thank the hon. member for the question. We enjoy in Canada complete freedom of investment and a free country.
Imagine the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce making a statement like that. He, who is supposed to attract industry to this country, says we are a great bunch of free enterprisers and if all business wants to move to the states and all investment money as well, that is fine. It is ironic, Mr. Speaker, because an article in a recent issue of Macleans magazine asks if Jack Horner is still his own man. Well, after the answer he gave me, Mr. Speaker, we know he is not his own man but, the article also asks-or Pierre Trudeau's? He is Pierre Trudeau's man now. They are both mouthing the same things-let all business and investment capital leave the country. What it is going to cost us will be very interesting to the Canadian people. I will get to that in a moment.
There are close to one and a half million people unemployed in Canada today. With this trend of investment money and businesses leaving, my prediction is that within four years there will be two and a half million people unemployed.
Today there are some 400,000 students graduating from schools, colleges, and universities each year, but we are creating only 200,000 new jobs yearly. By doing a little simple arithmetic, you will come up with your own figure; two million, three million.
What is it costing the Canadian public today to pay for UIC? Since 1973 it has cost the Government of Canada $4.8 billion over and above employee-employer contributions to keep the UIC fund solvent. That is the equivalent of $208 per man, woman and child in Canada. Since March, 1968, UIC
October 27, 1977

payments have amounted to $7.3 billion, or almost $800 per man, woman and child.
In the first six months of 1977 unemployment insurance benefits amounted to an average of $12.7 million per day, or $530,000 an hour, or $9,000 a minute, or $150 a second. That is something for the Canadian public to think about. They will not get any consolation from the comments of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. They are great free enterprisers who will allow investment capital to go south of the line and allow businesses to move. They are such free enterprises they will not interfere in that transaction.
It is great to read articles like this in the paper:
N.Y. Woos Canadians in Ottawa
Eastern Ontario industrialists are being invited to a one-day seminar in Ottawa September 28 to be sold on the benefits of establishing branch plants in northern New York.
The seminar, organized by St. Lawrence County, is part of a stepped up effort by industry-craving communities along the south shore of the St. Lawrence Seaway to woo Canadian businessmen.
Isn't it encouraging to the Canadian taxpayer to read an article like that? A group of New York bankers have established a $500 million fund to assist Canadian businesses to move from Canada to the United States. Along the border states they are building business complexes to accommodate Canadian businesses. Once a trend like that starts, you do not stop it.
What is the government's alternative? It is putting up $450 million for make work and job creation projects on a temporary basis. Why does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce not have a seminar to find out why these businesses are leaving? Why is he not doing something to keep them here? Never mind saying he is a great free enterpriser who will not do anything about it. He is one of the greatest trends the United States has ever had.
I wish to read some of the comments that have been made by Canadian businessmen. A spokesman for Jarry Electronics, which moved to Massena, New York, from Hawkesbury, Ontario, said:
Somewhere there's a point of no return and Canada is getting close to it.
A comment in the Ottawa Citizen on Canadian investment in the United States reads:
We didn't move just to get out of Canada-it was a matter of survival.
A Massey-Ferguson spokesman in the November 23, 1976, Toronto Globe and Mail stated:
The economic policy of the Trudeau government is frightening the business community into investing in the United States.
Here is another dandy from the July 23, 1977, Ottawa Citizen:
One hundred and forty Canadian manufacturing firms now have outlets in New York.
Don McGillivray of Southam News stated:
Canada is drifting along like a ship without a rudder.
The Address-Mr. McKenzie
An Ontario manufacturer commented:
Industries just can't survive in the current Canadian climate and many more will make the move to the U.S.
As I pointed out, this affects us. All we have to do is expand UIC and have these phony make-work projects. If the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and this government were on their toes, they would be consulting with investment counsellors across Canada. This is something I have done. I recently consulted one in Winnipeg. He has a full-time profitable occupation assisting Canadian businesses move to the United States. This was mostly in Manitoba, but the political climate has improved there 100 per cent in the past two weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: We hope that this mass exodus of investment money and businesses out of Manitoba will be stopped. However, the provinces cannot do it alone. The investment counsellor whom I consulted spent considerable time going into detailed information. Without going into all the details, what it amounted to was that the amount of money leaving Manitoba would mean a loss of 4,000 jobs.
Manitoba is not a big province. We have just one million population. We are one of the small ones. Multiply that across Canada. This is the sort of information the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce should be obtaining. Never mind telling us he is a great free enterpriser and will do nothing about keeping business in this country. I will get more detailed information on this in the very near future.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce commented the other day about the great inflow of investment money into Canada. That statement is not true. I have the Canadian direct investment abroad figures. It started in 1976. There has been a drop of investment money in Canada and an increase in investment money leaving the country. That is a very dangerous trend. My statement has been backed up by an editorial in the October 10 Financial Times which reads:
U.S. companies have cut their planned increase in investments in Canada in half... Obviously, Canada is not seen as a good place to invest money.
The comment of Japanese businessmen that high taxes, high wages and low productivity have priced Canada out of the market had the sting of truth.
There are 17 major complexes being developed in the United States with Canadian money. In this year alone, $2.5 billion in real estate money has left this country and gone to the United States. Thirty per cent of the high rise apartments in Seattle, Washington, have been developed with Canadian money. Obviously there is something wrong in this country. That is why I cannot support some freshman Liberal in this House praising this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Every paper you pick up has some comment about money leaving the country. Another recent news article states:
Canadian investment money has been moving in increasing amounts to the United States. A part of the reason is that the United States is perceived, at

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier present, as a better place to do business-lower taxes, lower labour costs, higher productivity, less government intervention: the list is long.
U.S. groups-government and business-have caught the searching eye of the Canadian investor and moved in quickly to concentrate it on their particular areas.
They are opening offices in Quebec, Ontario, and the northeastern states to assist Canadian businesses to move. 1 did not hear any Liberals talk about this in their speeches. What is the government going to do to keep this money in Canada? What will it do to keep these businesses here? All I see across the way are blank faces. They are not going to do anything.
There is no way the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will crack the Liberal bureaucracy. He is an absolute myth. He left our party because he was going to do great things for Canada. He is going to do absolutely nothing.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He is going to lose his seat.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes, he will lose his seat. One of the mistakes the government has made is the way it governs by order in council, some 3,300 last year. This is disturbing the business community and investment community. They never know what little surprise will be dropped on them next.
In a recent article by an eminent Ottawa columnist, Peter Ward, it is stated:
Seldom has there been a legislative tussle in the House of Commons to match the ditch-by-ditch fight mounted by the Opposition against Bill C-51, the gun control bill that also loosens restrictions on police wiretapping. Now, that may not seem to bear very heavily on the interests of the Canadian business community. But the arguments raised by many opposition members involve basic criticisms of the way the federal government actually governs.
They do not govern. We have the next thing to a dictatorship. The article goes on to say that the changes on the government side affect all Canadians, perhaps businessmen more than most.
No country can survive without business or investment money, and it is no use kidding ourselves that there is any alternative; it is no use kidding ourselves that the $450 million put into this make-work project will make up for the mass exodus of money and businesses leaving this country. Even the president of the CBC, a Crown corporation, has stated that at the root of the problems of this country are inflation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.
[ Translation]


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. Wood) for their splendid contributions to this traditional debate. 1 take exception to the remarks of the hon. member who spoke before me. I think he is ill-mannered. He is aware of the tradition in this House of showing at least respect for the opinions of two newly arrived members in this House. He should at least have the dignity of showing them the respect they earned well.

Mr. Speaker, this debate represents one of the rare occasions for a member to speak of various subjects of particular interest to him. It is usually not partisan. Mr. Speaker, on October 10 last I concluded a two-year period as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. The experience has been rewarding. The many contacts made across the country, the speeches, the official visits, the work in committee and with the minister allowed me to better understand federal urban programs and to get closely involved in the housing policies and programs brought forth by this government to meet the expectations of Canadians in the area of urban planning and housing construction.
As 1 represent an entirely urban riding made up for a large part of neighbourhoods dating in many cases back over a hundred years, one of my major concerns has been working hard for the preservation of our architectural heritage and the rehabilitation of old neighbourhoods. That policy to restore and rehabilitate Ottawa-Vanier assured us of the preservation of our dear old neighbourhoods where a certain lifestyle has set in a long time ago and where tradition should play a part in shaping the face of the national capital so it may be reflected in Canada as a whole.
Housing in Ottawa-Vanier was substantially improved in the past four or five years. There is a great choice of alternatives. The programs under way, whether it be neighbourhood rehabilitation, construction or restoration, will continue to bring tangible benefits to my constituents.
The federal government has a substantial influence on urban Canada under the vast responsibilities that come under its jurisdiction. Every policy and every program initiated at the federal level in housing, transportation, immigration, economic assistance and others are felt in the final analysis at the local and surrounding community levels. That means that we, at the federal level, as well as our provincial counterparts, must always take into consideration the needs, the priorities and the cost problems, and continue to work closely with the municipal level and citizens committees to find the most practical solutions to the problems of urban planning and concentration.
There is also an important point that must be considered, at least at this time, and that is the fact that we do not have to accept trends unless we want to. All in all, trends largely reflect public behaviour patterns and the ways in which they are applied. Up to a point, those patterns can be reoriented and new patterns applied differently.
There are a number of federal levers that can serve in support of new objectives which reflect new values. For instance, the programs on housing, immigration, finance and the economy, transport and industry, regional development and many others. All those programs can give considerable support to provincial, regional and municipal development strategies in improving the quality of the urban environment.
One of the results of urban development and the concentration of populations has been the growth, at the periphery, of suburbs and dormitory towns. Around those concentration, commercial centres and job opportunities have developed. The riding of Ottawa-Vanier, downtown Ottawa, did not escape
October 27, 1977

the effects of the migration of its inhabitants to the outskirts. It slowed down the economic growth of downtown Ottawa, exerted strong pressures for new road systems linking the outskirts where people sleep to the heart of the city where people work.
Doubtless, a number of reasons explain the slowing down now apparent in yesterday's trends. A new awareness that brings it changing values, is probably another factor. The increasing number of persons formerly living in the suburbs or elsewhere now want to come back to live in the city. The change may not be dramatic but it does have salutary results. Now, people are asking that the quality of life in the city-core be better balanced between working and residential areas. That is a complete change-about with the trend of a few years ago. It is therefore important that any planning or strategy in the field of housing and urban renewal be closely tied in with those new trends.

Federal housing policies have had to be both progressive and responsive to the diversity of special needs that have always existed. This is at the heart of federal policies on shelter-not just to help provide houses of brick, mortar and wood-but to help people, particularly people who are unable to fend for themselves properly.
I am referring to people who make up important minorities in our society-the poor, the elderly, the sick, native people and others who are at a disadvantage in a competitive world. These have always been the first concern of a national housing policy, and today we are continuing to meet their needs through a variety of programs that are especially tailored to provide assistance while helping to retain the essential human dignity all people must possess. We don't do it alone, of course. There is an inter-dependence of governments in housing, as in most other important fields, and we work together to ensure that we are responding properly to the needs of people who are most vulnerable.
Obviously, we could not follow this path without the approval of the Canadian people, for the strength of the majority must be employed to help the vulnerable minorities. It is a credit to the people of this country that they so willingly support the principle that those of us who are blessed with good fortune have a fundamental responsibility toward our fellow-Canadians who need our help, whether temporarily or permanently. Call it a spirit of brotherhood, if you like, but it's there, it can be felt, and it contributes to the greatness of this huge country that sprawls from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
We have collectively been very preoccupied, and justifiably so, with building and improving our neighborhoods. We have developed flexible programs that fit our national needs and meet our national goals. All levels of government will continue no doubt to elaborate plans for improving the quality of life of all our neighborhoods.
Yet, we are faced, in Canada today, with a challenge of great importance to us all-the challenge of keeping this country together. Call it national unity or national understand-
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier ing, I, for one, prefer the term national understanding because I can better grasp its meaning.
To understand each other with all our regional and sectional loyalties, our varying customs and traditions; to understand what this country is all about with two official languages and a multitude of cultures; to understand that there are forces at work to build a better Canada while at the same time other forces that want to destroy it; therein lies the challenge! There is a threat or a crisis which menaces everything we have learned to love and cherish and that we so dearly want to keep. There is a far greater challenge ahead of us on the road to human brotherhood than we ever had to face before.
I was reminded recently of an old English proverb which says "do not trouble trouble till trouble troubles you." In my view, the only way to fight separatism is to make federalism a more attractive option.
History tells us that feelings of separatism were felt long ago in Canada. Lord Durham, one of our British governors, wrote in his report to England in the early 1800's: "I found two nations warring within the bosom of a single state".
History will tell you that Franco-Ontarians, and there are 500,000 of us in Ontario, had troubles in our fight to obtain the right to live in French in Ontario. We fought against regulations which forbade the use of French in Ontario schools. We fought to obtain primary and secondary French schools for our children, and finally obtained them in 1968.
We are still fighting for our right to use French in the courts of law of Ontario. We are asking for permission to draw up in French our wills, our contracts, our mortgages, and other ordinary legal documents. We are asking that essential services such as legal aid, health services, official government communications and documents be available in French, all things that most of you in this House take for granted in your provinces, be it in Quebec or elsewhere.
I could go on and give you a litany of services, such as permits, certificates, notices and requests for information, documents published by the Ontario ministries and government agencies, which are not available in French in Ontario. But those requests and concerns, as important as they are, all boil down to one basic principle called equality of opportunity.
1, and nearly a million other French speaking Canadians living outside Quebec, wish to be an active, respected, and wanted part of our country. We are Canadians. It so happens that we speak French in an English speaking milieu. Was not the idea of adopting two official languages, respectful of our individual heritages and traditional features, the purpose of creating a unified country in the first place? Surely the game plan is not for French to be balkanized to Quebec and for the rest of Canada to speak English? If it is, I will have no part of it. I want to feel at home in either language from coast to coast, everywhere in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 27, 1977
The Address-Mr. J.-R. Gauthier


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Unity to me does not mean uniformity. Neither does it mean that this society will develop into a uniform, regionalized or whatever you want system applicable all across the country. It has to be sensible, it has to be sensitive and respectful of all minorities, be they linguistic, social, cultural or economic. We all want individual recognition. We all want collective recognition. Minority groups are asking for recognition. That phenomenon is not peculiar to them or to anybody else; it is a phenomenon which we see when the provinces negotiate with the federal government, or when the municipalities negotiate with the provincial governments. What are we looking for, Mr. Speaker? We are looking for recognition. We are looking for recognition when this government negotiates with other countries. We are asking for recognition of our potential, recognition of our trade, of our cultural diversity, of our respect for human rights and of this great progressive democracy.
One unique feature about federalism is that it can adapt to circumstances. French-speaking minorities fear assimilation. If they do disappear through wilful neglect or indifference by the majority, these same majorities will in effect have contributed to separatism by attrition.
Separation of this country by attrition will come when no French is spoken outside Quebec and no English is spoken inside Quebec. Minorities, you see, can be disposed of in two ways. You attack them continuously or you ignore them completely. Both ways will surely kill them.
Rene Levesque, the premier of Quebec, is a well-known separatist. Lord Durham, in his way, was a separatist with a twist. Durham, in his now famous report to England, said about the French Canadians that the only solution to the problem was assimilation, and to that effect he proposed a plan. Are Francophone minorities outside Quebec the heirs of Lord Durham?
We have grown as a country as Canadians of both official languages moved about and established their neighbourhoods. If they had worked as hard on improving brotherhood as they have on building their neighbourhoods, we certainly would not be faced with the same problems facing us today. Some will tell us that national unity is threatened by the national economic problems or the social unrest caused by disturbing unemployment. I for one do not believe that you can separate economic, cultural or social problems when you talk of national understanding. You cannot speak of religion to a man who is hungry. You cannot speak of unity to the poor or the wanting. Let us not compartmentalize our society and its problems into parts that need to be fed, parts that need to be housed, parts that need to be transported, and so on. Let us look to the entire society, to the global problems we are presented with, so that the entire human being counts and prevails. Do not speak of social justice and equal opportunity equal to French-speaking minorities who in fact have had their rights trampled on for 110 years.
1 want to talk now about another grave problem facing my minority, the French-speaking minority outside Quebec, the problem of assimilation. The latest statistics, which are 1971,

indicate that 27 per cent of French-speaking minorities outside Quebec are being assimilated, and that is a very distressing rate. French outside Quebec, as a national language, is in the process of being relegated to the level of folklore in at least seven of our 10 provinces. Provincial bilingualism exists only in two provinces, Quebec and New Brunswick, although I must admit that Ontario is making some effort to adapt its policies to this challenge.
Where are we as a federation? Can we adapt to change? Right now, it seems to me, as a member of a linguistic minority, that the majority, be they French in Quebec or English outside Quebec, are reacting to their conscience while the minorities are gathering their punches to wake them up to reality. Those of us who are threatened are not at this time absent from this national debate. The minority linguistic groups will wage battle, for they have a country to lose and possibly a country to gain.
The fight will not take place between British Columbia and Quebec, or between Newfoundland and Quebec, or between any other provinces and Quebec; the fight for the minds, the hearts, and the allegiance of people will be at the national level. The results will most likely rest with the minority groups fighting prejudice, misunderstanding, and sometimes downright racism. The only way to fight the breakup of this country is to make federalism a more attractive option than separatism.
Canadians, regardless of their region, cultural roots, class or sex, only ask to be given the possibility of achieving relative equality. A sense of equity, freedom, and equality will have to be awakened in all Canadians. We can no longer continue to witness like helpless spectators the deterioration of the situation, the tearing to shreds of our national fabric.
English Canada will have to be perceived in its actions as being big enough to deal with Francophone groups on an equal footing, not based on the balance of numbers. It will have to be based on a definition of Canadian society tolerant and respectful of minorities, whether they are linguistic, cultural, social or economic minorities.
[ Translation]
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the comments pertaining to the Prime Minister's proposal last week in the Address in Reply, when he said that during this session he wanted to introduce in the House a bill on the referendum. Pending further details on that particular popular consultation formula, I would like the House to understand that it is urgent for all Canadians to realize that the time we have left to do the things we must do is getting shorter and shorter. I am convinced indeed that the date of the Quebec referendum is an important and meaningful date. I think, Mr. Speaker, that regardless of the results, the situation, if it is to change, must change in the meantime.
I do not know the date of the referendum proposed by the Parti Quebecois. I know that the results of that referendum could be highly disturbing. Should Quebecers vote negatively, shall we return to the status quo, to an attitude of the English-speaking majority saying that there is no problem,
October 27, 1977

that there is no need to worry because they will not separate? Or if the answer is yes, will we have a backlash of English opinion towards French-speaking minorities, to put it mildly? So it is very important, in the time available before this popular vote in Quebec, to focus on a federative solution which will really meet our expectations. The outcome will be a stronger Confederation.
President John F. Kennedy said this in his inaugural address:
Let us start all over again, remembering on both sides that courtesy is not a sign of weakness and that the proof of sincerity should always be established. Let us never be led by fear in our negotiations. And let us never fear to negotiate.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker).


Mr. Whittaker:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Last October 25, I asked a question of the Secretary of State to clear with him a very important matter. On September 30, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) announced the government's decision not to create bilingual districts. However, the Official Languages Act is mostly based on the creation of such bilingual districts. Is there then an alternative solution?
I asked the minister whether the government intends, in addition to the proposals which have been announced in the Speech from the Throne, to bring in amendments to the Official Languages Act during this session, thereby recognizing to that statute its supremacy in the field of linguistic equality over any other federal statute, thus correcting certain anomalies and inconsistencies that exist in some of the statutes.
In addition to the Official Languages Act, 1 could have mentioned, if I had had enough time, the Railway Act, the Winding-up Act and the Bank Act which contain all kind of vexatious measures from a linguistic standpoint. For instance, was it intended in the law and by the will of this Parliament to put restrictions on the issue of notices and announcements made by the railways to the public? I do not think so and I
Adjournment Motion
wish to explain further. Subsection (3) of section 243 of the Railway Act in particular now reads as follows:
Such notices shall, in the Province of Quebec, be written in the English and French languages, and, in the other provinces, in English.
This means that the right of the CN to make announcements in French in any province other than Quebec could be contested, which is contrary to the established practice and contrary, in my opinion, to the spirit of the law passed by this House.
There are a great number of other sections where such anomalies can be found. Last spring, 1 started reviewing the federal statutes dealing with the official languages and I noticed that amendments will have to be made to eliminate what I referred to, in my speech on national unity last July as "useless irritants".
After serious and in-depth examination of every statute, with the help of our legal counsel and a computer, as hon. members are aware, I prepared and today tabled a piece of legislation to bring some measure of fairness to our Canadian linguistic rights.
I noticed with very much pleasure, in the throne speech, that the government, after consulting with the provinces, will amend the Criminal Code to guarantee the right of the accused to be heard in the official language of his choice. But on the announcement that the government will not create bilingual districts, 1 felt we should have some alternative. Since the federal government have the Official Languages Act, since they are ready to meet with the provinces to amend the constitution by inserting a clause guaranteeing language equality across the country, it seems to me that the provinces should, as they may chose to do, follow in their own jurisdictions the federal lead.
I therefore have two goals. One, that the federal government recognize that the Official Languages Act has priority over every other statute of Canada, and second, that the provinces be encouraged to allow greater use of the official languages. Without discussing my bill any further, and to point out the degree of flexibility that is needed, it is essential that the provinces allow within their jurisdiction the use of both official languages. Briefly stated, my bill aims at asking permission. With a lot of good will, the provinces could allow this. I see no difficulty. There may be problems in some provinces where some may think that allowing means recognizing. For the time being I am not asking for official recognition, but for permission. If we here in Ontario were allowed legal documents in French, I would have them. 1 am not asking that the government officially declare themselves bilingual. I am simply asking this: Give me documents so that here, in Ontario, 1 may live in my mother tongue.
The time has come that we also allow a host of federal agencies to act within the spirit of the act, and in the case for instance of our railways that an end be put to the anomaly that prohibits announcements in French in provinces outside Quebec.

October 27, 1977
Adjournment Motion
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it would be advisable that the House move to international railway signs. Within a few months, if it is deemed advisable, a bill could be introduced for the adoption of international railway signs. That, Mr. Speaker, was basically my point. It is important that all these statutes be revised. I hope that the minister who will answer can give me a positive answer.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. member the other day, and as I announced earlier today in the House, it is the government's intention to bring forward amendments to the Official Languages Act. Our purpose will be to strengthen the law and particularly to strengthen the role of the parliamentary commissioner to enable him, in the context of parliament, to apply more effectively the objectives of the act.
I wanted to say as well that I am grateful to the hon. member for having brought to my attention, and to the attention of members, the inconsistencies and the anomalies which exist in several pieces of federal legislation. In doing so, I think he has performed an extremely valuable service for me and, I think, for other members of the House.
I agree strongly with the concerns he has expressed about some of the archaic provisions, and as a result of his representations I have asked my officials to be in touch with the Department of Justice and the Privy Council Office so that we can examine these statutes which he has drawn to our attention with a view to bringing forward necessary changes.
I have not yet had a chance to examine the legislation which he placed before the House today but I will certainly do so at the earliest opportunity, and I think we will find the kind of suggestions which he has made to be very helpful. It seems to me that he has demonstrated how one can effectively, as a member of parliament, serve the interest of the people one represents. His suggestions are extremely valuable and 1 intend to see that action is taken upon them.


HOUSING-REASON FOR FAILURE TO PROTECT HOME BUYER
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on October 20 at the first opportunity in this session I brought to the attention of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) the plight of the residents of Bear Creek Park in Surrey, and I asked the following question of him:
Because of the indecent haste of the former minister in that portfolio to push AHOP programs, people, such as those in the Bear Creek estates, have been ripped off by fly-by-night contractors, as 1 have discussed with the minister on numerous occasions, and by the government directive that housing inspectors inspect only for the security of the money lenders, while the home buyer is left out in the cold. I would like to know why there was nothing about housing in the Speech from the Throne and why there is no protection for the home buyer.
The minister's answer was to the effect that he is sorry for the mistakes, he hopes there will be no such mistakes in the future, and that is where it ended. This was an admission of failure by the minister and the officials of his department, and

a refusal to accept any responsibility for what happened in the Bear Creek estates.
I want to assure the minister that I am not talking about the program itself because I know, now that the program has been in effect for two or three years, there are some fine AHOP projects that have been produced by very reputable contractors. I am not talking about the program itself. What 1 am talking about is at least one example, which can be multiplied across Canada, where people who had put their trust in a government program have been ripped off because of the sloppy administration by government administrators.
The problem is one of the minister, wanting to push the program to such a degree so as to have statistics to show that the program was a great success, and in his interest to have good statistics on housing starts he allowed his departmental officials, and perhaps even pushed them, to bring in all kinds of contractors on stream who could not be trusted as people with a good reputation so far as the quality of housing they would provide was concerned. I would like to outline briefly what has happened.
In this particular case 95 per cent of the homes were bought by the buyers from the contractor on the basis of plans presented. In the process of the building of those homes the contractor took it upon himself to change the plans, and when the buyers would view the houses as the plans were being changed, they would demur and object. The contractor would say that in the end things would turn out and that the buyers would be happy with the end product. But the end product was so shoddy that all the residents got together to object to what happened.
I showed the minister pictures of the substandard housing which was provided in the end for the full price of the AHOP project, and he himself was shocked. I know he was concerned about this.
The important fact is that the CMHC officials in Vancouver were pointedly asked by the residents and the buyers of Bear Creek estates not to make the final payment to the contractor, but they were totally ignored. The contractor got his money. He took off, and the buyers were left sitting high and dry. Actually, I should not say that because there were water problems, moisture, condensation, back-flow and water coming in the doors.
I should take a few minutes to read about some of the problems. The inspectors came back, looked, and admitted that their inspections had not been adequate. For example, there was deterioration because of moisture build-up in the windows. The doors were installed, but the weather stripping directed water into the houses instead of out of them. Not only was there shoddy workmanship; there were also violations of the code. The administrator from Vancouver signed a statement saying that a building did not meet section 35(B)(4) of the residential standards of CMHC. In another one the lighting fixtures did not meet section 35(B) of the residential standards. These are direct violations of the code. The inspec-
October 27, 1977

tors let these violations go, and the people had to pay full price. Now they are stuck.
The minister did show interest and was genuinely concerned about what happened, but the coup de grace is that in the end he said that it was too bad this happened but that perhaps these people should look for legal help for redress of their grievances. That contractor is long gone. He has closed down that company. He has no doubt vacuumed the company's bank account. There is not a thing these people can get, and they are stuck.
Departmental brochure NHA 5128-15 says:
The inspection routines are designed to make sure that the completed house will be adequate security for the NHA mortgage loan.
I wonder if Royal Trust and Montreal Trust have enough money somewhere to hire their own inspectors. Does CMHC have to carry out inspections to make sure the mortgage loans are protected? The government is protecting Montreal Trust and Royal Trust. Who is protecting the buyers? Surely the home buyer who buys from a government sanctioned program ought to be able to have some confidence that government officials are going to be protecting their interests and not those of money lenders. 1 think Royal Trust is big enough to look after itself.
The people involved have been more than patient. They have worked on their homes. They have tried to beautify them. They have spent up to $1,000 or $1,500 to improve their homes, to make sure they are livable and to make sure they get rid of some of the moisture. They have put their money into this-


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


Benno Friesen: 1 want to know what is going to happen to these people.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in assuming my responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs 1 am pleased to provide the House with additional comments on the role of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the construction of houses in the Bear Creek Park Subdivision. As the hon. member is aware, my minister has maintained a keen personal interest in this matter; to wit, the meetings he has had to which the hon. member referred.
The hon. member made reference to the Speech from the Throne and, as mentioned by my minister a few days ago, if all the items with respect to AHOP, housing, and all the other aspects of the ministries of this government were included in the Speech from the Throne, the Queen would still be here in Ottawa.


Benno Friesen: We don't mind.


Maurice James Harquail: With all due respect I believe that there may be some misundertanding on the part of the hon. member for
Adjournment Motion
Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) about the type of protection that CMHC provides for AHOP purchasers. All AHOP homes are inspected regularly by CMHC during construction. They must be in reasonable conformity with approved plans, and they must meet minimum standards of construction.
When owners of the Bear Creek Park houses indicated that they were not satisfied with the construction of their homes, CMHC met repeatedly with them and the builder to help resolve the problems. It is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that CMHC was successful in having the builder return to correct certain items necessary to bring the units up to the standards. The corporation was also able to encourage the builder to correct a number of other items that met standards, but the corporation went beyond that in meeting the standards to encourage the builder to maintain his workmanship to the owners' satisfaction.
The units now meet construction standards. However, the workmanship itself may not be up to the expectations of some purchasers, and this appears to be the major source of their continuing dissatisfaction. Moreover, strained relations between the builder and some of the home owners contributed to a hardening of attitudes on both sides, and CMHC spent a great deal of time trying to mediate these disputes.
One of the main difficulties here, Mr. Speaker, is the disparity between the purchasers' expectations regarding modest housing and the final product. Unfortunately this situation tends to arise when purchasers select their homes from plans or models. Differences between these and the actual home they buy are a source of disappointment and frustration, even though their house is in reasonable conformity with the plans from which the units were chosen.
The builder has advised CMHC that he is not prepared to do any more work on the houses-which now meet standards-and he is no longer active in the construction industry. I sympathize with the home owners, Mr. Speaker, but there is no question that CMHC did everything it possibly could within its mandate to help the home owners, as it does in every case. It was to help purchasers such as these that previous ministers of state for urban affairs, as well as the present minister in his former capacity as minister of consumer and corporate affairs, sought the creation of a national consumer warranty plan for new home buyers. Warranty programs are now being implemented by most provincial governments, and consumers can look forward to an improved level of protection. The minister attaches a great deal of importance to working with HUDAC and the provinces to ensure that all Canadians receive equal protection.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-AMENDMENT TO PROVIDE FOR WIDOWS OF VETERANS RECEIVING LESS THAN 48 PER CENT DISABILITY PENSION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering who was going to reply for the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) but I see we

October 27, 1977
Adjournment Motion
have one Liberal left. Mr. Speaker, if one were to count the times the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and I have brought up the topic I will raise tonight, I am sure we would lead the parade in bringing to light examples of inequities against Canadians. I brought up two questions yesterday. One concerned widows' pensions, and one was to the effect that veterans are falling behind in disability pensions as compared to their counterparts in the public service.
I do not understand how anybody can fail to see the discrimination that exists in veterans legislation. A veteran receiving a 48 per cent disability pension will leave a pension to his widow when he dies. If he receives 1 per cent less, however, which amounts to about $203 per year, she will not receive anything when he dies. Unless his death is attributable to his war days, she is left high and dry. She must resort to welfare. Canadians are saying to that woman, who probably spent many hours caring for her husband before he died, "You look after yourself, dear". The funny thing is there is now a way to correct that in the legislation. It has been brought to the attention of the minister on a number of occasions. It has to do with War Veterans Allowance recipients.
A War Veterans Allowance recipient receives somewhere in the vicinity of $487. He is probably equal to a disability pensioner at 65 or 70. If he dies, his wife is protected for one year at the married rate. After the year, she reverts to the single rate. However, she does have that built-in protection. The disability pensioner suffering from war wounds does not have that same advantage.
The other anomaly is the fact that the disability pensioner at only 5 per cent can qualify for War Veterans Allowance and probably get $400. His wife is protected. Someone receiving a disability pension of less than 47 per cent is better off to apply for War Veterans Allowance. This anomaly in the legislation has to be corrected. However, the government will not listen.
The other question I brought to the attention of the minister was with regard to the basic rate of pension and the indexing of that. After many years of fighting and hollering, we were able to establish a category on which to base the basic rate of pension for the disability pensioner. It was finally based by a tripartite committee on the average salary of the five lowest categories in the public service.
As a result, the one on disability indexed according to the cost of living increase is falling behind the rate of the public servant at $536 each year. The minister agrees that is wrong and has to be corrected. However, yesterday he made the ridiculous statement that they are only going to give them half the cost of living index and that veterans, as good Canadians, will accept that. They are good citizens all right. They were good Canadians 60 years ago when they went overseas as youngsters on behalf of Canada. Some sacrificed their lives. Some who came back were maimed and disabled.
Finally, after 50 years we had this basic rate established. They have now fallen behind and nobody will listen. I ask the

parliamentary secretary, how long do they have to wait? There are only 12,404 World War I disability pensioners left. They will all be gone, God forbid, in two or three years. To deny them the benefit of a commitment made by Canadian governments over 60 years is, to my mind, a blot on our society.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, as Armistice Day draws near it is certainly a privilege for me to answer in place of the Parliamentary Secretary for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Parent).
When the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) answered the question asked by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) yesterday it was with regret that he had to say that the government has looked seriously at the question of a possible increase to the basic rate of pension payable for death or disability related to military service, but had decided not to increase the pension at this time. Hon. members will appreciate that at this time of financial restraint additional funds over and above the normal increases which will be made in January, 1978, are not currently available.
Even though it cannot provide an additional increase, I should at the same time point out that this government has had the veterans very much in mind over the years. As an example, in January, 1971, the rate of pension for a veterans whose pensioned disabilities were assessed at 100 per cent, and who was unmarried with no dependants, was $265. A 10 per cent increase was granted on 1 April, 1971, to bring the rate to $292 a month. Indexing of pensions was instituted so that effective 1 January, 1972, the rate has been changed annually in accordance with the consumer price index. In addition there was a substantial 24 per cent increase in mid-1972, following on the study and recommendations of the joint study group.
As a result I am able to announce that the basic rate of pension will increase by 7.2 per cent effective 1 January, 1978, so that as of that date the unmarried 100 per cent pensioner will receive $596.70 a month. A married 100 per cent pensioner with one child will get $823.52. A widow without children will receive $447.53, and if she has two dependent children she will receive $716.06.
Insofar as the pro rata pension to widows of pensioned veterans is concerned. 1 have very little to add since a statement was last made on this subject.
The suggestion has been made that a widow should receive a pro rata pension if her husband had been in receipt of a disability pension of 47 per cent or less. This is because she would be fully pensionable as a widow if his pension had been 48 per cent or more at the time of death. What is sometimes missed is that the widow will be pensioned if her husband's death occurred during wartime or was attributable to his service, regardless of the degree of the assessment of his disability. The question which arises is whether, if death was not in any way attributable to military service, a widow's pension should be paid because of the service connection.
October 27, 1977

We know that the benefits provided to the disabled serviceman or woman, or to their surviving dependants, are far greater than those provided by most other countries. I am not aware of any of our major western wartime allies who pay
Adjournment Motion
automatic survivor benefits to widows approaching the 48 per cent basis which we in Canada use.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. The time available to the hon. parliamentary secretary has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.

Friday, October 28, 1977