1977-10-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that there is irrefutable scientific evidence that sodium nitrite used in the preparation of virtually all cured meats undergoes a chemical change in the meat, after cooking and after ingestion by humans, producing highly carcinogenic chemicals, that the increase in stomach and perhaps other cancers in North America has occurred in direct ratio to the increased use of cured meats containing nitrite and that the supposed safe level of 150 parts per million of nitrite set by the Canadian government is not based on any scientific evidence that this is indeed a safe level, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard):
That the Canadian government take immediate action to ban the use of sodium nitrite in the Canadian food supply, that the government direct its attention to alternative methods of meat preparation and that during the interval until the ban is in complete effect the skull and crossbones or some other appropriate warning be placed on the labels of all foods containing sodium nitrite.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I too, rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion relates to the fact that a former deputy director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act has stated in a legal
opinion that only a special inquiry under the Inquiries Act can possibly ascertain the full truth about the uranium cartel, including the government's role therein, as the limits imposed by law under the Combines Investigation Act would prevent a full inquiry. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House demands that a full inquiry be held under the Inquiries Act to investigate the international conspiracy known as the uranium cartel and to ascertain the Canadian government's role in it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that INCO owes the people of Canada $378 million in deferred taxes and considering that INCO will also benefit by about $10 million as a result of the decision announced last Thursday night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to re-introduce new corporate tax concessions which were originally announced in the budget of last March, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to contact the president of INCO to insist that his corporation rescind the announcement of layoffs to take place in Canada and instructs the Prime Minister to set up the machinery necessary for the stockpiling of nickel in order to preserve these Canadian jobs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 25, 1977
Income Tax


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that a large number of young people aged 15 to 24 are unemployed and that a large number of individuals between 60 and 65 years of age are tackling serious problems of survival, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That this House enjoin the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to take all necessary means in the shortest possible time to introduce in the House a bill whose effect would be to reduce to 60 the eligibility age for old age security pension for persons wishing to retire at that age, which would surely have a considerable impact on the level of unemployment in the country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 rise on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion concerns the secret uranium cartel which, organized by the government of Canada, enabled multinational interests to reap billions of dollars in windfall profits. In light of the government's efforts to cream off windfall gains made by the oil industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That the government explain to this House the moral difference between windfall profits such as the 51 per cent profit made by Gulf in one sale to Ontario Hydro and the gains made by oil producers in the wake of the OPEC price hikes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMBINES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. My motion concerns statements in the House by both the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie). On Friday, August 5, 1977 the Prime Minister said, concerning the uranium cartel:
We will put every fact we have before parliament so it can debate this matter properly.
In view of the fact that not only have we received no documentation whatsoever from the government but under the gag law it remains illegal for persons connected with the cartel to make documents public, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House demands that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources fulfill their broken promises by making public immediately all documentation concerning the uranium cartel in their possession.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of shocking unemployment across Canada and in view of the ironic situation where more official concern is being shown because of job losses and lay-offs in provinces where unemployment is less devastating than in the maritimes and Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion make strong representations to his cabinet colleagues to have a more reasonable proportion of government orders such as the manufacturing of railway rolling stock allocated to manufacturers in the most needy and disadvantaged areas. I am thinking particularly of the Hawker Siddeley works in Trenton, Nova Scotia, which received only about 10 per cent of the order allocated to National Car in Hamilton, an area where unemployment is less than half of what it is in northern Nova Scotia.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 25, 1977


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. In view of the fact that Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, President of Zambia, has urged the Commonwealth countries to unite to end the "exploitation and plunder of Namibian wealth", in view of the fact that Namibia is illegally controlled by South Africa, and in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) has recently said that Canada should speak out more on unacceptable South African policies, I move, seconded by the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Canadian government take action that would cause the Falconbridge nickel operations in Namibia to be withdrawn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. As the former Minister of Finance repeatedly stated that in issuing minimum price directives with respect to the uranium price rigging that was agreed to at international cartel conferences, he did so under the directive of the cabinet, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House if, when cabinet was approving these new directives setting in place the price rigging that had been agreed to by the international cartel, the cabinet asked what were the consequences for Canadian domestic consumers of the product.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 refer the hon. member to a lengthy statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about a fortnight ago. It put before the Canadian public and members of parliament all the rationale for the international arrangement that we entered into. It indicated how this did not in any way penalize the Canadian consumer. It indicated also how it had saved thousands of jobs for the uranium industry in Canada. I appeal to the hon. member and members of his party by saying if they wish to debate this to choose a day for debate. We would gladly debate this subject with the opposition. They
Oral Questions
continue making allegations about a secret conspiracy and so on. These were open arrangements. They were known-
[DOT] din)


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They were known by well-informed people, who obviously do not include members opposite. So, if the opposition wants to debate this subject on the merits, I repeat, now what 1 said last summer: we are very anxious to do it. We are now in the position of having an industry, the uranium industry, which is prepared to offer hundreds of jobs to workers who have been laid off elsewhere because, perhaps, such arrangements have not been entered into. The foresight of the government has guaranteed the health and the survival of this industry. I wish the opposition would state the facts.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary to the Prime Minister who has indicated that the cartel has had no effect domestically. Is he aware that it has now been revealed that Gulf Minerals (Canada) Limited entered into a contract with Ontario Hydro in the spring of 1974 at the height of the cartel activities under which some uranium was sold to Ontario Hydro which, according to an internal memorandum of Ontario Hydro resulted in a $51 million profit to Gulf on a $98 million sale; in other words, a profit of 51 per cent or $13.78 per pound? Is the Prime Minister aware of this and, if so, how can he tell us there was no domestic consequence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are in the very curious position of having a member of the opposition complain on behalf of Ontario Hydro when they made a statement just last summer saying they were very happy with the arrangement and that they had not been penalized in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: For the information of the Prime Minister and the House, this is a new fact which has just been disclosed. Is the right hon. gentleman aware of the fact that in an internal memo of March 8, 1974, Gulf said: "The Energy, Mines and Resources staff does, however, recognize that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the same prices as we could achieve from export sales". Bearing in mind that in 1974 export prices were one and the same as cartel prices, would the Prime Minister explain the apparent contradiction between the Gulf statement and the government's repeated claims that the Canadian domestic market was not affected by the cartel?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was quoting the Canadian consumers themselves, and surely that is as good an authority as that advanced by the hon. member opposite. We are used to facts coming from the Tory party which turn out to be non-facts as soon as they are investigated.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They are right here. Do you want to see them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member has facts which are not ascertainable by others he might show them to the Combines Investigation people. The Minister of Consumer and Corpo-

October 25, 1977
Oral Questions
rate affairs has specifically asked the combines investigators to look into these allegations. If there is any evidence of combines, surely the hon. member would want to turn his quoted facts over to them.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REASON FOR FAILURE TO HAVE PUBLIC INQUIRY
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is to the investigation which the Prime Minister is relying on that I should like to direct my question. The Prime Minister is obviously relying on it because it will get at all the involvements, including the government's involvement; at least, that is the case the government would like to put. Is the Prime Minister aware of the effects of the Combines Investigation Act and the power of investigation; that it does not apply where criminal offences may be involved; that there is a limitation on the seizure of documents and the publication of those documents; that the director has no power to order any further inquiry, that that power rests with the government which this inquiry should be investigating? In other words, it is another case of the government investigating itself.
Is the Prime Minister aware that there is no opportunity whatsoever for the public to be informed with respect to the government's involvement? In fact, is the Prime Minister aware that the investigation which he calls for under the Combines Investigation Act is no examination of the government at all, which is the centre point, the keystone, of this cartel which has caused the trouble to Canadian consumers? How can the Prime Minister justify this inquiry, and why does he not have a public inquiry so he can let it all hang out, if his case is so good?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the powers of the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act are set out under that Act and, in effect, are a great deal broader than a criminal investigator would have under the Criminal Code. Those are the powers the official opposition has criticized in this House any time that any revision of the Combines Investigation has come up.


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-SUGGESTED LIMITATION ON POWERS OF DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has seen fit to answer for the Prime Minister. Is the Minister of Justice aware that the former deputy director of investigation and research in the combines investigation branch, who was in that capacity until January of 1977, has prepared an opinion which indicates that in fact the answer of the Minister of Justice is not true, that in terms of investigating the government, the investigation by the combines branch is limited in just the way I suggest. Is the minister aware of that, and if there is a contrary opinion, would the Minister of Justice be prepared to table that opinion? I can tell him now that I am prepared to table in the

House, with the consent of the House, the opinion of William P. McKeown, a former public servant who had direct responsibility in this field when he was a public servant and who has indicated that the investigation which the Prime Minister relies on is no investigation of the government at all. Is the minister prepared to do that?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the powers of the director are clearly set out in the legislation, as supported by the jurisprudence, and they are perfectly adequate for the director to get to the complete bottom of whether or not the allegations made by the official opposition are in fact true. It is the inquiry for which, for three months, the official opposition in this House argued day by day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am prepared to grant the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton a final supplementary but I will have to keep a tight line on the preamble.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, either the Minister of Justice is ignorant of the law or, if he is aware of it, he chooses to ignore it. The Minister of Justice has indicated that the government feels that it can be investigated. The former director feels it cannot. Would the government kindly table the opinion that allows the Minister of Justice to come to such a ridiculous conclusion?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am more concerned with the view of the present director, who has raised no such objections-


Walter David Baker: Naturally.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He wants to remain on the payroll.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -who at the suggestion of the Department of Justice in early September retained independent legal advice to advise him throughout the course of this inquiry. No report has been made either to the minister of consumer affairs or to me that the powers of the director are in any way insufficient for the purposes of his inquiry under the Combines Investigation Act.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. In an article published some three weeks ago in Forbes, an American publication on business affairs, there is an outline of the recent activities of the INCO Corporation, part of which referred to its recent expansion in Indonesia and Guatemala, which was financed to a considerable extent by the taxpayers of Canada. The article concluded that for political reasons if INCO made cutbacks this year it would do so in Canada where it could get away
October 25, 1977

with it, as opposed to Indonesia, because that country, and I quote, "does not look kindly on cutbacks".
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether this explains the total lack of response by the government of Canada to ensure the preservation of those Canadian jobs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of this particular publication, but I am informed that 1NCO plans a reduction in Canada of 15 per cent of its operations, whereas it plans reductions abroad of some 30 per cent. So that would seem to invalidate the allegation of the leader of the New Democratic Party.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. For the Prime Minister's information, in the same press release in which it announced the layoffs taking place in Thompson, Sudbury and Port Colborne, the corporation announced its decision to continue with its expansion in Guatemala and Indonesia. Therefore, it was not cutting back on those countries, and they are the countries in which the Corporation is expanding with the assistance of the Canadian taxpayer.
In view of this serious political judgment by a business publication that the government of Canada could not be expected to take steps toward INCO, whereas the government of Indonesia could, is this a sound judgment? Does this explain the government's failure to say to INCO: "You have made hundreds of millions of dollars in Canada. You can go on making a profit legitimately in the future if you keep these Canadian jobs"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the allegations of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party are founded on very serious misinformation. The fact is that the Guatemalan production is not expected to come in until 1979.


Mr. Rodriguez:: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore, it is not a question of cutting back. It is a question of some future production which will hit the market at a time, we hope, when we will have put our own house in order.


SUGGESTED STOCKPILING OF NICKEL TO AVERT LAYOFFS AT INCO
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is the Prime Minister who has to get his facts straight. In part the expansion has taken place already in these countries and the company will continue with future expansion.
The question I want to put to the Prime Minister is: given all the financial assistance directly from the taxpayers of Canada, and indirectly simply by supporting operations of this particular corporation in Canada in the past, does the Prime Minister not believe that that corporation has a fundamental obligation to continue with its jobs in Canada? Because we live in the real world and not in Utopia, and if there is some assistance required, instead of providing further financial
Oral Questions
grants, would the government not undertake to work out stockpiling arrangements with INCO to preserve those jobs? In the past we have stockpiled uranium for seven years; we stockpiled wheat and we stockpiled other products in Canada in order to preserve jobs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, obviously on the facts there is a dispute. I have clear information to the effect that Guatemalan production will not reach the market until 1979. Therefore, the basis of the argument of the hon. member seems to fall on that. As to possible remedies, he is suggesting stockpiling. As the House was told, INCO has stockpiled for a period of 12 to 14 months.


An hon. Member:: Seven months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question is: how much longer does the Leader of the New Democratic Party want the stockpiling to go on?


John Edward Broadbent: It was done for seven years for uranium.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, when you are stockpiling you are taking money out of circulation. You are putting it there; you are locking it down.


John Edward Broadbent: What about unemployment insurance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be speaking for the unions or he may not be. In Toronto now we are discussing with the company and with the union leaders a scheme whereby unemployment insurance money, federal money, would be used in order to supplement a scheme whereby there would be for a period of time work-sharing. We are hoping that the union and the company will come to an agreement which will permit the workers to have some time during which to share the work and they will be supplemented by payments from unemployment insurance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members on the other side believe that to be unreasonable, they might say so. This is what we are discussing now. We hope it will be accepted by both sides and that it will permit at least the transitional period to be crossed during which everybody will be able to share the work with very little loss of revenue.


MANPOWER
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. After a first selection of Canada Works projects in the riding of Roberval, barely 50 per cent of the applications were

October 25, 1977
Oral Questions
accepted because of the lack of funds. In the speech of the Minister of Finance, following the Speech from the Throne, an additional amount of $150 million was promised to enable the execution of a larger number of high concentration projects. Can the minister tell the House whether this amount is meant to go to Canada Works projects, whether the areas most severely affected by unemployment will be given top priority and, if so, to what extent?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the additional funds are not intended for the Canada Works Program. They will go to the government program administered by my colleague, the President of the Treasury Board.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I thank the minister. I had an inkling that would be his answer but I wanted him to say it so that the public might be made aware of it. The public has the wrong idea about the announced $150 million. Now we know that money will not go to the Canada Works Program. I should like to ask the minister whether he hopes to put additional funds at the disposal of the Canada Works Program so that some of the more interesting projects, in ridings where unemployment exceeds 20 per cent, can be approved.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we have had considerable success with the Canada Works Program. The third phase will soon be undertaken at which time other people can benefit from it.


URANIUM-REASON FOR FORMING CARTEL-CONTRACTS WITH UNITED STATES COMPANIES IN 1974
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it arises out of the Prime Minister's reference to the document that was released a couple of weeks ago in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources again puts forward the proposition that Canada had to organize a cartel in defence against the U.S. embargo. Can the minister tell us why that was necessary. The evidence before the Moss committee is to the effect that in 1974 when the embargo was at its height, 90 per cent of all the forward commitments made for uranium were made with countries outside of the United States by buyers in the U.S. and the majority of those commitments were made to Canadians. If the government had to have a cartel to prevent this from happening, why was it still going on?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously the hon. member is misreading the facts.


James McPhail Gillies: No, you are.
[Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).l


Alastair William Gillespie: If he were to look at the statements which were made public some ten days ago by myself, the notes between the Canadian government and the U.S. government complaining very vigorously and indeed bitterly about the embargo imposed by the United States on Canada and the rest of the world, a market which represented 70 per cent of the market for uranium at that time, he would understand why we had to take action to protect Canadian industry.


James McPhail Gillies: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is talking about spot deliveries not about forward commitments and the majority of the contracts in the uranium industry, as he should know, is done on forward deliveries, not spot deliveries. Forward delivery contracts were still being signed by the Canadians in 1974 at the precise time when the government was saying they had to have a cartel to protect the Canadian industry, which is nonsense.
My second question is: Did the minister not know that Canadian companies were signing contracts with the United States at the same time as the cartel was at its height?


Alastair William Gillespie: Again the hon. member is completely misreading and trying to misrepresent the situation. He talks about 1974. We entered into this agreement in 1972. I would remind him that the situation that he has described as having existed in 1974 did not exist in 1972. The second point which he should make clear and he has not made clear is that those so-called forward agreements were conditional upon the United States lifting its embargo. The United States had given no indication to us, or to anybody else as far as I know, that it would lift its embargo. That embargo was in place.


James McPhail Gillies: That's not true.
If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not know in 1973 that the embargo was going to be lifted, he was probably the only person in the world associated with uranium who did not know that, because there are letters between the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Gulf Minerals; for example, there is a letter about a contract-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are drifting increasingly into a tendency to argue rather than to question. I recognize the hon. member for Don Valley for a final supplementary question.


James McPhail Gillies: If the minister says it was important in 1974, why did the government not start the cartel in 1965? The U.S. embargo started in 1964. We now have some indication it might have been illegal and it also appears to have been stupid.


Alastair William Gillespie: Maybe we should have started it earlier, Mr. Speaker, but I will tell the hon. member why we did not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: Canada has always stood for producer-consumer groups. It has been a basic part of our policy to try to work out commodity agreements with consumers as well as producers, and we made every effort to do so. We also hoped,
October 25, 1977

as a result of representations to the United States, that they would lift their embargo. Unfortunately, it was not possible to put together producer-consumer commodity groups and it was not possible to get the United States to lift their embargo, and that is why we went ahead in 1972.


URANIUM-REASON FOR FAILURE TO ADOPT TWO-PRICE SYSTEM-ALLEGEDLY CONFLICTING GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed either to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources or to the Prime Minister. Assuming that the government, if they are to be believed, were concerned with Canadian consumers and with keeping down the domestic cost of uranium, why did the government not go to a legal two-price system for uranium as was done with wheat, and also would the minister explain how it is that the government, on one hand, was ostensibly committed-as noted in the Speech from the Throne and in other areas-to strong competition legislation including amendments to the restricted trade practices law, and on the other hand was engaged at the same time in setting up and operating an uranium cartel to eliminate competition? Could the minister or the Prime Minister elaborate on this apparent duplicity?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member had read the statement he would realize our policy with respect to domestic market was not affected by the cartel arrangement.


James McPhail Gillies: Not true.


Alastair William Gillespie: It was up to the producers to make their own deal with the consumers. The whole thrust of the cartel arrangement had to do with external markets and not with the Canadian market or the U.S. market.


Some hon. Members:: Nonsense.


Alastair William Gillespie: The clear implication is that opposition members are less interested in the Canadian public interest and much more interested in serving as chore boys for a Congressional committee.


James McPhail Gillies: You are not telling the truth.


COMBINES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I want to thank the minister for his answer and simply say that it does not appear to be in accordance with what happened in the Canadian domestic market. My last question is directed to the minister or to the Prime Minister. If the circumstances surrounding the setting up of an uranium cartel were perfectly legal, as was stated by the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister, why
Oral Questions
was it necessary to advance guarantees against prosecution to the Canadian participants in the cartel, as set out in an internal document dated 1972 which states briefly, in a couple of lines:
... the Minister of Justice of Canada... will prevent any action being taken under Canada law against participants in the agreement, at least as long as the present government is in power.
Furthermore, why was it then necessary to proclaim what amounted to a gag law, which the government has already had to modify, if everything was perfectly legal?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to read the statement. If he were to read it he would understand and not make the kind of wild allegation he is making this morning.
V V *


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on October 19 I endeavoured to put a question to the government House leader. The Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, undertook to reply and indicated that he would give me the information the following day. I am putting the question again. Further to the statement of the President of the Privy Council to this House on February 4 last, can the minister state whether a chairman has been appointed to the special committee to review the Public Service Employment Act and if so does the special committee intend to hold public hearings? If it does intend to do this, when will they be held?


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, on Feburary 4, 1977 the government House leader made an announcement that a committee would be set up for this purpose. The government is very much concerned with this question and realizes the many representations made by the hon. member. I am informed that the Deputy Prime Minister will be making an announcement as to the chairmanship of this committee very shortly and will make a report to the House at that time.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I should like to direct a question to the acting minister. My question concerns complaints that are general throughout western Canada to the effect that there is injustice in the allocation of boxcars for the shipment of wheat and the like. Certain areas receive preference and other small areas do not. I should like to ask the

Oral Questions
acting minister to bring the situation to the attention of the Wheat Board and insure that those smaller marketing areas are not discriminated against.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in fact the minister is out west today where he will chair three meetings with the people concerned to discuss matters concerning the transport of grain in the west.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the acting minister to whom I directed my question that there should be an end to this kind of discrimination. It did not exist until the Department of Transport took over the allocations.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister received a telex yesterday afternoon which was signed by municipal leaders, federal members of parliament, provincial members of parliament and the President of the Chamber of Commerce and asked the Prime Minister and his Cabinet to meet with the leadership of the workers in the Sudbury Basin before meeting with officials of International Nickel Company and Falconbridge to discuss their proposals for avoiding the layoff of workers in Canada, may I ask the Prime Minister's response to it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 indicated earlier that there would be a meeting this afternoon in Toronto between union leaders, officials of the Canadian government and the provincial government. The Minister of Employment and Immigration is standing by to see if he can assist in any way in these meetings. If necessary, he will join them at a later hour.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that we in the Sudbury Basin are extremely concerned that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet not lay a proposal before International Nickel Company prior to consultation with the leadership of the trade union movement who have five excellent points to propose to deal with the layoff situation, can the Prime Minister assure the House that his Cabinet colleagues will meet with the union leadership to listen to these proposals prior to laying any suggestions before the company? That is our concern. Can the Prime Minister give us that assurance in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can give the House the assurance that almost goes without saying, that we realize the co-operation of the management and of the union is necessary in solving this very serious problem. In that sense, 1 can assure

October 25, 197
the hon. member that no solution will be imposed upon anyone. I cannot give him the assurance that we will not begin discussions-we probably have at this hour begun discussing the solution of work sharing with one and later will with the other party. Obviously, if the union has other suggestions we would be very happy to discuss them with the union and with the company. I would just remind the House that this government asked parliament to adopt in the last session amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to permit us to enter into work sharing schemes. The proclamation of that section awaits the co-operation of the management and of the union. If the hon. member has any influence with the union I hope he will talk to them about this provision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wish hon. members would not bang their desks like that before they hear the final supplementary question. I am sure that the Prime Minister is not aware that the union's proposals concern suggestions such as no overtime, when in fact the workers on production at INCO worked overtime up to last week to produce stuff they cannot sell, that they are still working on bonus mining to produce stuff they cannot sell, and that there needs to be some adjustment to the pension plan to allow for 30 years and out, surely these are all very concrete proposals which the government will seriously consider with the union leadership and lay before the company before asking that federal taxpayers' money be used through the unemployment insurance fund to subsidize INCO's production again. 1 see that as another concession to the company. These four proposals are very constructive and I beg the Prime Minister to consider them with the union leadership before proposing work-sharing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has taken three questions to ask if we would study any proposal put forth by the union. My answer to the first question was yes. The answer to the second question is the same yes. The answer to the third is the same yes. If the hon. member wants to ask further supplementaries and make further speeches we would be glad to say yes to those as well. We are very concerned with finding solutions to this very large layoff, that the union, that the management and that the government themselves will be putting forward for discussion.


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice arising out of his answers to our House leader and the hon. member for Central Nova. In view of the fact that on several occasions, and again today, the government admitted it brought in amendments to the atomic energy control regulations in July 1972 solely as a means of enforcing quotas and minimum
October 25, 1977

prices as set by the cartel in Paris and that this violates the spirit if not the letter of the Combines Investigation Act, would the minister tell the House if the government believes that a mere order in council supersedes the combines legislation that he discussed today?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that point is covered very carefully in the statement made a fortnight ago by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which made clear that what was envisaged was a regulatory scheme. The jurisprudence shows that this is an exemption under the Combines Investigation Act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer given today that the Combines Investigation Act sets out the right and gives the authority to investigate, does the minister go so far as to say with this kind of legal drivel, that he can investigate the executive power that set up this illegal cartel?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, he obviously cannot challenge the legality of regulations lawfully passed by the executive. The place for that challenge is in the courts. The regulations were upheld in a decision of the high court of Ontario in June and have been subject since then to challenge by six members of parliament. We are awaiting the decision on that matter.


An hon. Member:: That is another regulation.


COMBINES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to follow up the question put by the hon. member for Central Nova to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who sidestepped it, though not too well. I should like to ask the Minister of Justice, if the government thought this cartel was so legitimate, could he advise why it was necessary to have a letter or memo to the effect that there would be a delay or avoidance of prosecution? Further, why was it necessary to impose a gag law? In other words, if everything was so swell and all right, why was it necessary to have these two innocuous statements placed before the Canadian people?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and another one previously talked about guarantees of non-prosecution. I am aware of no such guarantees having been given at any time.
The latter part of the question has been answered by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The regulations were passed, namely, to support the activities of the marketing scheme.
Oral Questions


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that the hon. member for Central Nova brought to the attention of the House, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources a memo to the effect that there would be some delay or avoidance of prosecution, would the Minister of Justice now undertake to look into this matter to see whether in fact there is such a memo or directive involved?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The easiest way would be for the hon. member to send me the memo he is talking about.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Go ahead and look for it.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Earlier this month the agriculture committee of the other place published a report of its extensive inquiry into the financial disaster suffered by Canadian beef producers over the past few years. Has the Minister of Agriculture had an opportunity to consider this report, and if so, can he tell the House whether he intends to bring in legislation implementing the import policy recommendations contained in that report?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting this week with a sub-committee of that Senate committee, and we discussed the report in detail. I hope to be able to make an announcement in the very near future on what parts of the committee report we can use to the advantage of beef producers.


URANIUM-REASON FOR ALLEGED SECRECY IN FORMING CARTEL
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It is with respect to the uranium cartel. It seems to me that the thing people are asking about generally with respect to this matter is, if it was so proper why the government took the option of making this agreement in secret and not bringing it before parliament in the way producers' agreements with marketing boards in other matters are brought in. Why was this matter cloaked in an aura of secrecy as opposed to bringing it before the people of Canada through parliament? Why has that not been done by the government?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, it was brought forward under existing legislation. It was also made quite clear what the govern-
222

October 25, 1977
Oral Questions
ment was doing. There was an announcement by the former minister to that effect.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Under the circumstances, is it the position of the minister that there is one law for the government of this country and another for the rest of the people under the Combines Investigation Act? The minister justifies this whole arrangement, which has caused such damage to our uranium industry and to the reputation of our country, by saying that the regulation justified the government's action. Is it the position of the minister that there is one law for the government and another law for the average person on the street?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Halton- Wentworth.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is afraid to answer that.


URANIUM-REASON FOR FORCING DOMESTIC PURCHASERS TO PAY WORLD PRICE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Noting that shipments will be made from the government stockpile of uranium concentrates to the Spanish electric utilities in 1978, why has the government of Canada not offered to sell the provincial utilities in Canada uranium concentrates purchased at $4.75 to $6 a pound with Canadian taxpayers' dollars rather than leaving them exposed to world prices? To be precise, why should Ontario Hydro pay world prices or more for uranium concentrates mined in Ontario and purchased by the government of Canada at prices more than 100 per cent below world prices?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, what Ontario Hydro pays for its concentrates is a matter dealt with through negotiation and by commercial contracts between Ontario Hydro and the producers. As the question of the stockpile, the Canadian government stockpile is a very important strategic reserve for this country.


John R. Rodriguez: How about nickel?


Alastair William Gillespie: It is a basis for ensuring that there will be an adequate supply of uranium for Canadians in the future.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of the sworn testimony of William Gilchrist, former head of Eldorado Nuclear, which makes it clear that one of the reasons for the massive hikes in the price of uranium through 1974 and 1975 was that the Canadian government did not sell from its own stockpile to moderate the price, and would the minister tell the House why the government chose not to restrain excessive uranium prices on behalf of Canadian utilities, bearing in mind that Uranium Canada stated in its recent report that a continuation of the rapid rise in the price of uranium could be detrimental to the industry, making the choice of nuclear energy less attractive economically?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has read a long question which has been prepared by his research staff.


An hon. Member:: Did you follow it?


Mr. Lawrence:: Look who's talking.


Alastair William Gillespie: Surely, the hon. member is interested in seeing the Canadian uranium industry benefit from rising world prices. Canada alone did not have a major effect upon the increase in prices. It had some effect, probably, in the years between 1972 and 1974, but immediately following the oil price increase, the price of uranium around the world took off, and for very obvious reasons. There is a very high energy component in uranium; that is why people were buying it. People suddenly realized that oil was no longer going to be a secure source of energy in the future, and they started to look at alternative forms. That was also the time when Westing-house, which had been selling short-which had had a depressing effect on uranium prices-suddenly realized that it was in a bind and repudiated its contracts. If we take a whole series of circumstances together, we can see why the world price of uranium rose very rapidly.


FINANCE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that Northern Telecom in its report to shareholders of August 5 states that the March budget's corporate tax credits, which the minister has announced he will re-introduce, reduced the company's effective tax rate from 42.8 per cent to 40.6 per cent, or about $3 million, and in view of the fact that subsequent to this tax cut the company announced lay-offs of over 1,000 workers, mainly in Quebec and Ontario, does the minister still maintain that these tax incentives are creating jobs and not just fattening corporate coffers?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, sales patterns of a corporation can vary from one month to the next. Obviously, tax cuts offered by my predecessor were intended, on the medium term, to stimulate investment and create jobs, but it may happen, on the short term, that market conditions bring about a decline in employment. However, I think that the goals aimed at by my predecessor, on the medium term, will produce the expected results.


SUGGESTED INQUIRY INTO HOW TELECOM SPENT TAX SAVING
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, the minister well knows that these lay-offs occurred subsequent to these tax cuts, and we have no guarantee that in the future workers will be rehired.
October 25, 1977

In view of the fact that Walter Light, president of Northern Telecom, stated on September 24 that besides the sluggish economy a major reason Northern was laying off 1,000 employees was, "Telecom's own success in recent years at devising ways to produce more products with fewer employees", will the minister now launch an inquiry into how the budget gift of $3 million to Telecom was spent? Was it spent on job creation or on machines to replace workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that manufactured products in Canada must sustain competition with all the world goods, and that we have to accept modern technologies if we want to keep our markets. Therefore the hon. member's proposal does not hold because I believe it is very important for Canadian industries to take the necessary steps to be able to sustain competition on world markets, otherwise lay-offs will be much greater than they are now.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State.
The government announced recently, through the President of the Treasury Board, its decision not to create bilingual districts. Considering that the Official Languages Act is based to a large extent on the creation of bilingual districts, can the minister tell the House 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 in order to eliminate a lot of provisions irritating minority language groups in the country as well a some statutes of the federal government containing anomalies and inconsistencies which are not acceptable at all to the minority language groups?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as the government indicated in the Speech from the Throne, there will indeed be proposals for amendments to the Official Languages Act. As to exactly what the content of the amendments will be, the hon. member will have to wait until the legislation is presented to the House.
Oral Questions COMBINES


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-POSSIBILITY OF INQUIRY BY PRIME MINISTER INTO EFFECT ON DOMESTIC PRICES
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I thought I heard the Prime Minister and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources say earlier that there were no domestic price consequences caused by the existence of the cartel. Did the Prime Minister's office in fact investigate whether the cartel did raise Canadian prices in concert with world prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated, the policy was clear in that it was not to apply to the Canadian market. The principal consumer, Ontario Hydro, has said that they were clear that they had not been adversely affected by this marketing arrangement. As far as the government knows, there has been no adverse effect on the Canadian consumer. For greater certainty, we have set up at the request of the opposition an investigation under the Combines Investigation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We want a public one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The opposition is now saying they have no confidence in the law that until now they had confidence in. They are saying they have no confidence in quasi judicial tribunals because they are on a recent kick. I find it very ironic that at a time when Canadian mineral production is under serious attack in the world market, causing high unemployment in Canada, that the opposition should be about six years late in worrying about orderly marketing arrangements which saved jobs in Canada and which will give jobs to the people in Sudbury who are looking for jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-INQUIRY WHETHER ASSURANCE SOUGHT THERE WOULD BE NO EFFECT ON DOMESTIC PRICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister just said that the cartel arrangement was not to apply to domestic prices. If 1 heard him correctly, he just said that as far as the government knows, there was no implication for domestic prices. On the other hand, there is an internal memorandum from Gulf dated March 8, 1974, and I will quote the relevant sentence:
The EMR staff does, however, recognize that Canadian utilities must be prepared to pay the same prices-
That means the cartel set prices.
-that we could achieve from export sales.
In other words, the Prime Minister's statement in the House of Commons today directly contradicts the understanding given to Gulf by EMR officials in 1974. What I want to know from the Prime Minister is whether the government of
80025-151/2

October 25, 1977
Oral Questions
Canada, as a cabinet, prior to approving this cartel arrangement sought and received reliable assurances that there would be no impact upon domestic prices. Did the Prime Minister look for those assurances and did he receive them? If so, will he table them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, when we set up the arrangements they were done under cabinet and government policy. The direction of the policy is well known, that it was not to affect adversely Canadian markets or for that matter American markets. This was clearly in the policy. If the producers in any way went beyond that policy and if they are guilty under some combines law which is not authorized by government policy, naturally they will be found out by the combines investigator. I do not know of any consumer in Canada complaining. I gave the evidence of Ontario Hydro which said that they were not adversely affected by this cartel. It seems to me that we should take their word for it rather than the suspicious mind of the opposition leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we appear to have made a little progress here. We are now told by the Prime Minister that the companies which were forced by the government of Canada to enter into this cartel are uniquely and alone responsible for any illegality, if any illegality has occurred, and that the Prime Minister and the government of Canada which authorized and forced this agreement bear no culpability under the law. That is the position of the government of Canada, shifting off the responsibility of the people they forced into this arrangement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED URANIUM CARTEL-REQUEST FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Charles Joseph Clark: I want to come to this question of the public inquiry. What parliament and the people of Canada want to know is not simply whether the companies broke the law. We also want to know what was the role of the government of Canada. We have received, as my colleague from York-Simcoe indicated, a legal opinion from a former senior official in the Combines Investigation Branch of the government of Canada making the point, and I quote part of the letter:
The Director of Investigation and Research by law is restricted in his ability to deal with matters outside the purview of the Combines Investigation Act and cannot fully probe the allegations about government involvement in the uranium cartel.
The Prime Minister and his ministers have several times today defended this narrow inquiry by the Combines Investigation Act branch because it deals with the purposes of the inquiry. Our point and the point of the people of Canada is that the purposes of the inquiry are too narrow because they exclude the role of the government of Canada. Will the Prime Minister now call a major public inquiry that will look into the role of the government of Canada and not simply the companies the government seeks to blame?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the long preamble by the Leader of the Opposition about the government forcing companies into this operation, I urge him to read a public letter sent by Steve Roman of Denison Mines, a citizen who members opposite may have heard about, who indicated that these orderly marketing arrangements were to the great benefit of producers and workers in Canada. Therefore this argument about forcing is obviously a spurious argument.
The additional preamble about the government forcing people to do something and then blaming them for illegality is obviously controverting my earlier answer. I did not say that. 1 said that the government had a policy which authorized an orderly marketing arrangement and to the extent that companies acted within this policy, they were doing what the government had requested and advised for the protection of the workers and the producers.
In so far as any other illegalities having been entered into by anybody, producers or for that matter the government, we hope it will come out in the investigation by the combines investigation office. The Minister of Justice has indicated that he did not agree with the legal point made by the Leader of the Opposition. He undertook to look into it. He will look into it and report to the House at a further date. However, until now we have asked the combines investigation officer to look into all aspects of this and to the effect that anyone in Canada might have broken the law, including the government. We are absolutely convinced that was not the case as far as the government is concerned. We have no knowledge what some companies may have done under the pretext or cover of government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. During the course of the question period today on a number of occasions I extended some considerable leniency that I obviously cannot continue to do because it is cramping greatly the opportunity for other members to express their points. 1 extended some leniency in respect to preambles to questions and long answers. 1 want to serve notice to the House that I cannot continue to do that. Today I have attempted to compensate somewhat by allowing the Leader of the Opposition extended time. I will certainly allow him a final question and close off the question period in that way. However, I have to indicate to hon. members on both sides that in order to try to share the question period time adequately among both the front and back benches on both sides, henceforth questions and answers will have to be a good deal shorter than they were today.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief. If I can get the Prime Minister's attention-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why didn't you ask the question during question period?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 25, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is for the Prime Minister who is trying to assume the role of Speaker. Will he guarantee to the House of Commons that there will be an inquiry broad enough and public enough to investigate all aspects of the involvement of the Government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 just gave an answer to that question. At the request of the opposition, we referred this whole matter to the Combines Investigation investigators. Having done that, we find they want some other investigation. I would think that had the Leader of the Opposition wanted to ask that question he could have done so at the beginning of the question period rather than now.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Champlain on a point of order.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention on two important technical points which should be respected if we are to preserve the rights and privileges attached to the functions of hon. members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Champlain has the floor.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, 1 will deal first with the omission, probably unintended, that Your Honour has made during the second round of questions. Yesterday, in spite of all my efforts to be recognized, while I rose and sat at least ten times, you did not consent to give me the floor.
Our party was limited to only one intervention, that is the one of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) yesterday and the one of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) today.
My second point is about the time reserved for motions under Standing Order 43. I have noticed on several occasions that you proceeded to the oral question period when there were still a few seconds left before 11.15. However, this is less important than the fact that this period usually lasts only seven or eight minutes whereas it is supposed to last 15 minutes.
I think there could be two possible solutions: one would be to allocate 15 full minutes to this period as long as there are enough motions to fill it and the other to start that period as soon as the required 20 members have taken their seats. This is not only a question of order but also a question of equity for all of us.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Champlain is offering to consider, and I will ask him to do so, what happened during the oral question period yesterday, today and on other days when I gave the floor to hon. members of each party according to the number of members of each party who were present in
The Address-Mr. Malone
the House. It is indeed the Speaker's judgment on each occasion to recognize each member according to the number of members of each party who are present in the House at the time.
Order, please. The same applies to motions under Standing Order 43, before the daily oral question period.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 24, 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.
Mrs. Sauve:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Malone:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the debate last evening concluded with a vote. If the hon. member for Battle River had the floor prior to the vote, that certainly places him in a difficult position. I am not sure how much time the hon. member had taken up; if he were severely prejudiced I might consider allowing him a few minutes now.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. friend from Battle River is given the opportunity to complete his remarks your decision will certainly be considered appropriate on this side of the House, but since the Minister of Communications has already been recognized perhaps Your Honour would consider calling on my hon. friend immediately afterwards.


Mr. Speaker:: It we are to do it at all, we had better give the hon. member for Battle River five minutes now in which to complete his remarks.


Arnold John Malone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a sincere problem we are facing in response to the Throne Speech delivered a few weeks ago.

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Malone
Yesterday, just prior to the vote, I was pointing out that in essence what the government has done has been to waste a decade for Canadians. It has wasted our resources, it has wasted our development but, more important still, it has wasted the trust and confidence of Canadians. Take a look at the regional disparities which exist in the country today. We note that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), campaigning in Edmonton in 1974, stated that in no case would rail charges for the short haul exceed those for the long haul. The truth is that the same inequities exist today. Take a look at the abnormalities in freight rate structure categorized by the Department of Transport. In no less that 22 categories anomalies in freight rates continue to exist. Elere we are, three and a half years after the last election, and there are still 22 groups of anomalies in the freight rate structure.
This is the situation to which we have come-one million unemployed, major industries closing down everywhere, not just in the Sudbury basin-small companies overloaded with paperwork. The dollar bills we use today should have been minted rather than printed. We heard last night that for the first time the dollar has dipped into the 80 cent group and the degree of regional disparity is reflected by the fact that the five eastern provinces have 37 per cent of all the unemployed. More despairingly still we find that an added 50 per cent of our young people today are among the unemployed, the unemployment rate having doubled since the present government took office.
Then, there was the startling information that the government will have to contribute some $4 billion in unemployment insurance, up by more than $1 billion as compared with a year ago, which simply illustrates that the government of the day has no strategy for coping with unemployment or satisfying the needs of the nation in terms of providing incentives to develop the economy. The government should be charged with the rape of the nation. In 1968 federal expenditures amounted to $9 billion. Today, those expenditures have risen to $40 billion with a $9 billion deficit. So, when this government took office we had a $9 billion budget and today we have a $9 billion deficit. This shows clearly and succinctly that the government is simply incompetent to run the nation's business. In the six years from 1970 to 1976, federal expenditures increased by 61 per cent. What a waste of the people's money, especially considering that in the same period the consumer price index increased by some 55 points.
In face of all this mismanagement, we have to realize that there has been a double knifing of the farm population of this country. In 1976 we note that farm incomes in Canada increased two per cent but input costs increased 40 per cent. I n other words, farmers had a net drop in income of 38 per cent.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like at this time to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That Your Majesty s advisers, by their failure to develop and implement a comprehensive industrial strategy for Canada, are directly responsible for the 
high level of unemployment and the loss of export markets, and have thereby forfeited the confidence of the people of Canada and this House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: With the permission of the House, the Chair would like to reserve judgment on this amendment.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, like many Canadians I was pleased that the Queen, opened this session on the occasion of her Jubilee. I am one of the Canadians who hope Her Majesty will be able to fulfill her royal functions for many years to come with the dignity and graciousness which won her public admiration throughout the world. I also wish to congratulate the two new members who have moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Their speeches revealed, of course, their very good knowledge of public affairs and keen awareness of the political situation in Canada. For one of them the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson), whom I had the opportunity to see at work during his electoral campaign, such ability has not come as a surprise to me. He has already held several public offices and is highly qualified to perform his new duties brilliantly as a member of parliament.
The Speech from the Throne, Mr. Speaker, mentioned some of the steps the government intends to take to solve the national unity crisis. Today, I would like to state briefly in what political context these steps should be taken and what results can be expected at this stage of the debate on the Canadian fconfederation.
What progress has been made, in fact, since the Parti Quebecois was elected on November 15, 1976, in Quebec as well as in the other provinces, and at the federal level? In the province of Quebec, as everyone knows, Mr. Levesque's party was elected on the promise to give Quebekers a good government and to postpone the separation of the province until a referendum is held to clarify its mandate. The results of what can be called the electoral trick which brought the Parti Quebecois to power are beginning to show. Quebec is governed by a team of intellectuals and university professors without any experience in government-they are not really conversant with Canada's economic, industrial and technical realities and are in addition, given to dogmatic solutions.
I could give many examples to prove my point, Mr. Speaker, but I will mention only two. The PQ's sudden decision to increase the minimum wage to the highest level in North America stems from a very commendable concern for small wage-earners, but equating the minimum wage with social security while it is in fact an economic measure may well turn out to be more harmful than beneficial for those low income earners themselves.
How many small businesses have been compelled to fire one or two of their half-dozen employees? In fact, if the increase ordered threatens the small and medium size firms which are operating somewhat marginally, and if our competitive position on international markets is adversely affected in such
October 25, 1977

areas as the textile and shoe industries, who will be the first to suffer? Precisely those the government meant to help.
Likewise in the linguistic area. Under the guise of a cultural insecurity which is greatly exaggerated, the Quebec government is likely to complicate more than what would be normally acceptable, among other things the lives of head offices in Montreal. Montreal is admirably situated to serve as a practical link with New York City, where a great many deals are transacted, Toronto, and the rest of Canada. This vocation for Montreal, however, has now been seriously jeopardized. Yet the PQ party would prefer that we did not mention this. It suggests that to show the signs of a sure deterioration of the situation, as evidenced by the shocking number of houses for sale in the City of Montreal, is to indulge in political terror and seek to make a point through fear.
Of course, the economic situation is poor throughout the land, with the possible exception of Alberta where the growth rate is definitely higher than in the rest of the country. Quebec is certainly not the only region to receive hard knocks, but assuming that everything which is taking place in Quebec, that is a decrease in private investment and an unfavourable migratory balance, as it was quite recently pointed out by the new member for Outremont, Mr. Andre Raynauld, assuming that absolutely everything is attributable to the economic situation elsewhere, is it the time then to introduce political changes which are likely to disrupt completely the existing order? Through its propaganda, the PQ would like to generate a liking for Quebec but they themselves do not like Quebecers. They dream of new structures and of building a political authority which will tickle their vanity. They dream of independence when nobody is independent. They preach a state religion while forgetting that of the man they were committed to serve.
One of the things we must denounce in this government is its partisanship, and that is even more frightening than its political options. We have seen that during the great debate on Bill 101. We have been told, among other things, that the Parti Quebecois alone is the embodiment of Quebec's collective soul, that those who do not agree with the party are suspected of sympathizing with Anglophones. But we have seen that the soul of Quebecers is less collective than one would think. When they prevented the distribution of Mr. Keith Spicer's audiovisual kit called "O Canada", a group of citizens of my constituency, of Ahuntsic/Laval-des-Rapides volunteered to distribute these kits to students who asked for them. In my constituency alone, 5,000 kits have been handed out and we ordered 2,000 more to meet the demand. This indicates that Quebecers will never be muzzled, even by a so-called interpretation of their own collective soul.
Likewise when the figures concerning the advantages of Quebec's participation in Confederation were published. What do they do when these figures show something different from what that party would like them to depict? The Quebec government publishes national figures which corroborate its own PQ theory and declares that all those who doubt the official interpretation are incompetent.
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
The main point to be remembered of, Mr. Speaker, is that the PQ team does not feel at ease to govern because of the fundamental ambiguousness of its terms of reference. How can the Levesque government pretend to behave as a good provincial government and work in the interest of Confederation without destroying its own theory to the effect that federalism is a nonsense and Quebec must leave it? There is a fundamental contradiction which even those with the best intentions in the world will eventually be unable to live with.
Good government is not possible so long as the hindrance of independence is not removed. The Parti Quebecois is fooling the people without caring to enlighten them. So many of its statements give rise to confusion: there will be no independence. That is what they said in the beginning; then they said it was inevitable. All of a sudden we were faced with sovereignty-association, as if it were possible to do something and the opposite at the same time. Quebec should at least be honest enough to tell us that sovereignty-association comes necessarily with independence, and then we will see how the people in Quebec will react.
Quebec cooperates with the federal government only when it is a matter of obtaining funds from this government. Nobody is fooled by this ruse. But we, in the federal government, will not refuse that cooperation, even though we do so reluctantly, unwillingly, because we do not want to deprive Quebecers of the benefits of Confederation. As far as we are concerned, Quebec has not yet separated.
What is happening in the rest of the country, because it is also important to know what will be the response of the rest of the country to the present crisis. It seems to me that after the initial shock of November 15, after the kind of disbelief at first in the real intentions of Mr. Levesque and his team, Quebec's partners within the Canadian Confederation are now becoming clear-headed.
Slowly but surely English Canada is realizing that nothing can any longer be as it was before. Right from the outset some provincial premiers expressed a desire to get to the bottom of the problem. There was no outraged denunciation of bill 101, for example, on their part. The provinces, mostly Englishspeaking readily understood that they could not denounce bill 101 introduced by the Quebec government without blaming themselves. Quite fortunately their awareness of that uncomfortable situation prompted them to make the St. Andrews statement which I am sure will soon result in a human and minorities rights charter enshrined in a constitution and solemnly guaranteed by the supreme authority of the law. So we are on the right track.
What did the federal government think at the time bill 101 was introduced? In the name of a pluralistic conception of our society, in the name also of the freedom of movement of citizens throughout the country, in short, in the name of general and noble principles, we could have disallowed bill 101 or challenged its constitutionality before the Supreme Court. Apart from our historical reality and in terms of absolute principles, I for one would be prepared to fight fiercely for the

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
freedom of choice of the language of education in Quebec and in all Canadian provinces.
But is one justified at this particular time in our history to hide behind broad principles when, historically Francophones outside Quebec never obtained from the English provinces, with the exception of Ontario, where a great effort was made, the same rights as the English minority in Quebec?
One may have some feeling today about the situation in Quebec resulting from the passage of Bill 101. Nevertheless, they still enjoy their own public education system. How could we intervene in the name of our power of disallowance when we did not lift as much as a finger when the Francophones of other provinces were the subject of negligence and sometimes of hostility on the part of public authorities? How can one forget the Manitoba law in the beginning of the century when Francophones in that province were deprived of French schools, and the fact that at the time the champions of liberty had not felt that they should fight for those minority rights?
What about the time of this famous rule 17 in Ontario? Where was the federal government with its power of disallowance of that kind of thing? Where was the federal government when 1, as an adolescent student in Ottawa, had to write my examinations in English? To think that today the federal government could have disallowed Bill 101 is to ignore our history.

This is tantamount to ignoring our history and the deep wounds that have not yet healed in the collective unconscious of French Canadians. To denounce the injustice of Quebec towards its English minority in the name of a superior conception of justice that the Anglophones have never respected themselves would have appeared quite indecent to the French Canadians.
When Confederation came into being, the English language then needed protection, since Anglophones were in a minority in Lower Canada. Georges-Etienne Cartier made reference to that when he said: "If we submit to the provincial legislatures and the imperial government a bill to create a general government, it will be our duty to protect equally all ethnic groups and their various interests." The English language was therefore protected in Quebec.
Are we to conclude that as soon as the demographic balance shifted in favour of the Anglophones throughout the country, justice and tolerance were disregarded? Canada was born out of the need for English and French Canadian to work together and it will not survive without this cooperation. The linguistic and cultural issue is not the only one of which Canada as a whole will have to be aware. Already in a minority in Canada as regards language, French Canadians are also dominated economically in their own province. In Montreal for instance, to continue in the same vein of the present debate, the economy is widely controlled by Anglophones and, as some have already said, in a hundred years of existence, none of the

big English banks for instance has ever managed to appoint a French-speaking chairman and executive vice-president. Is it therefore any wonder that French-speaking Canadians are convinced that Anglophones can rise to the top of the economical and political ladder without having to speak French, while a Francophone will never be able to do so unless he is bilingual.
Out of 105 companies operating in Quebec with more than
1,000	employees, 91 are Anglophones. A study of those companies reveals that less than 10 per cent of the executives appointed by their a board of directors are French-speaking. 1 repeat a mere 10 per cent. And 41 of those corporations do not have a single French Canadian at the management level. All this in Quebec! In the face of such facts, it is easily understood why young Quebecers feel frustrated, when they they are relagated to the public service or self-employment, because they have no access to the best jobs available in their province. However, the situation can be corrected. At the federal government level, this is what we have attempted with a large degree of success.
According to a study conducted at my request, federal Crown corporations showed much more encouraging results than the private sector.
Among Crown corporations, the proportion of Frenchspeaking executives is 23 per cent nationally. The proportion is still higher in Quebec, so that province's private sector is clearly lagging behind. Turning to the directorship level, French Canadians account for some 25 per cent of the total number of directors in our Crown corporations.
These statistics would have to be broken down of course to determine whether we are well represented in every area of endeavour of our Crown corporation. I note for instance that at the Canadian Museums Association, the proportion of Francophones is 50 per cent. A brief look at the study shows that we have not last ground in the cultural areas, but on the contrary, we are present in almost every field of endeavour of the federal Crown corporations. This shows that the ratio of French-speaking Canadians at the federal level is in proportion to the French-speaking population and that they have significantly more equal career opportunities.
Perhaps we were warned of such possibility by Sir John A. Macdonald, but the federal government has understood that a sharing of responsibilities was necessary for the harmonious development of the two founding people of our country. 1 quote Sir John A. Macdonald in an admonition to his Englishspeaking fellow-men:
Looking through the directory of civil servants in Lower Canada, you would be surprised to discover your supremacy over all important positions. Be careful that the French people do not discover those facts and do not begin to expose them.
This was written in 1856.
In spite of those mistakes, those oversights and what I would call our lack of faithfulness toward the spirit which led French and English Canadians to tie their destiny, Confederation is not a failure. We are still speaking French, we have developed our identity and we enjoy a standard of living envied by many.
October 25, 1977

Indeed, no province in this country is entirely like the others within that Confederation and each in its own way is demanding changes. All have grievances about Confederation in its present form. For Quebec, of course, this is somewhat more obvious because of the language difference. We have one more grievance to add. However, Saskatchewan, for instance, is under many aspects more different from Ontario than from Quebec. Saskatchewan has the same social democratic concerns as Quebec, for example, and gives the same importance to the cooperative movement which Saskatchewan residents consider to have been an important tool for developing regional culture. In addition, there is in the west the same feeling of alienation which is expressed in various ways according to the events. Moreover, the particularities of the Maritime provinces deserve to be maintained if we want to escape the dullness of uniformization in Canada.
Therefore English Canada itself must become aware of its identity. This identity has many facets. English Canada is not homogeneous. It must decide what characteristics each region wants to safeguard within the unity of Confederation. Some will be discouraged at the idea of assembling such diversities within the Canadian Confederation. For my part, I see in this a source of hope because if it considers itself diversified, English Canada will be better able to understand Quebec aspirations and more stimulated to invent the formulas which would enable everyone to feel Canadian without having to give up his provincial or regional roots.
We must therefore take advantage of the present crisis to rethink our country and to rebuild it with our hands. The real danger is to lose interest in the problem of national unity. Introspection is not easy for individuals and even less so for countries and for entire nations. I have already perceived in some circles in my travels through Ontario a certain weariness about this problem of national unity in areas of Ontario which have been traditionally much closer to us than other provinces. This problem bores people when it does not irritate them.
On this level, it seems to me that the role of the federal government is absolutely crucial. It is up to the central government to spirit up lazy minds so as not to allow the country to slip away from us. Canada can survive only if very many of us want to save it. We are looking for and we must now recall those who want to save the country. Everyone must realize that he has no right to leave this task to his neighbour, because a desire to live together can only exist through individuals who are bent on uniting their destiny and no one can decide for someone else. In that sense the federal government cannot act as a substitute for the English provinces and federalist forces in Quebec to define the details of a new confederative agreement, but it can and it must exercise a leadership such as the Prime Minister has been doing so far.
Taking into consideration the change in mentalities and the new opening in English Canada after the impact of November 15, the Prime Minister did offer to take advantage of this new climate to reopen the constitutional issue and seek a renewed constitution.
The Address-Mrs. Sauve
In the speech he delivered in Quebec City, among others, he just opened doors and some new avenues and he declared himself prepared to join the provinces to launch this great debate. And he committed himself to clean the house from basement to attic if necessary.
But first it was necessary to find out about the tastes and needs of the dwellers of the house, the partitions they wanted to tear down and those they wanted to move away. The Pepin-Robarts Commission has therefore been set up to carry out this inventory and identify on another level the lines of force of any possible evolution or change.
Does this mean that the federal government, now that it has set up thses mechanisms, must sit back and wait? Certainly not, for it would be, in my opinion, a serious mistake on its part. For the federal government has its own message to contribute to this constitutional debate, and it must speak loud and clear. Of course, it is only one of the parties involved in this debate, but the provinces can no more assume its role in the reconstruction effort of our country than it can assume theirs.
It would be easy to re-write the Constitution to please Quebec, or to re-write it to please English Canada. But the real challenge is the one which is confronting us now, that of finding a formula which would be universally practical, without necessarily boxing up the country in a carcan which would render it powerless when faced with diverging regional interests. And the super-challenge is that of defining that new balance between the centre and the areas without the active and interested co-operation of the PQ government now in power. The participation of the Quebec people will definitely be needed because the government itself will not co-operate in that endeavour.
It therefore seems that, in coming months, people will have to remember first that any federal offer to the provinces can only be partial since it comes from the central government. The new constitution cannot be brought forth by the federal government as if by magic. And even if, fortunately, we did discover the magic formula, it would still have to be rediscovered and reinvented jointly with the provinces.
On the other hand, the people can rightly expect us to be imaginative in the invention of new ways in which to exercise powers at both the federal and provincial levels. 1 feel that Canadians are justified in asking their central government to develop institutional changes to help us go from a federalism of confrontation to a federalism of "concertation".
Whatever new spirit we may hope will come from a new constitution, the fact still remains that in the meantime, and even after, any measure taken by the Canadian government shall, as I said earlier, take into account the past and the common subconsciousness of both founding groups. As Georges-Etienne Cartier once said "in trusting a federal government, the French-speaking population is showing confidence in our English-speaking compatriots. Would it be asking too much of the English that they trust the liberalism and the fair-mindedness of the French in local government?"
230

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. B. Clarke
It should be recalled that the English were a minority at that time. One could not summarize more briefly our problems, as well as the terms of a durable solution to our problems.
in order to rebuild Canada, we must first restore the mutual trust between our two founding people. If we are not prepared to take common and personal measures to overcome those grudges and those prejudices which divide us, it would be useless to expect miracles out of any new constitution.
[DOT]	(1242)


@Acting Speaker: Order, please. At the conclusion of his speech the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone) moved an amendment. The Chair finds the amendment acceptable, and the question is now on the amendment. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).
[DOT]	(1252)


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to say what a pleasure it was for me to hear the Speech from the Throne read by Her Majesty in the other place and to have an opportunity of seeing her at the various functions in Ottawa, as well as for my wife and me to meet Her Majesty and His Royal Highness Prince Phillip at the reception here in the parliament buildings. I should like also to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
If it would not be considered irreverent by the House, I should like to say that recent actions of the government remind me of a story told me by Howard Clark, the former Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada. The story concerned a little girl who had a sports day coming on a certain Saturday so she was hoping for good weather. She believed in God and so she prayed all week for good weather. She was disappointed, however, because it rained on the Saturday and the sports day was not a great success. Her father was not a believer. He thought it nonsense to believe in a Supreme Being and he said to his daughter, "You see, your prayers were not answered because it is raining today." The little girl showed her faith by replying, "Oh no Daddy, God answers. He always answers. It is just that today the answer was no."
I was reminded of that story because I know that Canadians have been praying the government would take some action to get this country moving again, to get people working again, to cure the many ailments of the country. I am sure that Canadians praying for action must have felt as the little girl did, that God-in this case the government-had said there were not going to be any goodies that particular day.
I want to mention two areas of the Speech from the Throne that may seem unrelated, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure the House that I shall relate them to one another. One is dividends on stocks of Canadian companies and the other is unemployment insurance. The connection may seem tenuous but I hope you will not feel that way when I have finished my remarks.

Let me begin by referring to the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). The document we were handed that day looked very much like the budget document handed to us on March 31 and I thought we were getting a budget or a mini-budget. The government insists it was neither but simply an economic and fiscal statement. Whatever it is called, Mr. Speaker, it made only passing mention of unemployment and unemployment insurance. I thought that odd because in the Speech from the Throne Her Majesty made some moving comments about unemployment, unemployment insurance, inflation and ail the other problems we face in Canada today. I should like to read a couple of sentences. At one point Her Majesty said:
High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times.
That may be the case, but I wonder if it should not have made reference to simpler minds rather than simpler times. We must ask ourselves who has been in power for the last 14 years? Who has been in charge of the affairs of this country? Fourteen years is long enough to make any changes considered desirable.
Perhaps Her Majesty's remarks concerning unemployment in Canada were more moving when she said:
The human hardship imposed by the current level of unemployment in Canada is deeply disturbing. It is neither just nor tolerable that in this country there should be so many men and women deprived of the dignity of self-supporting work, unable to meet their financial commitments and plan confidently for the future. It is intolerable that so many are deprived of their right to secure and productive lives, and that their families bear an unfair burden of worry, uncertainty, and deprivation.
Those are very moving words and describe quite accurately,
I am sure, the problems and feelings of many Canadians who find themselves in that position through no fault of their own. It seems strange that the government has repeatedly refused to adopt a solution suggested by this side of the House which I am certain would have positive effects on the economic condition of the country and be effective in relieving unemployment. The government says that, of course, all these policies are not going to work, that they are on trial, unproven. The answer to that is that the policies the government has applied have been tried and proven not to work.
The Minister of Finance said that dividends will remain under control for at least another six months, until April 1978 and the increase will be restricted to 6 per cent instead of the 8 per cent allowed previously. Some two years ago in the AntiInflation Act then before this House there was a provision that dividends would be frozen, that no increase would be allowed. That provision ignored the fact that many Canadians had taken action to provide for their own wellbeing in old age and relied to a large extent on dividends from investments made from their savings.
The government eventually realized it would be unfair to allow wages to increase by up to 12 per cent while freezing dividends at the level of the year before even though inflation continued. Now, we find they have taken a similar step in principle and restricted the amount of increase on dividends to 6 per cent all the while admitting that inflation will be in
October 25, 1977

excess of 8 per cent. The numbers may be a little different but the principle is the same. The government has ignored the fact that the provisions now put forth are imposing a hardship on those very people who have been thrifty and saved and now rely on dividends for a portion of their income. It is cruel to allow inflation to continue at 8 per cent while restricting dividends which form part of a person's income to 6 per cent.
1 see it is one o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I shall continue my remarks at two o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, before the lunch hour I was commenting on the policy of the government in restricting dividends, a practice which inflicts a penalty upon retired Canadians who rely on dividends for a portion of their income. The government may say, "Yes, but we have indexed pensions to protect the retired people of this country". However, I think we should note that probably only one-third of the workers currently in Canada are covered by any kind of retirement pension plan besides the government pension plan, which provides at best a limited benefit. Of course, private pension schemes are not indexed, and retired people are therefore left on their own to get their income out of their savings.
I think the most important aspect, however, of the freeze on dividends-and the biggest negative factor-is the effect that it has on investment in Canada. Capital, as well as labour, is hit. Capital, naturally, cannot be invested at low rates while there is a high rate of inflation, so if we have a rate of inflation of 8 per cent, capital has to seek the real return that it earns in addition to the 8 per cent. That is why mortgage rates in Canada today exceed 12 per cent. In its search for high returns, capital is discouraged, therefore, from investing in Canada because of the freeze on dividends, or at least the limitation to a 6 per cent increase. If there is no investment of capital in Canada, there will be no creation of new jobs.
Workers all over Canada who have their savings held in pension funds are also interested in the dividend rate because the accumulated dividends in pension funds all over Canada become investment capital for the future, thus creating jobs. When dividends are restricted and capital formation, therefore, is restricted as well, those jobs will not be available. Capital probably finds its best investments in other areas where regulations are not so strict.
The Address-Mr. B. Clarke
I think I have arrived at the tie-in between dividends and unemployment insurance. As I said at the beginning, I want to talk about dividends and unemployment insurance and 1 will tie the two subjects together. Many members may not realize how important a topic unemployment insurance is. It would be well to remind the House that the estimated current expenditures on unemployment insurance-that is, payments to those unemployed-in the current fiscal year is estimated to be $4,200 million, over $4 billion. In order to get that figure in proper perspective, I remind the House that it is approximately 10 per cent of the total budgetary estimates of the government of Canada for this fiscal year.
Another way of relating it to the over-all financial situation is that unemployment insurance payments will approximate one half of the total budgetary deficit for the current fiscal year. It is now projected to be over $9 billion. Therefore, we are talking about an expenditure, in total, of over $4.2 billion. That is a large enough expenditure. However, the problem of unemployment insurance is two-sided. Not only do the unemployed add to the expenditures of Canada, but because they are not employed, they are not earning wages and, therefore they are not paying taxes and not adding to the revenues of Canada. Therefore, there is a double loss to the country. On the one hand, we have people taking money from the treasury; at the same time, those people are not in a position to put money into the treasury. 1 am in no way suggesting that it is their fault; I suggest it is the fault of the policies of the government opposite.
The government will boast of all the new jobs that are created. What they do not tell us when boasting of their
200.000	new jobs, is that the number of workers exceeded the number of new jobs created in this past year by some 128,000. There are 128,000 people coming into the work force where no jobs exist. Until they have a job in the work force, there are no unemployment insurance benefits because they have not worked to earn the credits that are necessary.
The minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) both announced a new program of $150 million to develop some
30.000	temporary jobs. It is worth comparing that with the total problem. At today's rate of unemployment insurance, the $150 million will keep the unemployed in benefits for a little over one week. This is hardly a program one can laud on the basis it will take care of the problems. It is a lot like many other government give-aways that we have seen in the past, give-aways which may attract a little favour in the government's direction but which really do nothing in the way of creating permanent jobs that Canadians want today.
For some five years I have campaigned against this kind of government give-away. 1 started with the Local Initiatives Program and Opportunities for Youth. Certainly, the recipients of these programs were enamoured by the fact that they were getting a few dollars. However, when you sat them down and pointed out that at the end of that particular program they would be back on the sidewalk without a job, they could see it was just a trick of the government to take the heat off.
80025 - 16)4

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. B. Clarke


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: We now have the spectacle of Canada Works. 1 do not know how it is working in all parts of the country, but the figures in my constituency may be typical. In Vancouver Quadra we had applications for Canada Works grants totalling $1.2 million. The budget for Vancouver Quadra was $100,000. The government has funded less than 10 per cent of the need. If there are members opposite who think Vancouver Quadra should be entitled to more, I will agree with them.
Even the Liberal government would have difficulty in justifying how nine constituencies in British Columbia received the minimum of $100,000, while two Liberal constituencies-one of the minister from Skeena-received $4'/2 million, and the other, Coast Chilcotin, received over $2 million. One would not want to suggest there is anything political about those allegations, but one might have to guess at it. The government recognized that there may be a need, and they designed a program. The shortfall is alarming. In the case of the unemployed and the $150 million, one week of benefits is covered by this little extra gift. In the case of Canada Works, less than 10 per cent of the need in my area was met by such a program.
We on this side of the House, my leader in particular, have called for a major overhaul of unemployment insurance payments. First, the government has to decide whether unemployment insurance is to be an insurance scheme or a welfare scheme. At the moment it is hard to see any difference between unemployment insurance paid as a kind of welfare item, and other give-aways which the government brings in from time to time. It would be easy for the government to let Canadians know the cost of their unemployment insurance plan. At the moment it does not matter about the level of unemployment; the government picks up the tab for the shortfall between the payments out and payments in by workers and employers. This year the shortfall will be something like $1.7 billion. I am not sure Canadian taxpayers really care whether they pay that kind of cost through tax premiums or through tax payments into general revenue. However, it is only fair of the government to let Canadians know the cost of this kind of program.
When talking about costs you need to take a much closer look at unemployment insurance abuses. Here we have not just the attack on individuals who may be abusing the system, and that certainly exists. We have all heard of the Canadian ski team at Banff getting their cheques mailed to them, and the thousands of cheques that went unclaimed during the last postal strike because whoever the unemployed were, they were not interested or needy enough to pick up their cheques when they were made available to them.
It is not only individual abuses: there are abuses of the system by the system. That is the kind of abuse which allows high income earners to collect unemployment insurance during the off season. I know one fisherman on the west coast who can earn $60,000 during the season, and quite legally collect unemployment insurance in the off season. He is perfectly entitled to that because that is the way the rules are. We on

this side happen to think that unemployment insurance was not intended for that kind of individual.
We do not intend to lose sight of the regional disparities in Canada. We know very well there are areas on the Atlantic coast, for example, where job openings are non-existent and the number of people seeking work is enormous. We also know there are people in other areas in a similar situation. If I may use the example of Edmonton, there are people unemployed although there are many jobs going begging. In those cases, people would rather be unemployed than go to work.
We can trace that attitude back to the government policy which has made it attractive to be on unemployment insurance. There is certainly a need for real protection. We are not in any way suggesting that the breadwinner of the family who is genuinely unemployed should in any way lose the protection of the unemployment insurance scheme. However, we are not at all certain that Canadians, recipients or payers, want it to be a welfare scheme, which is the way it seems to be right now. We see that the policies of this government have created practically a whole generation of people who have no incentive to work, because the government has made it so attractive not to work. We think the system needs an overhaul so that kind of situation can no longer exist.
I said I would relate these two apparently unrelated topics. I hope I have made it clear how they are related. I think they need to be considered together. We urge the government to come up with some kind of comprehensive economic plan which will get Canada moving. We do not need so-called economic and fiscal statements of the kind the minister gave us last week to tell us what the government hopes to do by way of piecemeal efforts. What is needed is a comprehensive plan which would solve a few of these problems all at once, instead of all these stop-gap measures we are getting from the government.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I confess I have lost track of the number of times I have taken advantage of the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to speak about a subject which is a favourite of mine, namely, pensions, including old age security and all our other pension programs, in particular the programs which affect our veterans. There is no doubt about it, I intend to make another speech on that subject this afternoon and I shall continue to do so in such debates as this, year after year, as long as it is necessary for the case to be made in this House for our senior citizens, our pensioners and our veterans.
It is clear that the case needs to be made at the beginning of this session. Not long ago the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan), in a speech outside this chamber, flew a kite-I suppose that was what he was doing-by suggesting there should be some curtailment of family allowance payments and of old age security benefits. I said what I thought about those remarks right away, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) also expressed her view-a view which
October 25, 1977

was quite the reverse of what the Minister of Public Works had put forward.
This gave me some encouragement, at least for a few days. Within the last few hours, however, news has come that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has said that members of the cabinet are pressing her to cut back on family allowance payments and on payments to those who qualify for old age security benefits.


An hon. Member:: Mean.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says she is resisting this pressure. Mr. Speaker, it appears to me she is going to need some strength if that resistance is to be effective. Then, of course, she comes out with the old saying that this is a period in which we have to exercise restraint, in which we have to save money, and maybe it is in the field of our social programs that this restraint will have to be shown. Mr. Speaker, that is utter nonsense. Furthermore, it is cruel and heartless.
The government is in trouble, there is no doubt about that. But there is no reason why a government which finds itself in trouble, particularly in the economic field, should look first of all to its workers and the wages they get and, along with workers, at our old age pensioners and other recipients of various social security benefits and say that those programs have to be cut back.
It is precisely because there is uncertainty in this country and precisely because of a lack of confidence in our future that this is the time, I suggest, when we should be eliminating causes of unfairness and moving faster in the direction of fairness and equality for our people. If we tell our older citizens and our veterans that they are the ones who must make sacrifices in the interest of a government which is in trouble we shall not add to confidence in this country but, rather, we shall lessen it. 1 therefore suggest once again that not only should cut backs be avoided but that there should be advances in our social legislation.
Before anyone asks me whether we can afford it, or where the money is coming from, I would ask the House once again to look at this whole matter in its proper perspective. What has to be considered is not just the figures in the budgets of our various governments but the total production of Canada and the extent to which we are letting our older people share in that production. The estimates for the year show that Ottawa is spending about $5 billion toward the provision of old age security, guaranteed income supplements and other means of maintaining the incomes and the lives of our older people.
I do not know how much other income Canadians 65 years of age and over receive and 1 doubt whether it is possible to put this information together from the statistics available. But I do know some things. 1 know that 30 per cent of the nearly two million Canadians who are over 65 have nothing else but their old age security and their guaranteed income supplement upon which to live. 1 know, also, that a further 30 per cent of those 65 and over have very little else because they qualify for part of the income supplement. I know that many others in the
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
top 40 per cent are experiencing difficulty in getting by in these times of inflation. Therefore 1 think I am doing a bit of legitimate and justified guessing when l say 1 doubt whether the total income in the hands of our senior citizens is more than about $8 billion, $5 billion of which comes out of the federal treasury and the rest from some of the provincial treasuries as well as from incomes which some of those over 65 might receive from other sources. My figure could be wrong. Maybe it is too high. If it is too low, I am sure the total does not go beyond $9 billion or $10 billion. But 1 believe I am pretty close to the truth when 1 suggest the figure is about $8 billion-I am talking about the total income of the two million Canadians who are aged 65 or over.
These people represent about one-twelfth of the population. But if that one-twelfth is receiving only $8 billion of income each year I ask our members to relate that figure to our gross national product-not to the budgets of governments, but to what we produce in this country. What does our gross national product-gross national expenditure as Statistics Canada calls it-amount to in a year? It is running in excess of $200 billion. The $8 billion which we provide for our senior citizens is one twenty-fifth of the total production of this country. That is, we are giving one twenty-fifth of the total production of this country to one-twelfth of the people. That is mean, inhumane and unfair, and hon. members, whether in the cabinet or elsewhere, have no right to suggest that this is a time to cut back on social programs, that this is a time to cut back on old age security or, indeed, on family allowances, although that is another matter which is separate from the statistics that I have been giving.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Those on the other side who are applauding, are applauding my position. It is good to have some applause from the Liberal backbenches.


Reginald Cyril Symes: But will they vote for it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Whether they vote for it or not, through the decades we have taken this position we have made very real gains. We have been doing so for years, and we shall keep right at it.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because the fair thing to do is to improve the position of our senior citizens, I say let there be no more talk about cutbacks. Let there be no more proposals or flying of kites calling for curtailment. Instead, let us advance our social programs and try to bring the portion of our gross national product which we provide for our senior citizens a little closer to the portion that they deserve. It is not fair to give to one-twelfth of our people, the older people who built this country, only one twenty-fifth-or, if my statistics are out, only one-twentieth at the most-of the wealth that we are producing at the present time.
I emphasize again that these people may not now be in the work force. They may not now be part of the productive

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
process. But they built this country to the point where it can now produce that much wealth in the course of a year. This is why 1 call for an increase in the basic amount of old age security. It is now up to a little over $150 a month, and there is the $105 a month guaranteed income supplement available to those who have nothing else. But not only are the global figures which I have given indicative of how unfair we are to our older people; those figures-$150 to everyone 65 years of age or over; $255 to those who also have the supplement- show that we are not doing what we ought to do for our senior Canadians.
I have already filed my usual resolution for a private member's debate one of these days, 1 hope. 1 suggest in that resolution that the basic amount of the pension should now be raised to $300 a month. Let hon. members not throw back at me the question: Where is the money coming from? Any government that cannot direct the affairs of this country so that a group of people as large as the senior citizens are do not get their share is a government that does not deserve to sit across the way.
Not only do 1 call for an increase in the basic amount of old age security; I call for the escalation formula to be reviewed and put on a proper basis. It is good that there is escalation, that the pension moves up a little bit every three months. But it is always behind. It always relates to the increase in the cost of living which took place several months ago as compared with a few months earlier still. It is never an increase to enable senior citizens to meet the cost increases of the current month or quarter. So I call for a review of the whole escalation formula.
1 also call for a lowering of the eligible age, certainly for those who are out of the labour market. 1 am not at the point of saying that there should be universal pensions at the age of 60 in the way we have them at 65, but 1 am saying that all those who are out of, or are prepared to leave, the labour market and who are between the age of 60 and 65 should have the right to their old age security at that time.
This leads me to say that I agree with the hundreds of persons, especially women, who write in because they find it incredible that a couple of years ago this parliament passed a piece of legislation having to do with spouse's allowance, providing a payment to a spouse, man or woman, between the age of 60 and 65 so long as that spouse is married to and living with an older pensioner, yet which provides nothing at all for the person of single status, widow, spinster, widower or bachelor. In most cases, those who are denied pensions in this category are spinsters or widows. But those who write to me just do not believe this. They write, "Mr. Knowles, did parliament pass that?" They do not believe that the parliament of a civilized country would have been so uncivilized. I call for this spouse's allowance to be replaced by an old age security pension which is available to everyone between the age 60 and 65 who is out of the labour market.
I also call, Mr. Speaker, for amendments to be made to the Canada Pension Plan. There are a number of technical improvements that I should like to deal with, but they can be

raised, at some other time. I want to make once more the main point which was made this morning by one of my hon. friends to my left in a motion under Standing Order 43, namely, that we should lower the eligible age under the Canada Pension Plan to 60 for those who leave the labour market.
I know there is a lot of talk about the right of people to work until they are 65 or 70, or 85 or 90 as some of us might like to do. But the fact is that many workers, especially those in the heavy and dirty industries, can hardly stand the racket until they are 65. If you gave them the chance to retire at 60 on old age security and on the Canada Pension Plan, as well as on any other pension they might have, you would immediately release from the labour market many thousands. This would be of help in alleviating the unemployment situation at the present time. Why keep these older people working with their noses to the grindstone, when they would be entitled to pensions and there are younger people who want the jobs? These are reforms that must be made, and I call on the government to make them in this session of parliament, despite all this talk about restraint and there not being any money to spend on social programs.
I also plead for a new look to be taken at what we are doing for our handicapped people. We have been slow in getting anywhere in this area. The Canadian Council on Social Development a few weeks ago published a very thick volume on the state of our programs for the handicapped of this country. That volume tells a story of a hit and miss operation which does not really recognize the fact that a decent, humane society would try to put those who have handicaps in a position as nearly equal as possible to others. This runs all the way from the structural changes which we should make in our buildings, to special equipment, wheelchairs, transportation, hearing aids and all the rest of it, including adequate pensions or allowances for the blind, to whom we owe a special responsibility. These matters we have hardly touched. We have made a start and we have some legislation, but we are not going to be able to call ourselves a decent, civilized society until these people get all they really need in order to live life as nearly as possible on the basis that it is lived by those whose health and physical capacities are good.
So, Mr. Speaker, I plead for more attention to be paid to the blind and the disabled. Let us not have any talk about this not being the kind of session when these things can be done. It is precisely because there is unhappiness in Canada, because there is a feeling that things are not fair, that we should correct the situation my moving in this direction.
I turn now to another question which I think should be dealt with in this parliament, and that is the whole question of the escalating or indexing of pensions. I know there are certain spokesmen for insurance companies and other bodies who are carrying on campaigns against the indexing of the pensions of public servants, retired RCMP, armed forces personnel, and so on. They argue, why should these people have their pensions indexed when other Canadians do not? That is a good point; if some get it, others should. But the answer to that question is not to take away escalation from those to whom we have given
October 25, 1977

it; rather, let us make it the law that every pension should escalate. Every pension should be indexed. A pension which does not keep up with at least the rising cost of living-and in my view it should keep up with the rising standard of living- is not a pension at all.
These people who are spending money complaining about such indexing as there is should spend their money, their energy and their thought in going in for the proper indexing of all pensions, requiring private pension plans to be indexed or setting up a government scheme for it. In that way things would be a lot better. 1 know there are those who like to say, "What will it cost down the years? Will future generations be able to afford the pension plans that we build up?" I have said it many times, but let me say it again.


Walter David Baker: Say it again, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you. My good friend always encourages me to keep going. People on pensions do not live on savings. They do not live on food, clothing and shelter which they have saved from the days when they worked. They live on current production. They live on a portion of what society is producing today. Pensions are just a form of bookkeeping. Just as we decide that children, even though they do not work, will be cared for, so we decided by the granting of pensions that older people will get their share of the wealth that is being produced by a society which is more productive and more capable because they brought it to that point.
This being the reality of the situation, we should start with the simple proposition that retired people should get a pension to enable them to continue to enjoy life as they enjoyed it at the point of retirement, and that they should be able to keep up with the rising cost of living. 1 go further by saying that 1 should like to see the day when pensions will rise in accordance with the rising standard of living. At least, if we can get it across the board that pensions must keep up with the rising cost of living, that will be a real improvement.
1 hope the studies being made under the direction of the government, under the direction of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will come up with something very soon. I hope those studies will answer this nonsense that we have had against the escalation of pensions. Instead of allowing that nonsense to continue, I hope we will start attacking the real problem, which is to see to it that the pensions of all our people are properly indexed.
My friend who spoke before me had a bit to say about pensions. He talked about them in another context, but he made the point that very few Canadians who retire have a private pension plan at all. Of course, that just shows that what we really need today is to enlarge greatly the scope of the Canada Pension Plan. 1 hope the day will come when the Canada Pension Plan will be large enough and the percentage of one's earnings while he was working, that he receives as a
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
pension, will be large enough so that our older people will really have a break in being able to live on their combined old age security and Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. Speaker, that almost leads me to the remarks 1 had in mind by way of summing up this little speech, but I will save what I had in mind to the end because there are a couple of other things I still want to say. First, I mention once again the railway pensions. It is good that there have been some increases. Even the CPR finally got around to the point of making a slight increase in the pensions of those who retired some years ago. 1 have been receiving interesting mail on this point. 1 get letters from some who are delighted. An extra $20 or $30 a month to a retired person who is just getting by seems a good deal, and they are most grateful for the efforts which have been made on their behalf.
1 get letters from others who get a small amount or who are left out altogether, and they wonder how long the CPR is going to get away with it. Both the CPR and CNR should be required by law, by this parliament and by this government, to excalate the pensions of their retired workers and the survisors of those workers, in accordance with the rising cost of living.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am proud of what this parliament has done. I am proud of what my generation has done. My generation has been in this battle, in politics, in the church, in trade union movements, in farm organizations, and what have you, for 40 or 50 years. I am proud of what we have done in bringing forward these social programs. But unless we extend them, unless we cover everyone, and unless we escalate them to keep up with the rising cost of living, their value will deteriorate and instead of having a happy, contented and satisfied generation of older Canadians we will have people who will be complaining, as everyone else does, about a government which does not know how to run this country.
Before my time runs out, I should like to say a few words about another group, and I refer to our veterans. I am glad to see that my good friend, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), is with us this afternoon. We all have a great deal of respect for him. For myself, I appreciate and welcome the way 1 feel he fights with those cabinet colleagues of his for the break our veterans ought to get.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not hard enough.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes. the interjection by my friend, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), is quite correct. It is not hard enough, but he is fighting as hard as he can. But with the colleagues he has, he has to fight a lot harder.
Just as I am disappointed that there was no reference to old age security in the Speech from the Throne which Her Majesty read to us, so was I deeply disappointed that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was not able to get into that speech some reference to veterans. I pleaded with him during the last session to try to get the cabinet to agree to that, but there was

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. S. Knowles
no reference in it at all. Well, that means we do not have a guarantee that anything will be done in this session for veterans. The fact that we do not have the guarantee does not mean we cannot persuade the minister to do something.
The first thing I should like to talk about is the wide gap which has developed between the average wage paid to five designated categories of public servants and the basic rate of the 100 per cent disability pension. As the minister knows, four or five years ago we passed legislation making the 100 per cent pension equal to the average income of five designated groups in the public service. That is where it started 50 or 55 years ago. We got away from it, but we got it back again three or four years ago. Already, it is out of line again. Now there is a gap of over $500 a year between that average which we accepted as a goal and the amount that veterans on the 100 per cent disability pension are receiving. Of course, if there is that gap with regard to the 100 per cent pension, it runs all down the line.
One thing veterans' organizations are pleading for most is the closing of that gap. Let us not wait another 20, 30 or 40 years until we get it back there again. Let us do it now. 1 plead with the minister to get that through his cabinet in this session of parliament.
Also, I plead with him on behalf of the widows of veterans, particularly those whose husbands' disability pensions were less than 48 per cent. For those cases there are no pensions at all. There is a lot which is good about our veterans' legislation, but to say to a widow, "If your husband had 48 per cent or more, you get the full pension; but if your husband's maximum was 47 per cent or less, you get nothing" is just about as inhuman and cruel as it can be. In these days, the number of widows who are being left with no pension at all is increasing. This is of concern to the veterans. 1 hope the minister will get action on that in this session. He must!
Also, I hope he will do something about a very small group of Canadian veterans-200 or fewer-who are survivors of World War I, who were prisoners of war in that first conflict and who were not covered. It is not our fault, nor the fault of the committee. It is not the fault of the minister. It was the fault of his cabinet colleagues that they were not covered in the legislation providing for prisoners of war compensation. It would cost only a small amount of money for those 200 people in the years they have left to live. They are all in their eighties or higher. Surely that is something this parliament can do.
While he is at it, perhaps the minister can also do something about the prisoners of war compensation for the escapers and evaders who were not actually taken prisoners but lived a very precarious existence on the continent of Europe in the last war.
I have no hesitation in saying that there is a lot that is good about our veterans' legislation, but that does not relieve us from the responsibility of improving it in such areas as those I have mentioned. The same goes for the War Veterans Allowance Act; there is a lot that is good about it. I am glad a

review is taking place, and I hope that review will come up with something that is good for our veterans.
I see that the clock is getting around to the point where you will move to the edge of your chair, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps I better wind up. I am always glad, as I say, to have the chance in the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to speak on a subject 1 have spoken about in the House, I suppose, a thousand times. That is not an exaggeration if you multiply the number of times per year I have spoken on it, by the number of years I have been here. I am proud of what we have done from the days when the pension was $20 a month at age 70, with a means test. I am proud of all the things that have been added, and I am proud of the improvements we have made for railway workers, retired civil servants, RCMP, armed forces and veterans.
But, sir, this is a different age from the one in which we started these campaigns. It is an age when we are producing $200 billion of goods and services in this country, and we have no right to stand and boast of what we have done in the last 40 or 50 years unless we give these people their rightful place in sharing what we now produce.
So 1 plead most strongly that these matters be dealt with in this session of parliament. 1 call in particular on the Minister of Health and Welfare and on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to do the job that is theirs in cabinet. If they do that, we can be proud of what we have done in this session of parliament to make life better for our senior Canadians and for our veterans. In doing so, we can make Canada a country of which all of us can be justly proud.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, allow me first to congratulate very sincerely the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) for having been asked to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. As could be expected, he agreed with the contents of the throne speech and this is due to the strict discipline of the majority party. Congratulations also to the seconder of the motion. It must be recognized that both members discharged their duty in a truly graceful manner. I acknowledge in spite of my short experience in this House that those two members should be very sincerely congratulated and this is what I am doing.
1 am pleased to sit in this House, Mr. Speaker, on account of the mutually granted respect despite our differences of opinions and principles applying to the administration of the country. I think that the Canadian Parliament is an example for every democracy. It is really fantastic to note how members readily comply with the procedure while suggesting at times some corrections to try to improve it further. That is what democracy is all about and we must try to defend and improve it.
The Speech from the Throne is certainly the best listing of good intentions 1 have ever heard. Statements on the deplorable economic situation, on the catastrophic rate of unemployment and on our fragile national unity are to the point. Indeed we have been saying so for quite a long time. They are not new


October 25, 1977

realities and too many Canadians have lived with them too long. The throne speech points out the urgency of radically revamping Canada's economy. Finally, we have come to realize that something has to be done.
Now if we decide not to wait a hundred years to do something, 1 think we will succeed in demonstrating that Canada is not only a prosperous country but a country which considers its riches and does whatever is required to ensure their distribution to provide Canadians with a fair standard of living. Nothing is more obvious and that is exactly what the Social Credit Party of Canada has been claiming all along. I repeat that pious intentions and band-aid measures will never put the country back on the right track. What is needed is nothing less than a sound and intelligent reorganization of Canadian economic and monetary structures.
Mr. Speaker, the government is not proposing any concrete measures. For instance, the Speech deals with the new funding proposals which were made recently to the provinces in the area of social services. Two sentences further, it reads, and 1 quote:
It is hoped that the response of provincial governments will lead to the introduction .. .
-and realization. We had better hope indeed, when we consider the great constitutional problem which stands in the way of these projects and the bargaining we have to go through. Let us hope. What is needed is not only hope, but action. Why not give the provinces the fiscal jurisdiction they need to administer their services without their having to beg the federal government for money over and over again? The services would be more efficient, for they would be adapted to local requirements and that is why, as members of the Social Credit Party of Canada, at our last convention last weekend we adopted a constitutional position in keeping with the intention our Founding Fathers had when the first four Canadian provinces met and decided to establish the Canadian Confederation.
Then the federal government is a creature of the provinces and, if we want them to be able to carry out their responsibilities to the people of Canada, we must provide them with the necessary revenues to fulfil their financial obligations, and this is the reason why we definitely support the principle of a new constitution, tailored to Canadian conditions and drafted by the provinces, in which the jurisdictions of the central government and the provinces will be clearly set out. I think this is the only way we can ever hope to live together in harmony in this country.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, what each of us is trying to achieve is peace, security and freedom. That is what we are seeking, whether we are French speaking, English speaking or new Canadians, we all want peace, security and freedom. That is why we all have to work together to determine the areas of provincial and federal jurisdictions. They should be clearly defined. We should have enough brains to do that, otherwise there is no point in having all those universities, political scientists, academics, economists and what not, if we are not able to come out with a sensible solution which will be
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
acceptable to the whole country. This is our position with regard to the constitution, Mr. Speaker: respect of all by all and also respect for such covenant, such constitution as we shall choose to give ourselves.
Last July, during the debate on the motion of the Prime Minister, I explained in the House how we intend to meet to prepare this new constitution. 1 shall now repeat it. It may not be the only possible way, but it comes from the heart of a sincere Canadian who loves his country and who would like to preserve it under its present name, in its present dimension, but in such a way that we shall all be happy to live in this country instead of tearing at each other. We must work together to give to our children a country with a constitution that meets our aspirations and which is in complete accordance with the thoughts of the Fathers of Confederation.
We suggest that the provinces designate representatives outside of politics for a meeting that will take as long as it has to and that the federal government also designate someone outside politics, with representatives from the intermediate classes, from chambers of commerce, from finance, from industry, from national associations, from all organizations which have an interest in this country, and that those people, in accordance with the representations that they have been making for many years, develop a constitution project which will then be submitted to the attention of the provinces who can then decide among themselves if this constitution formula is appropriate. If they decide that it is, after defining the role of the federal government, they will invite representatives from the national and provincial political levels and then determine if the formula which has been studied and developed is valid. If such is the case, then comes the matter of the referendum. Mr. Speaker, our party was the first to suggest the idea that questions as important as this one should be submitted to the population through a referendum.
As secretary treasurer for many years, I have been somewhat involved in the question of referendums. This is where we must be careful.
The wording of the question might distort completely the aim of the referendum. That is what matters. The question should be plain. The question should be put in objective and clear terms so that when the woman, the old man, the worker or the farmer go to the poll to cast their vote they understand perfectly the question put to them, or that when they vote by "yes" or "no", their vote not be negative but positive. That is what matters, Mr. Speaker.
The Speech from the Throne details the efforts made under youth employment programs, but it fails to mention that the government spends a lot more on unemployment insurance than on those programs. I do not believe that that is an enticement to work. As for the supporting measures allowing the private sector to undertake projects in other countries, I cannot help but call them scandalous.
If we see fit to channel Canadian money into great projects in other countries, we should have enough courage to do the

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
same in our own country. If such initiatives are likely to create jobs elsewhere, we are likely to create jobs in our country if we do the same here. I think we should help underdeveloped countries but let us not allow our economy in Canada to decline at the same time pretexting that we have no money to help.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am a little disappointed to see that the government does not make any mention of the high unemployment levels with the hope that the situation will improve. On the contrary, we are told that the high unemployment and inflation rates demonstrate clearly that the economic methods of an often complex period are no longer applicable. It took the government many years to become aware of this.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is a bit thick. Major Douglas and other enlightened economists have advised governments for years that the present capitalist economic system, and I do not use the word capitalist in a derogatory manner, is ill and that it is in dire need of remedies. That has been going on for years and still nobody does anything. Band-aid measures are taken, governments try to patch things up as best as they can but a new formula is neither accepted nor applied.
Mr. Speaker, will the government at last, and they themselves admitted to this failure, introduce a minimum yearly guaranteed income plan? I put the question yesterday to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and she gave me an affirmative answer. But will it come about soon? Such a measure, combined with a retail discount for Canadian products, would only increase productivity because the national effort would be rewarded.
In addition, the purchasing power thus increased in turn can only lead to better productivity. Mr. Speaker, in this regard I was surprised to read in the newspaper Le Devoir for October 24 a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). The article is entitled, and I quote:
Canadians Save To a Fault
I am absolutely flabbergasted, Mr. Speaker. The government, through its Minister of Finance, advises the people they will have to tighten their belts, that the government will have to spend less. Yet, that same Minister of Finance tells us two days later that Canadians save too much.
I therefore would like to quote a few lines from that editorial:
According to the Minister of Finance, Canadians who do not produce enough, save to a fault.
In every class of society, he said, but more specifically in the middle classes, expenses do not grow in proportion to increased incomes.
Canadians, he feels, "demand a lot but do not necessarily spend. They merely want to save for the future".
But, Mr. Speaker, what does saving for the future mean? It means that they no longer have confidence in the Canadian economy, that they are worried about tomorrow, that is all. And, on the other hand, can we blame them? Thrift is a virtue!

Commander Desjardins, the founder of Credit Unions, taught us this virtue when he founded this economy inspired movement with a view to bringing children and adults to save their pennies and dollars, so that together we may be in a position to build and develop a business or an industry, within our community and give young people the opportunity to save money for their future. I belong to this generation, Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who still believe in thriftiness. But we should not let this seven headed monster that we call inflation harm us and get away with it.
Inflation, as we know it today, is bringing Canadian economy to its knees, it is tolling the knell of private enterprise. All we see about us are bankruptcies. Industries produce less, close their doors, lay-off their employees. In short, inflation creates misery. Inflation breeds unemployment. Inflation plays havoc with the savings of people who have worked on small wages for 40 or 50 years and tried to put a little money aside for their old age. Today, these people have to spend their scant savings on overpriced commodities. The consequence of that is to further diminish the small wages they used to make and the small savings they may have set aside. Yet there is something worse than that and this is why it must be said and we have to tackle this dreadful problem: the case of the Young People. What is going to happen to them? Young couples who buy a house at today's inflationary prices and who will be bound for the next 30 or 40 years to meet their obligations based on today's wages. This situation cannot last or otherwise it is of no use to have experience.
We know for a fact that someday we will have a recession. We are aware of the fact that incomes will be drastically reduced therefore these people who commit themselves today to meet certain obligations in order to acquire a home will necessarily have to give up the hope of ever keeping it. Their creditor will demand payment of the mortgage they signed and as these people will not be able to meet their obligations they will have to give up their home and then the mortgagee will be able to sell that same house at the current price on the market. The new buyer will then move into their house, but as a result the former owners will have been ruined because of inflation and these people are precisely those young couples of today taking commitments.
This is why I am saying that inflation and unemployment are twin brothers. Unemployment breeds inflation and inflation breeds unemployment. I have heard about that in this House since 1968. It is quite incredible to see that we are here 264 members vested with the highest authority on the land, yet we spend time talking in a lighthearted manner of these dreadful problems, not having the courage to pass measures likely to change the situation. We, from the Social Credit Party of Canada, are proposing some solutions. They may not be the best as there can always be something better but at least we have the merit of having studied the situation and of presenting concrete propositions. This is why I am asking the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) who is not here in this House and who, I hope, will read my remarks, to have a
October 25, 1977

special study carried out by serious people on the feasibility of instituting a discount system on the domestic prices of Canadian goods.
The minister is serious, I hope. He is the one who says we are not spending enough. We are going to give consumers the chance to have more income without affecting salaries, without bearing on prices because when you raise salaries, prices go up and you are back to square one. Not so long ago an industry in my area increased salaries. A worker came and showed me his pay slip. He had $20 more on his pay but since he had changed brackets he paid more tax. So the federal government took more, the provincial government took more, the other marginal services took more, and he was finally left with $8. And since we know that prices are going to go up because of higher wages his $8 is going to be wiped out, so that is not the solution.
People are tearing at each other, union leaders point to employers as dangerous people, exploiters, and employees are being made to believe that they are mistreated and exploited, all sorts of things are put in their heads, and they are shown a dollar sign but they are not taught what an economic system is, how it works, what are the repercussions when a decision is made at given levels. They are not informed, and that is why there is social unrest, why there is no peace at home. That is why there is insecurity, why individual freedom is being restrained.
Mr. Speaker, let us give a discount on prices. Let us start with milk. We have a great milk problem at the moment in Canada. There is a legal dispute between the federal government and the provinces about the quotas and the subsidy on that part of the industrial milk coming from milk producers that goes for processing. The provinces take $1.20 for each hundredweight they collect from fluid milk producers and they must hand it over to the Canadian Dairy Commission. Since the Canadian Dairy Commission under a regulation decided to ask milk producers to give it 25 cents per hundredweight of class 1 milk and since those people say the federal government does not have the right to act like that because fluid milk comes under provincial jurisdiction, there is a conflict there. The Canadian Dairy Commission keeps the subsidies, and the Federation of Fluid Milk Producers in my province withholds the payment of the amount collected.
Mr. Speaker here is a typical example showing that if one would really stop and consider, we should utilize new methods and try this year to give a 10 cent discount on each quart of fluid milk; consumption would increase as the minister wishes, people would spend more and we would fill their needs at the family level. There is a discount if somebody buys and if nobody buys there is no discount. It is as simple as that. This is going to be the real control which will allow us to consider the problem in its true perspective. If people buy a quart of milk then they need it, and this is why they are given a 10 cent discount. The problem would be partially settled if one would stop to bickering about surpluses while other people are too poor to give the bare necessities to their families.
The Address-Mr. Cafik
Mr. Speaker, it should be possible as well to offer a discount in areas which are most vulnerable such as the shoe industry, clothing, textile, furniture which at the moment are subjected to the heaviest pressures because of more competitive imports.
So, if we gave a discount after a serious study of those products we should help businessmen be more competitive and when their warehouses would get empty following the demand from Canadians for Canadian products, automatically they would call workers back to work, thus creating employment, and we should be able to work seriously toward an answer to the employment problem. This is a practical proposal, Mr. Speaker. Here is a second one which I mentioned very briefly earlier-the establishment of an annual minimum guaranteed income to eliminate social measures that were good in the early days but that became wrong because of abuses: unemployment, social welfare, annual minimum guaranteed income based on the income, on Canadian surpluses and distributed to everyone. That annual minimum guaranteed income, Mr. Speaker, will not prevent anyone with guts to work and get an additional income. If not, if he prefers to live on that minimum it is his business. It will not prevent others from being productive and participating actively in the Canadian community.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have made very clear proposals and if we had time-unfortunately you are ready to stand up. We should also lower the age of eligibility for the old age security and make it optional at 60 for all those interested, allowing them to leave the work force and be replaced by young people.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I first want to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) for moving the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and his colleague and mine, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). They both delivered excellent addresses to this House. I join many others in offering my congratulations to them.
Second, I want to indicate, as some members have done in the past, the great pleasure that 1 and all Canadians had on the visit of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness on the opening of this session of parliament. I was particularly moved because in my capacity as Minister of State for Multicultural-ism I had the great honour and distinction of hosting a luncheon, held in the Confederation Room, for Her Majesty. There were in attendance delegates from all across Canada representing our ethnic and cultural groups. They were very impressed and honoured to be invited to attend that luncheon.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Particularly those from your constituency.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Perhaps 1 should rise to the occasion because of an article which appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail. It refers to the fact that I have had quite a number of constituents here this session. That is true. In fact, I have done that since 1968. It so happens the newspapers have only now picked it up-after ten years. I should point out that my constituents who chose to do so, like many Canadians, through an open

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Cafik
invitation attended a multicultural concert. It was not the one at which Her Majesty was present, because I did not think that would have been appropriate; 1 thought that they should go along with other members of the public. I put that on record because of the suspicious nature of my friend opposite.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Not me.


Norman Augustine Cafik: 1 should indicate at the outset that 1 would like to address a few remarks to the two capacities assigned to me by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when I was appointed to the cabinet. First, I was asked to act in terms of deputy House leader. 1 am very pleased and honoured to do that. I look forward with a great deal of anticipation to working with the House leaders at appropriate times to try, in the best way I know how, to make the House of Commons a relevant and responsive instrument of the wishes of the Canadian people. I am sure all House leaders, including our Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and House leader, share the intention to do whatever we can to make this place a relevant and meaningful instrument which can act expeditiously on business that is in the Canadian interest.
I want to talk more specifically about my role of minister of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is a policy that has existed with the government of Canada for some time. 1 would like to talk about its background for just a moment. The origin of the establishment of the directorate stemmed from recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicultural-ism contained in volume IV of its report. That report dealt with contributions by other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada, and measures that should be taken to safeguard those contributions. Volume IV examined the whole question of cultural and ethnic pluralism in this country and the status of our various cultures and languages, an area of study given all too little attention in the past by scholars.
On October 8, 1971, the Prime Minister indicated, in a speech in the House of Commons, that he accepted all the recommendations contained in this commission's report. He stated that at that time:
A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help to break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence. It can form the base of a society which is based on fair play for all.
The government will support and encourage the various cultures and ethnic groups that give structure and vitality to our society. They will be encouraged to share their cultural expression and values with other Canadians and so contribute to a richer life for us all.
The concept of multiculturalism in the world is rather unique. To my knowledge, and based on my research, we are the first country in the world to adopt such a policy. In the last year and a half, I understand that the government of Australia, following consultations with our directorate, established a similar policy in that country. I hope the example we have given will be shared by many other countries in the future.

There is no question that multiculturalism is an extremely important concept, particularly now when there is so much talk about national unity and a feeling that the real questions facing Canadians relate to the relationship between Anglophones and Francophones.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And "Ukraphones" and "Poliphones".


Norman Augustine Cafik: I will leave that remark for the record; I would rather not have made it. In any event, there is no question that the public perception is that the whole equation of national unity relates to those two groups within our society.
It is very important to underscore the genuine nature of Canada. The Prime Minister has indicated in the past that we live in a bilingual nation but we do not live in a bicultural nation. It is extremely important for us to realize that distinction. Bilingualism, in the sense that we have two official languages, is, I am sure, supported by all members of this House and, if it is understood in the right context, by all Canadians. One culture is no more favoured by the government or by the people of this country than any other. All of us have brought to Canada our own unique cultural backgrounds and traditions. They need to be respected, and they are respected by this government.
Our experience in nation-building, which has been emphasized more clearly in recent days in contradistinction to the American approach, is commonly called the mosaic, as opposed to the melting pot. Many nations of the world seem to think their national interest would be better served were they to take all their cultural backgrounds and put them into some kind of melting pot from which they could be cast out into some kind of uniform shape, size and description. We subscribe to the mosaic, in the firm and consistent belief that Canada is a better place in which to live and that all of us will be better people, individually and collectively, if our people have the opportunity and the incentive to retain their cultural backgrounds, traditions and histories.
There is no doubt that our policy arises primarily from a realization of what is the full dimension of the human spirit. A great deal is said about human freedom, and it is true we need a whole broad range of freedoms; and we have them in place. But little has been said about that which gives rise to the very nature of man. Man is unique to a large extent, not only because he was created that way but because his traditions, his background, his history, his culture have all contributed to making people uniquely what they are. We believe that as a national policy we should foster this uniqueness and take advantage of it for the benefit of the whole of society.
We realize that Canadians, like all mankind, are the inheritors of the past. That makes us what we are in the present. In my view, this augurs well for the future of this country, provided we are allowed to retain that background and that history. Very special benefits flow to the whole nation and to all our people through the intermix of our culture and of our people. As a result, we build a spirit of understanding, toler-
October 25, 1977

ance and appreciation of our own individual and communal individuality. Ours is an experience in living in a real and diverse world. How well we meet this task will determine the contribution we can make by way of example to other nations and people as to how best to live together in a bilingual, multicultural and multiracial society. The world is in great need of such an example, and we as Canadians have the challenge and the privilege of setting it.
The directorate of multiculturalism and its role in our modern society seems to be viewed in three ways by the public at large. For those who support the policy, it is often viewed as a token gesture toward a third of our people of non-English, non-French backgrounds. Others who oppose the concept in principle do so on the premise that the melting pot is a more appropriate response to diversity and to national unity. Third, it is viewed with indifference by those who take our diversity for granted and who feel that present government policy is really an unnecessary instrument.
I would like to respond to these three perceptions. First of all, in terms of the view that our department might be a token effort toward multiculturalism, I would say that those who feel or think that way are confusing budgets with impact. There is no doubt at all that when one looks at the Department of Multiculturalism, realizes that we spend about $8 million a year in that area of activity, and relates that to a global budget of about $40 billion a year, one can hardly get the impression that it is other than a token gesture. However, the department is not simply a dispenser of grants to ethnocultural groups in our society; our impact is much greater than that. I shall elaborate on that aspect of the matter in a moment.
To those who have the feeling that we should not be encouraging the maintenance of our ethnocultural heritage I would like to say this: I believe they are confusing two principles, the principle of assimilation and the principle of integration. Some people think the best thing which can happen to immigrants when they come to Canada is for them to be totally assimilated into our society. To my mind, this carries with it the implication that they must shed all their background and become some new kind of human being. We do not say that at all. What we say is that they ought to be fully and totally integrated into society, realizing that their background and heritage and those things which meant so much to them as individual human beings should be freely carried on and retained here in their new land.
I think there are those who feel that the encouragement of people to retain their cultural heritage implies that we are really asking those who come from other lands to carry with them, as well, some of the antagonisms they may have developed historically in years gone by in those lands. That is not implied at all. I think it is quite evident to us that people who have come from Europe and elsewhere, where nations have shifted and changed over the years, might tend to retain antagonisms resulting from historical, cultural, linguistic and national pressures imposed upon them in their former lands. We are not asking that they do this at all. Quite the contrary. We are asking them to retain that which is good, and to shed
The Address-Mr. Cafik
and set aside those things that may have divided them back in their homelands.
I would ask those who also do not realize the import of the policy to sit back and think for a moment of some of the major cities in this country-Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and others-where you can find evidence of practically every culture of the world within their boundaries. Surely, anybody who addresses his mind to that equation would realize that those cities are richer, more vibrant than they would ever be if they did not have the input and background of the people who make up these cities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: To those who view the policy with indifference, I would say this: Operating upon a premise that I think is very easily related is the question of the English-French relationship. It is quite evident that in the past 100 years the French people, in terms of their linguistic rights and their opportunities to participate fully and totally in the whole of Canadian society, may not have been what they ought to have been. I do not think there is any question that we need a period in which to catch up in order to give them fair and equal opportunities in this country.
The same is true of our ethnocultural groups. Many of them have gone through great difficulties in years gone by in securing equal recognition, equal status with the rest of Canadians. There is a little catching up to do there as well. Immigrants are coming into this country: a great deal of work has to be done to integrate them into our society and to make sure they are given fair and equal treatment in all aspects of Canadian life. The indifference to our policy would rapidly fall aside if people realized that what we are trying to do with these groups which have come into the country, whose ancestors came here hundreds of years ago, is to make sure they are provided with a fair and equal opportunity along with the rest of us.
There is another point I want to make in this respect. Bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, the percentage make up of our society. First of all, about 43 per cent of our population has an Anglo-Celtic background. The figures I am giving are not easily defined or even accurate statistics, but they are reasonably close. The French-speaking group constitutes about 25 per cent or a little more. Our native peoples comprise about 2 per cent of our population. Other ethnocultural groups account for the remaining 30 per cent. It is my job as Minister of State for Multiculturalism to see that all groups in our society are given fair and equal opportunity in this land. I think it is important that we carry out that mandate in all the broad ranges of human activity.
The legitimate, important and indeed essential role of the directorate of multiculturalism I think bears some explanation. First of all, in relation to grants, I mentioned earlier that we have a number of grants programs. We distribute about $4.5 million to $5 million a year to ethnocultural groups in Canada.

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Cafik
I should like to make one thing quite clear. I am not of the view that it is necessary for the government of Canada to preserve culture in the sense that we require money to do so. I am inclined to think that cultures that are real, alive and viable would sustain themselves if we spent $1 billion a year trying to uproot them. The fact is that they are cultures because people want them. They are sustained because people want them.
Our granting funds to these groups is not really directed to that objective. Our funds are granted in a different way altogether, to provide equal opportunity; but, in addition, to make sure that all Canadians share in the benefits of those cultures. This enables cultural groups to work and to interface together, to share their backgrounds and traditions with all of the community in which they live. In that way that which is theirs will become that which is ours, and all of us will benefit as a result.
I am not suggesting that the real thrust of our department is in the form of grants, as important as they may be. They will be sustained in areas where they are required. The real impact of the Department of Multiculturalism is more global; it has an impact upon government policy as a whole. It seems to me that when the government gives consideration to policies, of whatever description, in so far as they impinge upon the interests of those people who are within my mandate it is my responsibility, in the halls of cabinet and in the decision-making process, to see that their legitimate views and concerns are taken into account.
Dealing with specific issues is also important. For example, international human rights arising from the Helsinki Accord and now being dealt with at the Belgrade conference are a matter of genuine and serious concern to many people who come from behind iron curtain countries or from the Soviet Union itself. 1, as the representative of those people, must ensure that their voice is heard by those who make decisions regarding our posture at the Belgrade conference. The same thing occurs with regard to immigration policy, citizenship and the broad range of government policy. So the impact of the directorate of multiculturalism is broader than grants of money; it is as broad as the government itself.
We also have to deal directly with domestic perceptions which lead to mutual recognition and respect among all Canadians. There is no question that difficulties arise from time to time as a result of intolerance, lack of understanding and lack of appreciation of the backgrounds and traditions of others. It is extremely important that our directorate deals positively with those difficulties to ensure that we have an orderly integration of all people in society, leaving them the option, indeed the right, to be themselves in every way they can.
In addition, it is the responsibility of the directorate to try to give Canadians a more accurate reflection of ourselves and our backgrounds. First of all, in looking at our educational institutions-which are out of our jurisdiction-the media, the composition of our libraries and museums, politics, the arts and the whole broad range of human activities, it is very important

that we begin to portray ourselves for what we are, a multicultural, multiracial society with each group having made a valuable and important historical contribution.
It is not enough to look upon the history of Canada as beginning and ending with the Plains of Abraham. It is important that we know the contribution of the Ukrainians in western Canada, the Germans in western Canada, the Japanese on the west coast, the Polish, the Irish-everyone. It is in that context that we will begin to understand what Canada is really all about. I think our institutions of all types have an obligation to address themselves to this question and not spend so much of their time dealing only with English-French relations in Canada, which I think gives a distorted picture of our reality.
The key to a successful policy is to ensure that all of us, individually and collectively, are better off if we recognize and take advantage of our own background and diversity, allowing it to flower so that the public interest may be best achieved. Each of us as Canadians, regardless of our origin, will become richer and more vital because of the interface between our culture and the culture of other groups. Through it we will draw the maximum benefit and create a wholesome and vibrant society. It is not our intention to build a nation of isolated solitudes. The key element in our program is to bring together individual cultures working in combination with others and impacting upon the whole community.
Those of ethnocultural backgrounds have a great interest in the national unity question. Perhaps they realize as much as, or more than, anyone what is at stake in this issue. Our ethnocultural groups can readily identify and understand the aspirations of the people of Quebec to preserve their language and their culture. We accept the concept of bilingualism and we support the legitimate concerns of French-speaking Canadians in regard to the preservation of their culture and language. Their aspirations are not unlike our own, and for that reason we find it so easy to relate to that concept.
We can also understand the concern of many in the province of Quebec that their cultural background could possibly be totally absorbed by the English society either within their province or outside. We understand the need and the desire to take steps to retain that which they have, that which they are so proud of, and with good reason. So we support this policy. We support the policy of bilingualism and the right of the people of Quebec and of other provinces to retain that which is theirs in the context of free choice and under the banner of two official languages. We believe it is important that all Canadians have the right to communicate with their government in either of the official languages, wherever they reside in this country.
1 do not wish to deal with bill 101 at any length, except to say that it is my view the questions at stake are not really legal ones. I believe this is the view of many Canadians. The question of national unity will not be resolved in the Supreme Court of Canada; it will be resolved in the hearts and minds of
October 25, 1977

Canadians. Any society which is united, is united because it wants to be united and because its people realize that they are better off culturally, economically, linguistically and in every other way if they are united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Our people realize we are better off being Canadians with a whole Canada, as opposed to separating this country into individual parts. It would not be in the interests of any Canadian to allow that to happen. We must all show that we recognize our interdependence. But even more, we must show that we recognize our mutual good will toward each other. Our national unity problem shall disappear when Francophones, Anglophones, our native peoples and our ethnocultural groups of any origin fully realize that we are all better off economically, socially, culturally and linguistically if we are living in one land in a spirit of understanding, tolerance and good will. When this realization takes root in Canadians in every corner of our land from the Pacific to the Atlantic and from the American border to the North Pole, we shall indeed be a free, happy and united nation showing leadership in a divided and often antagonistic world.
It is only by the realization of that which makes us what we are, uniquely Canadian, that those aspirations can be achieved.
I assure all members of this House that the ethnocultural communities of this country are as married to that concept as any other group-perhaps more than some. We will play our part in holding this country together and building it to be the land we want to decree to our children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) rising for the purpose of asking a question?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the hon. minister permit a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, 1 was expecting to answer a question to be posed by the hon. member who is now absent. Therefore, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexan-. der) can take his place.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is not absent. He has decided to let the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) ask the question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That is fine. He may be present. I just do not see him.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He has left the chamber.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Perhaps he is on the monitor.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He is not on the monitor; he is watching you on the monitor.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Is he?
The Address-Mr. Cafik


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is interested in comic relief.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the minister's comments in regard to multicultural-ism. I am interested in the "off again, on again" policy of this government with respect thereto. The minister will recall that during the debate on the immigration bill there was concern registered about the fact that that bill excluded the word "multicultural". That concern was registered on the opposite side of this House.
Because the minister is now enlightened and understands how much the realities of life mean in terms of multicultural-ism, can we expect the minister to bring in an amendment, after consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), to see that that much needed word is inserted into the bill we passed recently? Is this what the minister is talking about?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Unless the minister informs the House that that amendment will be introduced, then I say that the government is hypocritical.


Steve Eugene Paproski: That is why the other minister left.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member. He has very cleverly put me on the spot, but 1 have no objection to that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just be honest with the Canadian people.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Just a moment, please. I will be honest with the Canadian people, as well as yourself. The local impact of the Department of Multiculturalism is extremely important. The type of gesture you are talking about in that particular bill was clearly important to the ethnocultural people of this country.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Right on.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If it is important to them, it is important to me. As to what I am going to do about it, the hon. member will have to sit back and watch.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We have been watching.


Norman Augustine Cafik: That is all I can say.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Just answer my question.


Norman Augustine Cafik: I intend to.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Are we going to have an amendment, or are you just talking through your hat?


Norman Augustine Cafik: If the hon. member would like to pose a supplementary question, 1 would be delighted to answer it as well. I am telling the hon. member that he will have to be prepared to sit back and watch.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, I know.

October 25, 1977
The Address-Miss MacDonald
Mfr. Cafik: The hon. member can be assured that the ethno cultural people of this country have a minister. They are aware of that, and they are going to be served by him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You can just wipe that speech off the record.


Mr. Dinsdale:: What does Stan Haidasz have to say?


Mrs. Appolloni:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Just for the sake of clarity, and in order to keep the record straight, I was on that committee and I should like to point out that the entire bill was based on the premise that Canada will continue to reflect the diversity of its people, in which case the introduction of the word "multicultural" was redundant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is all boloney, and you know it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Shame.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Wait until the people of Toronto hear that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: And you are from Toronto.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. For certain obvious reasons, this was a very special throne speech, since it was only the second time in our nation's history that the speech was read by a reigning monarch. It was special, as well, because the occasion surrounding this particular event was the Silver Jubilee of our Queen, and her visit to Canada encompassed our tribute to Her Majesty's 25-year reign.
Therefore, it is regrettable that the content of the Speech from the Throne did not match the uniqueness of the occasion surrounding it. If it were not so tragic, it would be almost humorous that such regal pomp and ceremony should surround such a limited, pedestrian document. The speech was not what the times demanded.
1 think back to that other occasion some 20 years ago when Her Majesty participated in a similar ceremony, and I speak to the Canada of that era. Those of us who remember that occasion can remember, also, the optimism, the buoyancy and the stability which marked those years. Then our world, globally and domestically, was relatively stable. At that time we believed-and our belief was confirmed by reality-that if we worked hard, we would achieve. We told our children that those who stayed in school, studied hard and graduated would have a job waiting for them when they finished their education. Those were the rules of the game, and no one doubted them.
The realities of today dramatically call into question those hopes and beliefs. The buoyancy and the optimism of the fifties have dissipated into instability, fear and uncertainty in the seventies. It is the uncertainty, the lack of confidence

permeating this country, that is the most destructive of the moods of the seventies. Instability can be coped with if there is some certainty that it will be eased, whether sooner or later. A nation's fears can be calmed if there is certainty that there are clear choices to be made and competent people to make them. But there is no solace in uncertainty. Uncertainty can bring on needless fear and increased instability. Uncertainty can smother hope.
Whatever else are its accomplishments, this government is a past master at creating uncertainty. In no other field has it been so productive, and with what disastrous effects for the nation! The current uncertainty, in the face of economic controls and controversial constitutional questions, is only the tip of the iceberg which has been in the process of formation for these past ten years. The proposals put forth last week in the Speech from the Throne do nothing to counteract that mood of uncertainty or to restore the confidence of Canadians. Quite the contrary, it does everything to add to our collective uncertainty since, by spelling out the many problems that face us, it confirms our worst fears; and then, by offering what are patently facile and superficial remedies, it invites our despair. It is true that the government recognizes the current economic crisis: it is right there in the speech from the throne. It reads:
High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies . .. signals of the urgent need for important structural adjustments in the economy .. .
Sir, since the throne speech, we have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and we have heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) discuss the economy at great length. But what we have yet to hear in concrete terms are the so-called important structural adjustments that the government intends to make to the economy. The government's announcement of a proposed expenditure of $150 million in job creation is one of the few concrete proposals put forth. But what does that really represent? A mere 60,000 jobs for the one million Canadians who are without work. Such a proposal can hardly be considered an important structural adjustment. Major structural adjustments are necessary if the government is to confront, not just the hard economic realities that we in the opposition keep bringing to their attention every day but the social cost of these realities.
1 would like the Prime Minister and his colleagues to look back for a moment on their own lives and remember the dreams and ambitions of their youth, to realize how much the existence of possibilities contributed to their hopes, their choices and to the options that were open to them. For the unemployed youth of today, possibilities, choices or options are practically non-existent. Not only do they not have jobs, costly as that is to the economy, but, furthermore, 400,000 young Canadians are unable to make the crucial decisions that are necessary to shape their futures. They cannot plan their lives, nor can they dream, wildly or otherwise, about their future.
What does it do to their personal development, to their self-worth, to be so unable to control their lives? What will the possible cost to our society of the collective cynicism of a
October 25, 1977

generation which has played the game by the rules only to find that the rules have changed at the end? I would ask the Prime Minister to consider that we are facing the possibility of producing a generation of adults who have been totally alienated from the mainstream of Canadian life. Such alienation can only bring anger and frustration in its wake, but more than anger and frustration, social upheaval of a kind that we have not witnessed in Canada previously. We in this country are not immune to the social unrest that is emerging elsewhere in the world, an unrest that our current unemployment situation does nothing to stave off and everything to invite.
Mr. Speaker, there are no major structural changes recommended in the Speech from the Throne to indicate that the government either recognizes or plans to take steps to alleviate these serious social pressures. It is very easy to conclude, in the wake of what we have heard, that the best structural change that could be made, the one most beneficial to this country, would be to get rid of the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: If the economic measures in the Speech from the Throne offer little to quell the climate of uncertainty that exists in this country, the constitutional proposals offer even less. Indeed, in his collective musings on our constitutional problems, the Prime Minister escalates the uncertainty that abounds with his apparently off-the-cuff suggestion without benefit of cabinet decision.
It would appear that the government may hold a referendum on national unity, and I stress the word "may" because, true to form, the Prime Minister declines to give any details of his proposed referendum. He equivocates. The referendum may or may not be held; it may or may not be held nationally; it may or may not be held only in Quebec. If held in Quebec, it may or may not be binding on that province or on the rest of the country. The Prime Minister mounts a horse called "referendum" and then he rides off in all directions. A referendum if necessary, but not necessarily a referendum. The Prime Minister, by his lack of precision in this matter, seems determined to add another dimension to the uncertainty of our present constitutional crisis.
Our fragile federal system is already sorely beset by fears and anxieties. Those of us who are profoundly concerned about the future of our country-that includes members of all sides of the House-are concerned lest the Prime Minister's conflicting comments of the past few days will add to those fears and uncertainties. Surely, it is the height of irresponsibility for a prime minister to introduce such a far-reaching proposal without any indication of how he intends to implement it. Surely, it is totally irresponsible and an abuse of the office of prime minister to propose in the House a serious measure that could involve very basic changes in our parliamentary system, and then shroud the proposal in circumlocution and speculation. One has to ask oneself if this referendum-cum-plebiscite, or plebiscite-cum-referendum, is no more than a diversionary tactic designed to take the attention of the people of this
The Address-Miss MacDonald
country away from the government's inept handling of economic problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Not only does the Prime Minister's penchant for musing aloud on such a serious matter serve to distort the function of the House; in addition, his subsequent allusion to unilateral action on the constitution which could result from such a referendum seriously undermines and ignores the role of the premiers of the provinces in constitutional reform. At this time of crisis, both economic and constitutional, it is of the utmost importance that the partners in confederation work together and not at cross-purposes. Does the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seriously believe the announcement one day of his intention to visit each premier to discuss constitutional matters, and his allusion the following day to the possibility of unilateral action on the constitution, is the kind of initiative that is conducive to co-operation?
The Prime Minister should recognize that the process of conducting federal-provincial relations requires as much sensitivity and as much consideration as do the substantive measures involved. A viable confederation capable of adapting to the natural forces of social and economic change rests on a process of continuous federal-provincial consultation and accommodation. To be effective, this process of accommodation requires mutual respect and trust between the federal government and the provincial governments. When that trust and respect does not exist, tensions arise which emphasize our differences rather than our common interests.
The conduct of the federal Liberal government in dealings with the provinces over the last ten years has imposed a serious additional strain on national unity. One has only to look at the federal government's record of federal-provincial relations to see this strain. The reluctance of the provinces to enter into negotiations in resource development and the failure of the federal government to produce agreement in the area of social security revenue, after four years of negotiation, are but two examples of the deterioration in intergovernmental affairs that have had direct and, indeed, negative results on the level of services and the prosperity that Canadians should enjoy in this country. These results, in turn, have a direct bearing on weakening the national fabric of our country.
In short, the process of federal-provincial relations over the last ten years-that process itself-has adversely affected the ability of governments to act as a unit. The approach of the present federal government has been to treat the provinces and provincial aspirations as a problem that can only be solved by the central government.
In contrast to this approach, the leader of my party and the then four Progressive Conservative premiers met recently at Kingston and produced, with unanimity, a program for economic recovery and federal-provincial reconciliation. The reason that agreement was produced among leaders with extremely diverse constituencies stems from a fundamentally

October 25, 1977
The Address-Miss MacDonald different approach from that of the government to federal-provincial relations and federalism. The first reason that agreement was reached was that agreement, rather than confrontation, was sought. The second and more important reason was, and is, because the Progressive Conservative party recognizes that provincial governments must be assured that their interests will be recognized and integrated into the development of national policy.
In speaking of the Kingston conference, the Prime Minister attempted in his speech last week to make light of the achievements of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Conservative Premiers regarding entrenchment of equalization payments in the constitution-a proposal, I may say, far more specific and fundamental than that proposed by the Prime Minister at Victoria, or any since. In fact, the latest effort along these lines that the Prime Minister can point to on the part of his government occurred last year during an early stage in the federal-provincial fiscal negotiations, when a major change in the revenue equalization formula was proposed which, if it had been carried out, would have significantly weakened the basic purpose of equalization and created new regional inequities.
Contrast this with the initiative taken at Kingston for the full and formal protection of revenue equalization in the constitution. This initiative was taken by, among others, the Premiers of the two wealthiest provinces as being right and just in the building and maintaining of a sense of national community.
That was one initiative taken at Kingston. There were others: a commitment to annual consultation among first ministers on economic and fiscal policies and goals, so that fiscal decisions taken by one level of government do not distort and frustrate the policies and objectives of the other; a commitment to patriation of the constitution and to the involvement of provincial governments in appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada, a proportion of those to the Senate and such agencies as the Canadian Transport Commission and the National Energy Board, so as to assure the federal nature of these institutions. There was much more.
The Prime Minister not only belittled these initiatives but, as well, sought to distort the position of those at that conference regarding minority language rights in the constitution, a position based on the agreement arrived at by nine of the provincial Premiers at St. Andrew's earlier this year, and endorsed in Kingston.


Stanley Ronald Basford: All proposed at Victoria.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That kind of tactic, of course, should not surprise us. For ten years the Prime Minister has been unrelenting in his deliberate efforts to distort the position of this party regarding the official languages policy, to create suspicion and breed distrust and, to his shame, he does it in the name of national unity. What probably goads the Prime Minister into this reaction is the fact that after his own many attempts ended in failure, the Leader of the Opposition was able to sit down with four provincial Premiers and arrive at

specific, concrete proposals in relation to the problems facing Canadians. The Prime Minister offers us vague generalizations based on his own proposals. The Leader of the Opposition offers concrete commitments based on discussion and agreement with his provincial counterparts: that is the difference.
In a similar vein, I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister's petty reaction towards the Kingston conference is further reflected in his negative attitude toward calling a federal-provincial first ministers' conference both on the problems of national unity and on the problems of the economy.
Some years ago, at the Victoria conference, the Prime Minister proposed that the first ministers of this country meet annually to discuss matters of federal-provincial concern. Since then, the Prime Minister and the Premiers have met every year, and in some years have met two or even three times on matters of urgency. The proposal of 1971 had become a reality-until this year. This year, the year in which the problems that we face have reached crisis proportions, is the only year since 1971 that a federal-provincial conference of first ministers has not been held. The Premier of Ontario has called for one, the Premier of New Brunswick has called for one; and all the Prime Minister will tell us is that he intends to visit the Premiers individually in the near future and that he may or may not call a federal-provincial conference at some future time. The institution of the first ministers' meetings is an integral part of our system, particularly in dealing with constitutional matters. It deserves to be honoured by the Prime Minister. But, instead, he chooses the route of bilateral negotiations.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Instead, he chooses to go and see each of them personally, directly and face-to-face.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: We see the pattern emerging, Mr. Speaker: the Prime Minister believes that he, and he alone, has the right to deal with the issue of national unity. Yet in the 11 months since the election of the Parti Quebecois government, his initiatives have been negligible, his actions few.
The Premiers meet, and nine of them reach accord. The Leader of the Opposition and his provincial counterparts meet and work out specific proposals. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) meditates. He carps about and ridicules the actions of others. But for a year he has existed in a state of semi-paralysis. He neglects the cabinet in his plan for a referendum. He belittles the efforts of opposition leaders. He ignores the calls of the provincial Premiers for a federal-provincial conference; and of most importance to this chamber, he spurns the establishment of an all-party parliamentary committee on national unity. None of the established institutions in this country for dealing with constitutional crisis merit his consideration.
1 remind the Prime Minister that certain issues, because of their gravity and universality, transcend the normal bounds of
October 25, 1977

partisan politics. The question of national unity and constitutional reform is such an issue.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have never heard a more partisan speech.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Were the Prime Minister to show half the respect he should to established procedures and institutions, he would begin by immediately setting up a parliamentary committee to deal with national unity. This party has been demanding such a committee for a long time; but, true to form, the Prime Minister has not heeded such a proposal.
If the Prime Minister cannot accept this recommendation from the opposition, perhaps he might listen to the views of a former Liberal cabinet minister-and there are lots of those. Perhaps he would listen to the views of a man who was asked by the Prime Minister himself to serve on his personal task force on national unity, but who declined. I refer to Claude Castonguay. There was a great deal of speculation at the time as to why Mr. Castonguay rejected the Prime Minister's invitation to join his task force. Well, now we know the reason. Mr. Castonguay felt-indeed, he knew-that there was a more appropriate vehicle. In speaking to the University of Toronto's recent Options Conference, he said that the parliament of Canada and each provincial legislature should form a committee composed of members from every political party.
Mr. Castonguay suggested that these broadly based committees could hear briefs from interested groups and members of the public and conduct their own studies. Then they could formulate proposals for reform. Mr. Castonguay also suggested that implementation of this approach would also depolarize the Trudeau-Levesque debate and put an end to its sterility. It would provide a forum for the majority of Quebeckers who want change but who do not seek independence. That is the advice from a former leading Liberal.
We, the Progressive Conservative members of the opposition, have been calling for such a committee at the federal level, to no avail. We called for it in the House this past summer and were told at that time by the Prime Minister that we were too far into the session to establish such a committee. Would the Prime Minister care to tell us now that we are too far into this session to establish a committee? Will he offer us another excuse, or will he admit that the representation of all parties in the crucial debate on national unity is both necessary and desirable; and will he give assurances that he will act to set up such a committee?
How long does this troubled country have to wait for its Prime Minister to avail himself of the avenues open to him on this issue? How long is the cancer of uncertainty to be nurtured by his neglect? When will this country again be able to look with confidence to its government and with hope to its future? The Speech from the Throne, and the Prime Minister's discourse which followed it, have shown clearly that there is no hope that this will happen in this session.


Ursula Appolloni: Mr. Speaker, if someone were to ask me if Canada has any enemies, I would have to say it has. I would say that I even know the names of those
The Address-Mrs. Appolloni
enemies. They are discord, defeatism, despondency and despair-and anyone who arms those enemies does no service to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: I would like to quote three short paragraphs from the Speech from the Throne;
It can be an era of increasing confrontation, tension and division, or an era of enhanced freedom, cooperation and unity of purpose. Fundamentally, the choice must be made by every citizen every day.
It is apparent to thoughtful Canadians everywhere that this is a time of great decisions for Canada, a time for rediscovering the strength and potential of a marvellously free and caring society.
That rediscovery will require that Canadians rededicate themselves to each other's well-being-
Those are beautiful words in any language, and they sounded much more meaningful because they came from the lips of Her Majesty the Queen, who has shown to us her own personal warmth and sincerity. But words, no matter how beautiful, can be cruel shams unless they are transmitted into action.
I read an article in the Globe and Mail recently. It was a survey of several members of parliament, including myself. It said that there seems to be a feeling among some constituents that the problem we are having with Quebec does not affect every Canadian, that it is something just between our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the leader of the Parti Quebecois, or that it is something just between Ottawa and Quebec, as if it were another tragic "tale of two cities". Those constituents felt it did not concern them; that is the way the newspaper reported it. But I am beginning to wonder if the attitude of those constituents did not reflect some feeling of personal helplessness rather than indifference. What can the individual Canadian do? 1 would like to offer only a few suggestions, because time does not allow me to offer very many. But I hope they are constructive ones.
If the problem in Quebec or with our French-speaking brothers were only a question between two leaders, a kind of one-upmanship, or a question of who is better than the other, I would probably be like everybody else and say that we should sit back and let them fight, knowing very well that one of them would get a bloodied nose. However, it is more than that. If it was a question of two provinces, I would probably say, "Why worry? Let Bill Davis and Rene Levesque fight it out. Why should l get involved?"
However, the whole point is that we are not talking about some little fight or about one-upmanship; What is at stake in this whole tragedy is our destiny and, more importantly, the destiny of our children. Are they going to grow up as citizens of one great, united country, or are they going to grow up in a fragmented society? That is what is at stake. We must assure ourselves, as individuals, that what is at stake is too important to be left to two men, two cities or even to two provinces and each and every one of us has to get involved. How? I thought about that. Again, something happened quite recently. It was the granting of the Nobel Peace prize. While it was for 1976, it was only given a couple of days ago. I read the citation, which is as follows:

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mrs. Appolloni
Mairad Corrigan and Betty Williams acted out of a deep conviction that individual people can do meaningful efforts for peace through conciliatory work.
I put the emphasis on "individual people". When I read that, I decided to find out as much as I could about these two women. Who were they? Did they have some tremendous academic distinction? Are they supported by big government, big management or big labour? Who is behind them? When I did my research, I found out that nobody was supporting them. When asked how they got started, one is reported to have said, "Someone had to get up and do something."
I am not intending to draw analogies between the situation in Northern Ireland and the situation we have here with our French-speaking brothers. I am the first to pray that our differences in this country will never escalate to the type of holocaust that has occurred in Northern Ireland. That is not the similarity. The similarity is what that woman who received the Nobel prize for peace demonstrated. Somebody has to stand up and do something. What a marvellous spirit! That is the kind of spirit that appeals to me. It is the kind of spirit I understand. It is the kind of spirit that is mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and what I want it to be-the Canadian spirit.
What can each and every one of us individually do for our country, not only with regard to political problems but economic problems? Let us start with the political problems. What can we do? If I may, I will address myself primarily to the women of Canada. They are 50 per cent of the population; therefore, we have a very vested interest in this question. What would I, as a woman of Canada, do in this particular situation? I would start by speaking to my French-speaking sisters. I would tell them we have a tremendous amount in common. Like me, most of them are mothers. They have the same aspirations for their children as I have for mine. Their children try just as hard as mine. There is no difference there.
I would then have to be very honest and say to them that mistakes were made in the past. I would tell them that I am really sorry that some time ago, even in the near distant past, their kids had to learn my language before they could communicate with government, theirs and mine. I would say that I am sorry there were other inequities as well. I would then say that things have improved. They really have. I will tell you why I say that. My favourite five-year old sibling is now going through French kindergarten in Toronto. I emphasize, in Toronto, Mr. Speaker. His parents could not do that because they did not have that opportunity. His little brother will go. The time will come when he will go to his French-speaking cousins and feel at home. That is the way it should be.
I would have to say to my sisters in Quebec that they know as well as I do that two wrongs do not make a right. I would have to say that what their leaders are now suggesting is a repetition of past errors. They are saying that if my children go to Quebec, they cannot continue in their language. That is exactly what happened in the past with their kids. They do not want that to happen. My French sisters would probably tell me that it is not just language; there is an awful lot more involved.

I would be the first to agree with that. We do not know about their culture, but what are we going to do? Here, again, I would tell them that things are improving.
A few years ago I telephoned a large radio station in Toronto. I spoke to the disc jockey. I told him 1 liked the music he played, but it saddened me a bit because I never heard music from Quebec. He said they could not play it because no one understood the words. What a lot of boloney! Things have improved. When in Toronto last week, I put on the car radio. The first thing 1 heard was pop music from Quebec. It was great. We cannot accept the phony argument that no one understands the words. Italian and German opera has been heard and loved throughout the world. People do not know the words, but they do not care; they get the feeling of the music, and they love it. A disc jockey might say, with regard to pop music, that it is the lyrics that count. That, too, is a phony, specious argument. You cannot understand most of the words in today's pop music. It is not the king's English, but gibberish. Who cares; the kids like it.
What can we do? We can telephone our radio stations, not just in Ontario and Manitoba but throughout English-speaking Canada, and tell them we believe we are getting a raw deal, that we have heard that the best pop music comes out of Quebec and we want to hear it. We would not do this in order to patronize. Nobody wants to be patronized. It must be because we have heard that it is the best in this part of the world. Somebody has to get up and do something. My Frenchspeaking sisters would say that it is not just language or even just culture, but a lot of other things. My kids are learning French. I am going to make sure they get the benefit of hearing that music, not just to be good to those in Quebec, because that would be silly, but because that music is great. By listening to their records, not only do we get a bit of Quebec-which is a great feeling-but it helps their recording industry. That is the kind of co-operation I would like to stress.
Let us go on to what individuals can do to help, not only the political problems we face at this time but the economic problems. Maybe it is very difficult to divorce one from the other. Here, again, there is much the individual can do. We must realize that the realities of the situation have changed. Now, more than ever, our economy is in a period of transition. Things will never be the same again. We can no longer feel ourselves fortunate because we have so many natural resources at our disposal. We still have them; however, we must realize they are not infinite, but finite. We have to husband them with very great care. No longer can we use oil and electricity as though it will be here forever.
We must individually examine what we do in our own houses. Do we really need all those lights turned on? I am looking around the chamber. I assume that we need all these lights. Apart from the tremendous consumption of energy, they are awfully hard on the eyes. There are many things we can do in our own houses. We have to be very sensible about our energy supplies. We know without doubt that they are finite. Everyone must do his share. I have not been used to this tremendous affluence of energy supplies. It is difficult to
October 25, 1977

suddenly change all one's habits. What we need is not just somebody saying, "Okay; you have to conserve energy; you have to do this and that". This is not enough. You have to motivate people.
I should like to use a word which is not often used any more, and 1 regret it. I should like to say-and this refers to motivation, "Save energy because it is patriotic to do so". There is nothing wrong with being patriotic. I wish we would show a little more of it. Not patriotism of the old type. We are not going back to Rudyard Kipling and fifes and drums. We are not going to ask people to die for their country; we are going to ask them to live for their country. That is the motivation. Let us conserve what we have very carefully. Then, once we have looked at our own houses, let us go out in our community and find out what our municipalities are doing. For instance, how are they treating the disposal systems? Are they doing enough? Then we could turn to the province and finally to the federal government.
We are all vitally interested in this idea of energy conservation. Can we afford to have so much waste? Could we not think more about the advantages of recycling? Jobs are being lost daily. That is a terrible tragedy. But the day will come- hopefully, very soon-when we shall hear that though the old jobs are being lost, new jobs are being created, but not by the government, Mr. Speaker; not by the government.


Some hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Ursula Appolloni: You hear people say, "I should like to do this", or, "1 should like to do that". I ask them why they do not go out and do it, and they reply, "Too much intervention from all levels of government". I say to them, "If you really believe that any level of government is putting a stranglehold on your ability to do things as an individual, I would tell that government to butt out. But once you tell it to butt out by one door, don't ask it to come back through another".
We are still talking about the individual. What can an individual do to help the economy?


An hon. Member:: Why not the government?


Ursula Appolloni: I will tell the hon. member why. It is because I firmly believe it is the sum of individual effort which leads in the long run to the success of the collectivity. It is the individual who matters. That is what our society is all about. It is not what society can do for the individual, but vice versa. Here, again, I speak from the point of view of members of my own sex because they hold the purse strings. Go into any supermarket in this town or in my own city of Toronto and you will find, for example, that the lamb on sale comes from New Zealand or Australia. 1 am not talking about the balance of trade; we all know there must be a certain balance of trade between ourselves and our trading partners. What is it like, this lamb from New Zealand or Australia? It is fatty and indigestible. You wonder why you buy it. When you ask about Canadian lamb, you are told there is not enough Canadian
The Address-Mrs. Appolloni
production. Why not, Mr. Speaker? Then you go into a Greek restaurant in Toronto and you find the lamb is exquisite. What is the difference? Do you know what it is? That lamb is prime lamb from the fields of Ontario.
What about McDonald's? One should thank them for coming into our country, bringing in their capital and providing a certain number of jobs. But ask them where the beef which goes into their patties comes from. Is it grown in Alberta? If they say it is Australian, ask them why they are not using Canadian beef.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget Canadian wine.


Ursula Appolloni: When was the last time you tasted Canadian wine with your hamburger or lamb, or whatever you eat? By jove-just like the pop music from Quebec, I can guarantee it is darned good.
What else can we do? Look at the souvenirs sold at Niagara Falls. Maybe you want to buy something to remind you of your trip. Do you know what it is likely to be? A very nasty, gaudy bauble, and if you look closely at it you will find it was made in Hong Kong or some other place abroad.


An hon. Member:: It is the same everywhere.


Ursula Appolloni: No; there are other places. I will give out a free advertisement. Go into the Davis Agency here, or the Four Corners store, most places around Ottawa, and you will find tasteful Canadian-made things at reasonable prices. These are just a few ideas about what individual consumers can do. 1 suggest that every week when families are checking the shopping list, they should make another column in which to list the country of origin of the items they buy. This is important. We have to help our economy. I know we shall face criticism. Someone will accuse us of narrow self-interest. Like heck! Any neighbour who is a good neighbour will realize that the family comes first. This is the Canadian family, and it has to come first. I am not saying anybody should buy shoddy goods. Such goods deserve to be passed over. But in my experience Canadian goods are not shoddy. Maybe we have not given them the support they deserve. Let us buy all the Canadian-made goods we can.
There is still more to be done. Take the fish we put into our children's sandwiches when they go to school. Where was it canned? If it was canned in British Columbia, and other things are equal, let us by all means buy the product which was canned in British Columbia. If we find that many of the things we want to buy are not made in this country, we shall have to ask ourselves some very serious questions. I am not talking now about goods which cannot be produced here for climatic or similar reasons.
I have been trying all day to find out whether a rumour I have heard is true. The rumour is that only two pulp and paper mills in this country make cartons for milk. 1 can hardly believe it, since almost every day we see in the newspapers big advertisements inserted by the pulp and paper industry of Canada telling us that they are in trouble. So I have been

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mrs. Appolloni
trying to find out what percentage of the milk cartons used in Canada are actually made in this country. I was not able to get a precise answer. What I did get was the information that only 5 per cent of all corrugated paper used in Canada is manufactured in Canada. In other words, with all the forests at our disposal, we only corner 5 per cent of that market. Why do we not have more? Processing paper means more jobs. It is not that we are not capable of processing paper; we can do that and many more things. Is it because our people have a little less courage than others? Let us ask ourselves all these questions, Mr. Speaker.
Still on the economy, I would tell the average Mr. or Mrs. Canadian to be very careful how their representatives negotiate for them in the upcoming GATT agreements. I would tell them that we all know that an industry which is not competitive or efficient does not deserve to be supported. On the other hand, we must be extremely careful to make a distinction, if I may use a very familiar simile, between the child, the infant just learning to crawl, and the lazy teenager. If our infant, our industry, is just learning to crawl, you cannot automatically enter it in a four-mile marathon. We cannot afford to do that. We cannot afford to be the Boy Scouts of the world, even though Canada is great and open. I wonder if the others are as open as we are. What about the absence of tariff barriers on goods from other countries? In the meantime, our people are without jobs. So I say, watch the GATT agreements.
Now the future. At the moment we have a tremendous number of Cassandras-economic Cassandras and media Cas-sandras. It seems to be the great thing these days to say, "Oh, boy, you're going down the drain!" This is not doing us any service at all. What we need now are torchbearers of hope and confidence, and by jove we can have them. As for the future, it is going to be different, vastly different, from the past. It is not going to be an extension of the past, mainly because of our natural resources but also for other reasons. I think we will have to diversify. We will have to use all the imagination, enthusiasm and initiative of which we are capable. We can make the future a better, more humane place, we can have a better environment, if we have proper planning and design and the collective will.
We very definitely have problems, but we cannot allow them to come so near to us that they obstruct or even obliterate our vision. That would be foolhardy and tragic. I should like to refer to a recent report by the Science Council of Canada entitled "Canada as a Conserver Society". It tells us that the future can very well be much, much better than the present, but to what degree will depend upon whether we face the change with inertia, or grapple the challenges with all the enthusiasm, imagination and initiative of which we are capable.
Our long-term policy will be to achieve reliance on sources of renewable energy, aided by improvements in conservation and efficiency. New technologies such as solar heating, electricity from wind and liquid fuels from biomass will probably

be developed economically and on a scale sufficient to meet new demands. The challenge is there, and we have the technology at our disposal. My time is up, Mr. Speaker, but my views are not.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. With the kind permission of hon. members, I should like to inform them of the proceedings on the adjournment motion. 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 Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Public Service-Request that minister intervene in case of Mr. Sant Singh; the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Industry-Closing of fluorspar mine at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland-Government action; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Industry-Request for measures to improve economic conditions.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[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. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should first like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. As individuals they made a valuable contribution, and I do not blame them for the misdeeds of the government opposite which I am going to speak about in a few minutes.
I want to speak this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, as a torch-bearer of hope-the hope this government is going out of office in 1978 and that this country will get on its feet again. I do not believe that what we heard at the opening of this session was a Speech from the Throne. It was a whisper from the throne. It was a whimper from the throne. It was a plea for sympathy from the throne. It was a whine for forgiveness from the throne. It was a subtle and subliminal attempt to "con" all Canadians into believing that they, individually, are to blame for the state of Canada today, not this great wonderful government which sits opposite and which has occupied the benches of power and authority in this House for the last nine years.
October 25, 1977

That is what the Speech from the Throne was designed to do, Mr. Speaker, but it has fooled no one. Despite the fact that it was delivered by Her Majesty the Queen, its content is insipid, to say the least, and its intent is insidious, to say the best. What have we had after nine years? Canada brought to its knees. I do not want to bore the House with figures, but briefly they show that in 1968 the national unemployment rate was 4.5 per cent. In 1967, the year before, it was 3.8 per cent. Today, it is 8.3 per cent-far worse in eastern Canada. In 1968, the inflation rate was 50 per cent less than the present rate of 8.3 per cent. It has doubled since 1968. This year, real economic growth is 2 per cent. That is the best that Pierre can do for economic growth in Canada.
The government's budgetary deficit is $9.2 billion. When I was minister of finance in Newfoundland I thought, "My God how can I ever survive?" But our deficits were not even a twinkle in the eye of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) when compared to this government's deficit of $9.2 billion. Revenue was only $33 billion 50 million. In addition, to such a deficit, hundreds of thousands of Canadians are unemployed; and everyone is suffering from inflation. We have a trade deficit in the billions. We have a Canadian dollar worth 89 decimal point something cents in terms of the U.S. dollar.
Do hon. members remember the "Diefendollar" and how the right hon. member was jeered at, this great man who sits with us on the front benches today? Now we have the floating dollar. It does not matter that it is worth 89 cents; the great answer of those on the benches opposite is that it is a floating dollar. They are very proud of what they call this floating dollar, is like a floating rib or a floating kidney. It is something which was invented by the Liberals and is supposed to be magnificent.
Well, Mr. Speaker, as our leader said the other day, the floating dollar has sprung a leak; we have a pretty leaky floating dollar. It is a Liberal leak. It is an 89-cent dollar, and some experts think it is going down to 85 cents or possibly 80 cents before it comes up again. That is where this government has brought us.
Then we have this pitiful attempt at a budget which was brought in under the Speech from the Throne. I refer to it as a gay budget, because it was sneaked in the back door! It was not brought out like a properly married woman. It was hidden and sneaked into the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is a queer budget. That is where the government has brought us.
National unity is the great Liberal security blanket. They think we are all going to go to sleep worried about national unity, and vote them back into office in 1978. Not a hope! The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cannot lead us to national unity. He has had nine years since being elected into office in 1968. He was elected on the promise of national unity and bilingualism. Where has he led us? Now he wants a confrontation so that he can get on our backs for another five years. Not likely!
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
Hon. cabinet ministers do not need to suck their thumbs. They have the national unity security blanket to get under every night. That will not work for them. That is the direction in which this country has been led.
A prominent Canadian, the ex-premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Joseph Smallwood, has a solution to the national unity question. 1 should like to quote from an article which appeared in a New Brunswick newspaper several months ago. It reads as follows:
... the only way to keep Quebec in Canada is for English-speaking Canadians to "smother Quebecers with love."
1 would not mind doing that in our caucus because there are only two to go. But it would wipe out the Liberal government opposite if we smothered them with love. That is the solution which was proposed by Mr. Smallwood, that we have to smother the Quebecers with love. Our two had better watch out if that advice is taken.
That is the kind of crap and nonsense which is coming from Liberals across this nation with regard to national unity. We are supposed to keep our mouths shut, listen to them, and believe that only they have the answers to these problems, while the unemployment ranks and inflation grow.
Look at Quebec in September, 1977. The unemployment is 10.8 per cent. That was the official figure. Over 10 per cent unemployment! Newfoundland was 15.8 per cent, which is the adjusted figure. New Brunswick was 15.3 per cent. Nova Scotia was 10.4 per cent. Prince Edward Island was 9.3 per cent. All of eastern Canada had over 10 per cent unemployment. That has never happened before. If it happened during the depression, I did not know.
I should like to refer to youth unemployment. In Newfoundland, 22 per cent is the official figure referring to those under 25. In New Brunswick the figure is 19.8 per cent of those under 25. Saskatchewan is the lowest. It is 6.1 per cent. The real rate of unemployment in Newfoundland, according to our statisticians, is 26 per cent. That is the miserable state the country has been brought to by hon. gentlemen opposite. We are told that we should not be Cassandras, that we should not moan and groan, and that we should not complain because it is our own fault. That is what we have been told by the hon. members opposite. On March 11, 1972, the Prime Minister said that we could be obsessed by unemployment. You bet we can. We are obsessed by it.
Now the ministers are coming forth and blaming everyone but themselves. On September 13, for example, the Minister of Finance indicated that foreigners know that Canada is riding through the current world economic difficulties in comparatively high fashion, but Canadians do not have the same buoyancy, and instead we bitch. Are we wrong to complain? Are the hundreds of thousands of unemployed wrong? Are those laid off by INCO wrong? Are those laid off at Stephen-ville wrong? Are those laid off at St. Lawrence wrong? The Minister of Finance says that they are bitchers. The Prime Minister has said that the remedy is not to print money, but to work harder and to be more modest in our demands, in our

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
profits and in our wages. That was said by him on October 6. In other words; "Do what I say and not as I do".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On October 11 in the Sunday Star the Prime Minister indicated that the answer is in ourselves. That has a faint literary ring. He also indicated that the answer is in self-discipline and the sense of values which we develop, that Canadians are a bit soft and have to be told they are soft. That is the kind of government we have. They blame everyone. They tell Canadians that they are soft. Yes, they are soft if they let the next election go by without turfing out the hon. members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Soft in the head. Because of the miserable amount of time we are given in this House to speak, I will refer only to one last quotation. It appeared last June in a newspaper article in British Columbia and reads in part as follows:
Kelowna-Iona Campagnolo, minister of state responsible for fitness and sport, says a federal election probably won't come before June of next year. ..
She also said unemployment and food prices will rise in Canada.
It was a positive promise that unemployment and food prices were going to rise in Canada. The article continues:
Canadians are going to have to understand that the fat times are over.
That is great advice. Yes, the fat times are over. Because of the hon. gentlemen opposite, their fat times are going to be positively concluded as soon as they have the courage to go to the people and put themselves to the test of the electorate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There has been dismal failure in economic matters and in national unity matters. There has been complete, utter, and adject failure of government policy on the question of national unity and regional economic disparity. Nine years ago the government was going to eliminate, brutalize, terrorize, and absolutely stop regional economic disparity in Canada. Of course it has not, no matter what money is being spent.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and some of his Liberal colleagues went for a visit to the province of Newfoundland. They crawled across that province to tell us how good we had it. An article which appeared in The Evening Telegram dated September 13, 1977, reads as follows:
Regional economic expansion has generally failed in Newfoundland in terms of creating new secondary industries ...
It certainly has. The article continues:
Jamieson, who headed the department of regional economic expansion at one point in his political career, said that except for industries native to the region, industrial incentives have not "succeeded to a great extent" ...
Also the article indicates that there was not a complete failure by DREE because of infrastructure and so on. In other words, DREE is just a method of handing out moneys across

Canada to enable provinces to put in infrastructure. Good enough, but it is not overcoming regional economic disparity.
During the last nine years that the government has been in office, it has failed completely, utterly and absolutely. If it had any conscience at all, it would resign quietly. It should go to the electorate and ask the electorate if they want it to return to power. That would let someone else have a chance.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I am delighted to have been appointed critic of industry, trade and commerce. I will be able to have a few dialogues in the House this year with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). He was good enough to come to my nominating meeting just one year and one month ago in order to give me a good send off. Therefore I owe the hon. member something. Now he is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. That is important to Newfoundland, as well as the nation. I should like to give him a hint, that he must concentrate on fisheries and getting our fisheries products into the European Common Market and into countries other than the United States. That will be one of his priorities, if he does not want to have me after him constantly, both in and out of this House.
For the first time in 100 years we have a chance in Canada to break into the European market and markets other than the United States market. This must be one of the objectives of these negotiations which are now taking place under the so-called Tokyo Round. I hope he will not be as vague as he was on "Question Period" two weeks ago last Sunday. I have never heard anything as vague as some of the minister's references on that occasion. He has to do his homework, and I am prepared to wait another three or four days to see if he can be more specific. Also, he should be concerned about the travel deficit.
During last year Canadians travelling outside Canada spent $1.2 billion more than foreigners travelling in Canada. That huge deficit was a record for Canada up to that time. In the first six months of this year the deficit is $1.2 billion, and everyone is indicating that the deficit will be $2 billion by the end of the year, because of Canadians travelling abroad. 1 suppose that is because we are "fat cats", as the minister for sport and amateur fitness would say, or as the minister for amateur sport and fitness would say, or as the hon. fit minister would say. We are spending $2 billion more abroad than foreign tourists are spending here. That cannot continue.
The government has indicated that it is not going to put on mandatory controls. Therefore 1 suggest to the minister that one of his first jobs should be a "ban the tan" campaign. All of us have heard of the "ban the bomb" campaign. What we need is a "ban the tan" campaign. Every Canadian who dares to go south next winter and returns to Canada with a tan should be ostracized. That "ban the tan" campaign should be started now, and perhaps we will be able to reduce that $2 billion deficit next year. If hon. members get a tan from the lights in this Chamber, we can explain that.
October 25, 1977

I have one regret in connection with the Speech from the Throne. Her Majesty was here in Ottawa, we were all delighted to see her and, I guess, the nation was delighted to see her on television, apart from those who were invited by the government to Ottawa, and I will not go into that. My only regret is that Her Majesty's government sitting opposite refused to allow Her Majesty the Queen to visit parts of Canada other than the Ottawa area in 1977, in spite of invitations extended to her. In fact the advice that Her Majesty the Queen received from the government was not to visit the province of Newfoundland, as one example. A petition was signed by practically every member of the population as a declaration of loyalty, but it had to be sent over to London and delivered at Buckingham Palace by the daughter of one of the petitioners. Her Majesty did not come to Newfoundland because the Prime Minister would not advise her to do so. I hope that will not happen again. I hope that never again will the Queen's presence be reserved just for Ottawa and the people in the Ottawa region. 1 do not think that is right or proper.
The Kingston communique was mentioned by my colleague a few moments ago. It was put out by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and four premiers. We now have five Progressive Conservative premiers, half the country, and the Leader of the Opposition, which makes a country and a half, agreeing on what should be done. There are only two Liberal premiers left. The Prime Minister, who speaks for himself, and two premiers speak on those matters, and they scoff at what has happened at Kingston.
1 should like to speak on another subject for a moment. The government is giving advice to the people of Canada. It is telling them that they have to make some sacrifices, they have to produce and they have to lessen their demands, that a lot of what is happening is their fault, that we have to restrict our ability to get what we want, and so on. All this advice is coming to us. But when the people of Canada look at the government for inspiration, what do they see? They see, as our leader pointed out the other day, two cabinet ministers, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), whizzing out to Calgary in two separate jets, landing with their own separate parties, going to the same function, and then flying off again. That is the kind of sacrifice at which the public are looking. They are looking at raw politics in action.
There is supposed to be a great policy of relocating government departments and civil servants from Ottawa to places all around the country. Several weeks ago there was an announcement about relocating 2,500 civil servants and 15 agencies. Seven hundred and fifty people are supposed to go to Sherbrooke. So far as I know, every one of these moves was a move to a Liberal district, and most were removed to a district of a cabinet minister to try to prop them up in their feeble attempts to get elected next year.
The Hydrology Research Institute is supposed to move to Saskatoon. Well, the Minister of Transport may be suffering from water on the brain, but it is a pretty expensive way to get
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
at it to move the Hydrology Institute to examine him. The Farm Credit Corporation is moving to Camrose in Alberta, the constituency of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. If he were still on this side of the House what an outburst we would have heard from him if that move had taken place to the constituency of the Minister of Transport and not to his! That is what the public is seeing from this government which is asking for sacrifice and for restraint. What we are seeing is raw political chicanery in everything it does, from the Queen's visit to relocating civil servants.
One of the things we are wondering about in eastern Canada is that nothing seems to exist outside of central Canada. A happening in the last few days reinforces that impression, that is, the INCO close-downs at Sudbury and in other Ontario and Manitoba communities, resulting in the unemployment of over 3,000 people. It is very bad. But the fuss that is being made here in relation to these shut downs makes one wonder about the situation in eastern Canada. For example, 3,175 jobs will be lost in Ontario as a result of the INCO shut down, that is .078 per cent of the labour force of 4,048,000. Yet in Newfoundland six months ago the Labrador linerboard mill shut down on the west coast of Newfoundland and 1,500 people lost their jobs in the mill and out in the woods. In Newfoundland we have a labour force of 198,000. The loss of 1,500 jobs means that .76 per cent of the labour force became unemployed. Was there any outburst up here in central Canada, or any attention paid to it? No, hardly a twitter.
A mine is closing in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, and 400 jobs will be lost. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not even answer a letter from the Newfoundland government for two and a half months asking him to impose a tariff to save the mine, or to impose a quota. An oil refinery in Come-by-Chance is closing and over 600 jobs will be lost. Is there any fuss, any activity by the federal government to try to get it going again? No, none. All those close-downs will result in 2,500 jobs being lost, almost as many as here in Ontario, but they are being lost quietly despite our cries and our plaintive appeals, the appeals of a few members from that area, members from the west coast of Newfoundland.
The government was asked to assist the Newfoundland government to keep the Labrador linerboard mill going. The Newfoundland government could not keep it going any longer because of the huge expense and because it did not have the financial wherewithal, but the Government of Canada has done nothing in a substantial way to help that concern. In fact it has turned it down. Cabinet ministers say they are not in the business of saving jobs, they are in the business of creating jobs. Yet I look at the September 30 release by the minister's department and I see that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are contributing SI 1.3 million to a firm called Valleyfield Chemical Products Limited to acquire and rehabilitate a CIL factory at Valleyfield to manufacture explosives, much of which is forgiveable and does not need to be paid back. Why is it being given? Because of this federal involvement, 250 jobs will be saved. That is what the release
8002S-17

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
says. So, to save 250 jobs in Quebec it is all right to lash out $11.3 million, but when you ask to help save 1,500 jobs in Stephenville, Newfoundland, you are laughed out of Ottawa. Let us call an election so we can show what we think of that in Newfoundland. This kind of inconsistency will be looked into a lot further before this session of parliament is over.
A civil war is going on between the Government of Canada and the government of Newfoundland. The government here is trying to crush the spirit of the government of Newfoundland. I have at least ten examples that I could give the House if I had the time to show what is happening there. Canada's representative, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is concerned about every country in the world except about the little province of Newfoundland which is being smothered and snuffled by him, by the government of which he forms a part.
A wood cutting project was suggested in connection with the Gull Island project in Labrador. Gull Island will be developed, if not next year, then in five or ten years. All that hydro power will not go to waste for ever; Canada needs it. The environmentalists have said that wood should be cut away on the sides of the lower Churchill river so that the reservoir will be in an area where all the wood has been cut out. The government of Newfoundland suggested to the government in Ottawa that it is a great work creation program which would involve employing some of the 900 loggers laid off at Labrador linerboard to start this wood cutting project on the reservoir. The project would take about four years and would employ about 400 loggers, and it would be worth while because the work has to be done anyway. The officials appeared to be delighted with this sensible suggestion for a make-work project. Yet the answer came months later from the minister of manpower and immigration, the now Minister of Employment (Mr. Cullen), that Canada Manpower cannot approve this proposal until it is certain that the project will proceed, the whole $2.5 billion project. They will wait until it is certain that it will proceed! What malarkey! It might be five years before this happens. That is their answer.
Ottawa must look at environmental considerations before giving the green light, and yet the environmentalists themselves have said that the wood must be cut off before the work is started. The member for the district says that no funding for this project will be considered until an environmental impact study has been done. I think we must do an impact study on this government and impact it right out of office.
Some hon. Mlembers: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: There is a fisheries confrontation. The government, through its Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), is attempting to dominate and crush any plans, policies or suggestions for the development of the fisheries that the Newfoundland government has through its minister of fisheries. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has examined this.
Newfoundland is the province most dependent on fisheries in the whole of the Dominion. Twenty-five per cent of our work force is in the fishery or connected with it, and 10 per

cent of our gross provincial product is involved in the fishery. It has great prospects for the future, yet when the provincial minister of fisheries sent a proposal to the federal government on May 11 outlining what should be done in various areas of the fishery it was repudiated without even the courtesy of a meeting. Most of the proposal was thrown out and the rest of it must wait until this government develops a policy for the Atlantic fishery. The federal minister refuses to meet with the provincial minister.
The Newfoundland government has started a program to build 100 longliners to replace vessels 40 to 65 feet long in the present fleet, but the 35 per cent subsidy that the federal government used to pay has been refused, and now the program will cost the Newfoundland government an additional $12 million. The federal government will not permit the chartering of foreign fishing vessels nor joint ventures.
I do not have time to go into details on all these matters, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry should be permitted to examine the minister and his aides and to invite the minister from Newfoundland and his aides to appear before it to make recommendations in an effort to resolve this problem. That committee should show some guts, and the majority of its members should stop being slavish devotees of the government. This is an area where there is complete confrontation, but because of the British North America Act the federal minister can have the last word. He can have the last word while he is in office, but if he is not in office he can have no words at all. That is what will happen to the minister and this government if they do not adopt a better approach than this to the provinces.
1 have 100 examples, Mr. Speaker. There is the interprovincial ferry service, for instance. As a result of that service coming into operation, coastal boats no longer have to call at settlements, thus saving the Government of Canada great sums of money. The federal government agreed it would pay for the intra-provincial ferry services from certain islands to the mainland because it was saving money on the coastal boats. Now, however, the Minister of Transport tells the government of Newfoundland that it has to take over and pay for the ferry service. His list of crimes of omission and commission is long and I do not have time to deal with it properly.
The Cape Sambro is a trawler. This is the worst incident in recent months. There is a shipyard at Marystown, in the riding of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which is owned by the government of Newfoundland and employs at least 400 or 500 people. In the fall of 1975 the yard had no work and could not get work, so the government of Newfoundland decided to have a trawler built to the same specifications as earlier trawlers in the hope that someone would buy it- perhaps National Sea Products Ltd.-so that the yard could keep going. They spoke to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who told them that if they went ahead he could assure them they would get the 35 per cent subsidy, 22 per cent from the Department of Fisheries and 13 per cent from the Depart-
October 25, 1977

ment of Industry, Trade and Commerce, under regular programs. This was a $4,250,000 vessel so the subsidy was very important in order that the shipyard could compete with foreign yards.
The trawler was built and the minister was contacted about the subsidy in October, 1976, because officials in Ottawa were not talking much about it. There was an offer from National Sea Products Ltd. to buy the vessel for 10 per cent down with a 55 per cent mortgage, and the balance to be covered by the 35 per cent subsidy.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce agreed to pay the 13 per cent subsidy that goes to shipyards, but the Department of Fisheries has resolutely refused to pay the 22 per cent or $935,000, from that day to this. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is defying the Secretary of State for External Affairs saying that he will not pay the subsidy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs came to Newfoundland with his Liberal colleagues last September. He was questioned about this matter, and the following report appeared in the Evening Telegram of October 21:
The federal minister from Newfoundland said Sept. 22 the Cape Sambro affair had been a "foul up from day one" and, without making a specific commitment, said the federal government would do its best to straighten out the situation.
At his side, Fisheries Minister Romeo LeBlanc said on that occasion it is regrettable that the province went ahead and built the trawler on speculation that the full subsidy would be paid. He also said Ottawa would try to resolve matters.
He had better resolve them, Mr. Speaker. It was big of him to say it was regrettable they had gone ahead. They went ahead because his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, said they would get the subsidy. He said there had been a foul up and the federal government would do its best. Mr. Speaker, the best thing it can do is give the money, and if the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment does not, he will have to answer for it when he appears before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. We will deal with him in the House and, as Churchill said, we will deal with him on the beaches and in the fields and in the sea and in the coves until he pays up that 22 per cent that his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, promised the poor little government of Newfoundland.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent. The Chair did not hear unanimous consent and therefore has to recognize the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Robinson).


John Carnell Crosbie: Is it agreed or not, Mr. Speaker, that I conclude?


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Address-Mr. Robinson


John Carnell Crosbie: Let the record show that the Minister of National Revenue-


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair asked was there unanimous consent of hon. members, and it was refused. Therefore the Chair recognizes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to say how pleased I was, and I know members of my constituency were as well, to have the Queen open our parliament recently. I was pleased and honoured to have the opportunity of meeting Her Majesty and His Royal Highness Prince Phillip. This was a great honour shared by many other members of parliament.
In keeping with tradition, 1 should like at this time to extend my congratulations to both the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) on their thoughtful remarks which opened the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I should like to mention briefly the report submitted by the subcommittee on the the penitentiary system in Canada. I will not cover the background of the report because my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), spoke at some length last Friday about the recommendations made and their future implementation. As a member of that subcommittee I want to add that the report we produced was unanimous, representing all parties in the House of Commons. The feedback I have received from experts in the penal field and the general public has been positive and encouraging. The response of the minister, to date, has been reasonably supportive, and I hope that virtually all of the recommendations will be implemented and will receive the unanimous approval of the House.
At this time 1 wish also to thank my colleagues for their support and good wishes on my recent appointment as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Kenneth Robinson: I am not entering my new responsibilities empty handed, without experience, because I have been chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs for the past three years. My duties there were made easier because of the active participation of all members and, as a result, good legislation was returned to the House for consideration and passage.
I want to mention one private member's bill which was dealt with by the committee, Bill C-221, introduced by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), which proposed an amendment to the section of the Criminal Code
8O02S-17y2

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Robinson
dealing with the abduction of a child. When parliament recessed, this bill was under consideration by the standing committee. I am confident that I have the full support of the House when 1 say that 1 hope that this bill will retain its present status so that the witnesses arranged can be heard and a report finalized in this forthcoming session.
When I was chairman of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs I followed with considerable interest and satisfaction the development of federal legislation on social services. As a matter of fact it was my pleasure to address a volunteer agency on the topic about this time last year. This is why I take particular pleasure today in speaking about the legislation which the government hopes to introduce in this session. For those hon. members who may not be aware of the development of this legislation 1 would like to take this opportunity to identify its origins and to suggest the form the legislation might take.
As a result of concerns being expressed by a growing number of Canadians, the federal and provincial ministers of welfare decided to have a look at our country's social security system. A social security review was launched soon after, with the release of the Working Paper on Social Security in Canada on April 18, 1973 by the then minister of national health and welfare, the present Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde).
As a direct result of this review there were a number of improvements in many areas. First, there were significant improvements in the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs. Second, there were significant improvements in family allowance programs. Third, there was increased compatability between the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan. Fourth, there was the introduction of indexing to federal income maintenance measures. Fifth, there was research into how the taxation system could be used to develop benefits for the working poor.
I now come to the developments with respect to social services which have occurred as a result of the review. I feel that the federal and provincial ministers have been particularly impressive in responding not only to the needs of the aged, the handicapped, and children, but also to the changing social climate between 1973 and today, a climate of increasing economic restraint and of changing concepts of confederation. 1 would like to discuss this climate a little more fully.
In the fall of 1974 one of the working parties which grew out of the review, the working party on social services, produced an interim report which contained a critical review of social services in Canada and proposed areas for further study and consideration. Following receipt of this report the then minister of national health and welfare proposed to his provincial colleagues federal sharing in a wider range of services than was possible under the Canada Assistance Plan and additional financing for improved services in the areas of rehabilitation services and support services for the aged and handicapped. In

May of 1975 the welfare ministers met and agreed to develop the necessary legislation in consultation with each other.
A year later, in June, 1976, general agreement was reached on an outline for the proposed legislation on social services. The federal government therefore began drafting the appropriate legislation, and consultation continued with respect to the regulations.
The proposed social services act, Bill C-57, was read for the first time in this House of June 20, 1977. Its presentation had been somewhat delayed by developments in the health sector. New legislation covering the federal contribution to Canada's health services took effect on April 1, 1977.
What is important to remember is that throughout the negotiations the provinces urged that the federal legislation on social services should allow them flexibility to develop services in response to their perceptions of their needs and priorities, provide them with security of financial arrangements, and avoid undue administrative complexity.
As the development of the legislation and the negotiations with the provinces on the regulations progressed, it became apparent that the conditional cost-sharing approach might no longer be the most appropriate instrument to promote the improvement of social services and to provide the provinces with the flexibility they desired. There has been a growing concern that the legislation as proposed might be difficult to administer. It was feared that the introduction of block financing for health services in April, 1977, would make administrative matters even more complex because of the close relationship between many of the services, such as homemakers' services and nursing services.
Furthermore, the trend in an increasing number of provinces was to integrate health and welfare services, thus making less clear the line between them and making certain service definitions difficult to evolve. Too much complexity in a federal-provincial agreement would mitigate against positive working relationships between the two levels of government, and in terms of federal-provincial relations this was an important consideration. However, it was equally important in terms of the development of the sector and the improvement of social services in Canada.
The federal government has responded vigorously and creatively to these concerns. The former minister of national health and welfare made an alternative offer to the provinces which, if accepted, would provide them with the basic financial security they desire, while at the same time allowing them maximum flexibility and minimum administrative complexity.
In September of this year the minister proposed to the provinces that a block financing arrangement be substituted for the conditional shared cost approach which was reflected in Bill C-57. Under a block financing approach the federal contribution in 1978-79 and onward would be based on a per capita formula rather than on provincial expenditures.
The formula provides for expansion and growth in the sector, recognizes price changes, and includes a levelling factor which would bring all provinces to the same per capita pay-
October 25, 1977

ment in ten years' time. The combination of these factors would have the effect of raising the federal per capita contribution of $22 in 1977-78 to close to $70 per capita in 1987-88, given current projections of the rate of growth. The federal contribution in a first full year of operation would be some $700 million.
I would like to emphasize three very important points. Some comments have been made, in the news media and elsewhere, that the federal government's offer to block finance the social services represents a withdrawal from the sector. Nothing could be further from the truth. The government attaches just as much importance to the development of social services as it did when it introduced Bill C-57. Indeed, it has demonstrated that commitment by including in the offer $132 million as its share of the growth and expansion that are necessary in the field of social services.
I would like to emphasize that the block financing arrangement would cover precisely those services which were defined in the social services bill tabled in this House on July 20, 1977.
I should stress that I am referring here only to social services and not to the income maintenance needs of disadvantaged Canadians. Those needs will continue to be met through a variety of federal programs and through the income maintenance provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is still too early to determine what the reaction of the provinces to this imaginative proposal will be, and hence to predict when new legislation reflecting it will be ready for presentation to the House. The Minister of National Health and Welfare very recently wrote to her colleagues and hopes to have their views on this matter in the near future. If the response continues to be as positive as has been evidenced so far, the government will introduce a revised social services bill during this session.
I know of no real reason why the over-all response to this attractive offer should be anything but positive. On the one hand, the governments of the provinces would be completely free to respond to the needs in their provinces in accordance with their own priorities. On the other hand, both levels of government would have their energies freed to work together on social policy issues rather than having to maintain detailed administrative arrangements, with the attendant friction.
In responding as positively as it has to provincial concerns I believe that the federal government is laying the groundwork for an excellent model of co-operation with the provinces which will lead to greater social progress in Canada in a way more in keeping with our developing confederation.
I would now like to direct my comments to our economic policy. In the past year the government has published two discussion papers. The first was "The Way Ahead" and the second "An Agenda for Co-operation". Both papers suggest that it is necessary to find a better way of managing our economy, a more equitable method to spread out the wealth when times are good, and an improved way of pulling together when times are bad. The Speech from the Throne, the address by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and the economic and fiscal statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) all
The Address-Mr. Robinson
echoed a similar theme regarding our present economic state: high inflation, slow growth, and high unemployment. To quote the Prime Minister, "We were in a true sense, a nation living beyond our means."
The Minister of Finance outlined some of the measures that the government will take to improve our present economic climate. I would like to discuss only a few, controls, further job creation programs, and the encouragement to the business sector.
It is two years since the establishment of the Anti-Inflation Board. Controls have helped greatly to check the inflationary spiral. During that period the Board has operated just about on target. Costs have been brought down, wage settlements are down, and the consumer price index has been brought down as well. You will realize that the government does not want to intervene indefinitely. Therefore the Minister of Finance announced that a phase-out of controls will begin on April 14, 1978. The Anti-Inflation Act will be amended, and an agency will be established to monitor price and cost developments.
Many groups have called for the immediate end to controls, but they do not seem to realize that their solution would only result in a rapid escalation of wages and prices, which would feed inflation and which would do nothing toward stimulating the economy or reducing unemployment. This gradual phaseout will allow us to sustain fiscal and monetary restraint.
There is no question that the Canadian economy is facing a very serious unemployment problem. The labour force has grown rapidly, with an especially high influx of young people into the labour market. Youth unemployment is a world-wide phenomenon and Canada has been a leader in providing innovative direct employment programs, the most recent being Canada Works and Young Canada Works. Four hundred and fifty million dollars have been already budgeted for these and other programs. The Minister of Finance informed us that an additional allocation of $150 million would be made available to create work projects in high unemployment areas. It was also stated that the government was exploring a new approach to job creation schemes in the form of a new program of employment credit for private business firms.
I fully support these new measures. However, I am keenly aware that these programs do not provide long term employment. We must look to private enterprise to supply this employment. However, job growth will only result if our industries are capable of better productivity so that they can actively compete in the world market place. There is strong international competition for productive resources and markets.
During the last session the government took several initiatives to assist Canadian business. For example, the Enterprise Canada 77 program is an effort to enhance development in the business community. At this time, all across the country, businessmen are being invited to attend seminars and workshops on export financing, technological innovation, and productivity, to name a few. The Minister of Finance stated that

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. La Salle
the fiscal measures mentioned in the March budget would be reintroduced. These include the introduction of a 3 per cent inventory allowance, the enrichment of the dividend tax credit, and the extension of the investment tax credit.
It is important to note that we have recognized the need for, and are prepared to participate in further consultation and co-operation with the provinces and labour and business, if our industrial sector is to get back on its feet and create the much needed employment for Canadians.
For the last few minutes I have been speaking about what policies the government has taken and will adopt to revitalize the Canadian economy, but at this point I would like to turn the tables, using the Kennedy approach, and ask all Canadians if they are prepared to contribute. To quote the Prime Minister:
What is needed is a simple decision on the part of the Canadian people to co-operate to keep their costs down, to live within their means, to act together in a spirit of co-operation in every area of the economy.
Aside from our preoccupation with the economic concerns of this country, Canadians are individually and collectively reaching out to discover what links us together as a Canadian people and by what means we can express our dedication to the Canadian spirit. With the passage of bill 101 by the National Assembly of Quebec, the national unity debate has intensified. No longer do some of us underestimate the dedication of the Parti Quebecois government, a government which sincerely believes that separation is the only way in which the French culture and language can survive.
All Canadians, French and English alike, are at the crossroads. A choice must be made. Some consensus must emerge on the future of our country. Therefore I was pleased when the Prime Minister announced that during this session legislation would be introduced concerning a referendum, which will allow the federal government to consult with all Canadians on the national unity issue.
The Speech from the Throne reiterates the Prime Minister's wish that we participate more actively in the reshaping of the future of Canada, and to quote from the Speech from the Throne:
The government dedicates itself profoundly to the rediscovery of the spirit of unity. It wishes to learn from all who are interested in Canada and who have thoughts on how it can be a better place in which to live.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this long traditional debate. First, like previous speakers, I would like to congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I admit that perhaps I would not have been as generous as they were in their comments on the throne speech, but anyway they are two new members to whom 1 would like to wish much success in the interests of their own electors.
I would also like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that I represent a constituency which as most others in Canada is now experiencing the problems and concerns stated in the throne

speech. I also come from a particularly tormented province taking into account the political and economic circumstances. My constituency as many others needs a certain economic impetus. Agriculture is also having some difficulties. The unemployment rate is unacceptable and I think that I am only representing a constituency which is not unlike many others. During the next few weeks, no doubt I will have the opportunity to deal with some projects or pieces of legislation that could solve these difficulties. I also hope to have the opportunity to make some comments that will be taken into good consideration by hon. members on the government side.
I listened very carefully to the Speech from the Throne and also with interest to speeches delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). I draw from them all a very clear conclusion: the obvious recognition of a difficult if not catastrophic situation at both the economic and political levels. Of course both speakers called for co-operation from all Canadians to redress the present situation. Both recognized the absolute need to obtain the confidence of the Canadian people, thus inviting as well the official opposition to co-operate with them to help regain this confidence. In ten years, I have never seen a government as ill at ease, as concerned about the various problems as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, can anyone believe that, as members of the official opposition who have the responsibility and duty to denounce, on behalf of the Canadian people and with all our might, the failure of the current administration, we could co-operate with this government and help it obtain this trust? What do they take us for, Mr. Speaker? Could we ask the Canadian people to trust a government which has demonstrated such evident inaction, which has failed to achieve the objectives it had set for itself in 1968, from the "just society" to national unity, which was responsible again quite recently for the elimination of some 6,000 dairy producers in the province of Quebec alone, which had succeeded in fostering so much hope, then creating so many needs which finally turned into so many cruel disappointments.
But then 1 say they are expecting too much from us, much too much indeed. Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a fairly faithful and precise account of the specific reasons why we, members of the official opposition, felt we had to decline an invitation by the minister although he claimed he needed that kind of confidence. Should we remind him of the situation we are facing now? I suppose the Speech from the Throne overlooked this matter of equal opportunities and economic justice, of difficulties and cultural injustice in the future. In my opinion, the Speech from the Throne should have been read five years ago. In my view we are in a slump, therefore, we cannot possibly ask the Canadian people to trust the Speech from the Throne.
I would like to give a few examples to support my statements which are very harsh indeed, Mr. Speaker. When Canada celebrated its centennial in 1967, it was one of the
October 25, 1977

privileged countries in the world. We were a simple, vigorous and flourishing country which could look confidently towards its future. It was a country where, in spite of different origins, languages and cultures, people were showing signs of good will and were ready to make the necessary compromises to live together in some kind of satisfactory cohabitation, so that in spite of the normal frictions and necessary adjustments we were moving slowly but steadily towards a mode of mutual tolerance and harmony. In a word, Canada was moving forward and it was possible to believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right when he said that the twentieth century belonged to Canada.
Ten years have passed and all this is disappearing and will soon be nothing but a memory. Ten years later, we find ourselves in a country stuck in alarming economic programs which are about to paralyze for a long time our economic growth and development, a country divided by political and linguistic prejudices, a country which is wondering about its future. What has happened in this ten-year period to make the butterfly turn into a caterpillar and the dream become a nightmare? In 1968, Mr. Speaker, after the Centennial celebrations, a general election put at the head of the government a man who, we must admit, hoisted himself by the sheer power of his personality and intelligence. So deep has been his influence on the economy and even our national fabric that he unknowingly has confused and cast them adrift. I know that government members will accuse me of petty partisanship because I am attacking their party leader. True, he is a personality above average, but, personally, I am not so blind as to be unable to see him as he actually is.
I am taking the Prime Minister and this government to task all the more easily. I know they are able to defend themselves. I also know that he is a Quebecker just like me and that the words "franfais" and "franchise" have the same root. Whether members opposite admit it or not, I say that the frustrations and difficulties which our country is now experiencing stem from the personality and the behaviour of this government and of the man who has managed the affairs of Canada for nearly a decade, Mr. Speaker.
It has been said that the Prime Minister has charisma, that he exudes an uncommon magnetism; it is true. But it is also true that he flaunts his arrogance, that he knows nothing about flexibility and that he does not recognize his errors readily. It is also said that the Prime Minister is an intellectual, that he is refined, that he is quick-witted, which is also true. But it is equally true that his line of reasoning is often a one-way street, that he plays with words like a juggler, and that he is slow in adapting to new realities. Besides, the Prime Minister himself has in the past said of himself that he constantly sought out new challenges, that he found it difficult to conform, that he loved a tough fight, that he did not care about details, and very little about whether or not people agreed with him. All those aspects of his character, Mr. Speaker, combine to throw light on the ever astonishing performance of the Prime Minister since 1968, in this House as well as outside.
The Address-Mr. La Salle
I wanted to draw that rough sketch of what I believe to be his qualities and his faults, for I feel that therein lies the true explanation for his actions since he has come to power, actions which are but the prelude to the economic and political stagnation in which we now find ourselves.
In his speech last week, the Prime Minister decided at long last to recognize that the country is up against serious economic problems, but again he would have us believe that it all happened as if by magic, because of the economic situation throughout the world, because of inflation, because of unemployment, because Canadians live beyond their means; in short, because of everything save him and his government.
But he took good care not to admit that for the past nine years he had tried to pass as an economist without any qualifications in that field. Nor did he admit that his own views on the most effective ways to fight unemployment and inflation had swayed the Cabinet into adopting short term policies over the past few years, which failed to get to the roots of the problem. Incidently, I would be curious to know the views of the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner on the economic philosophy of the present prime minister. The Prime Minister would not confess that he had made a mistake on the issue of price and wage controls. He scorned my party's suggestions during the 1974 electoral campaign but ended up by having to implement them a year and a half after. The difference is that they were 18 months overdue and were applied without previous consultation with those affected by these measures. And as a matter of fact these controls proved almost ineffective because business and labour were not involved in their application.
Finally, the Prime Minister does not really know how to remove the controls because of the climate of mistrust and uncertainty he created by his attitude in the economic world. Such was the disastrous economic performance of this government for almost 10 years. And it is that same government and that same man who spoke about leadership during the 1974 campaign. In 1972, he had another slogan: This nation is strong, he proclaimed everywhere. Indeed, the country was strong, but he succeeded in breaking it up.
However, the most disappointing performance of the government leader concerns national unity. Our great expert on constitutional matters has done so much that the cannons on the Plains of Abraham are perking up.
Never had separatism been so strong before the advent of this government in 1968. But I suggest that it is himself and his government that are responsible for the rise of separatism in Quebec, because of their arrogance and rigidity, their continuing reliance on the status quo, their obvious contempt for provincial grievances and their morbid fear of giving up the least bit of federal authority. Indeed, he is the man responsible for the rise of separatism in Quebec.
Today, he would have us believe that the separatist thesis and the coming into power of the Parti Quebecois on November 15 are at the root of all the ills suffered by our country at present. But he fails to say that he is responsible for the rigid, insensitive and costly implementation of the Official Lan-

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. La Salle
guages Act which only succeeded in upsetting the Englishspeaking provinces without meeting the aspirations of the province of Quebec that were quite different, Mr. Speaker.
Because he had promised English Canada that his bilingualism policy would deal with the problem of national unity-and he still maintains this-the Prime Minister raised great hopes that were frustrated. Because he always persisted in reducing the constitutional problem to a mere linguistic dimension, he only succeeded in aggravating the grievances of Quebec towards the federalist system.
In addition, how is it that over those years, the Prime Minister has never heeded the growing menace of separatism and did not see fit to warn English Canada about it.
I shall quote his own words to back my contention that either he has very little political foresight, or he was deliberately hiding the truth.
Mr. Speaker, as I have several very interesting quotations to jmake this evening, may I call it six o'clock, and continue my remarks at eight o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Roch La Salle: So I shall continue, Mr. Speaker. Before we adjourned, I was saying that along with my comments, 1 would make a few quotations to illustrate the total unawareness of the Prime Minister, as shown by some statements he made over a number of years.
For instance, in May 1966, he said it was unlikely that Quebec would ever want to separate. In May 1968, he asserted that federalism was gaining ground in the province of Quebec. In January 1970, he said that federalism was not threatened. In July 1971, he contended that his firm stand on the constitutional issue had prevented separatism from developing in Quebec during the past three years. In September 1972, he claimed that as a result of the efforts made by his government, Canadians had never been so united. In October 1972, he predicted that separatism was disappearing in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, those are the statements made by the Prime Minister throughout Canada and in particular in other provinces than Quebec. On top of that, a few months before November 15 of last year, he announced to the Canadian people, and this beats all: Separatism is dead. However, he said, one should not lose all hope since last January, he came back again saying: Separation will not take place. Let us hope for the sake of this country that this time he will be right. But it is above all in his discussions with provincial governments that one can see how great are his diplomatic skill and statesmanship.

In May 1967, he denounces the aggressiveness of provincial premiers. In January 1968, he states that it is time to engage in a fight against the provinces about the constitutional reform. In January 1968, as well, one week before the constitutional conference, he warns Quebec that it empire building is out of the question. In March 1968, he accuses Premier Johnson of negotiating in bad faith. Also in March 1968, he says that the Quebec government is "an insignificant provincial government". In April 1969, he says about Premier Bertrand that he has lost his senses. In April 1970, he describes the Quebec premier as an unimportant provincial politician. In May 1970, he accuses the provincial premiers of blackmail. In February 1972, he accused the British Columbia premier of being narrow-minded. In June 1972, he also called Quebec's claims insignificant. Finally, more recently he derided former Premier Bourassa-one of his cousins-for eating hot dogs.
As you see, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and the government did not spare any efforts to bring about national harmony in this country. If only the Prime Minister would remember a statement he made in 1971. I don't know if my friends opposite remember. He said he would resign if a separatist government were ever elected in Quebec. You will not mind, Mr. Speaker, if I deplore aloud that certain promises prove to be empty words.
From the beginning of my speech I have tried to establish the link between the man who has been running this country for nearly ten years and the dramatic imprint he has left on it. He is, of course, a man out of the ordinary, I admit without hesitation. How could he be otherwise and yet manage to stay in power in spite of so many contradictions, disappointments, mistakes and turnabouts? He has been unique in many respects and it will be said of him that he was not a prime minister exactly like the others. But legend lasts only so long and with the coming winter I find comfort along with a very large number of my fellow citizens in the thought that spring will finally bring the final curtain down on a show that has already lasted for too long. Quite fortunately for the future of Canada, I think we have started the final act entitled: The colossus with clay feet. Mr. Speaker, those statements made across this country knowingly or unknowingly hid the truth. Only the Prime Minister can tell for sure. I made reference to a series of statements which were misinformation spread across Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think that those quotations were correctly interpreted. After reassuring English Canada particularly that separatism will decrease in the province of Quebec, they had the gall to support the CBC when it misrepresented the facts throughout the country. 1 say to all Canadians, Mr. Speaker, it would have been wiser to reflect on the CBC broadcasts instead of believing the Prime Minister's statements, and this, for the last four or five years.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind you, when I say that the separatism issue in the province of Quebec is due to the inflexibility of this government, I would like to remind you also of those negative answers made not only to the present first minister but also to Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Bertrand, Mr. October 25, 1977

Johnson, Mr. L'Allier, Mr. Elardy, Mr. St-Pierre, who relied on a great number of members from Quebec in Ottawa, on representations which fell on deaf ears, and which were so many reasons they gave at that time to the present first minister to reject a federalism that they wished and still wish to be viable.
With regard to the representations made by the province of Quebec particularly, could the government remember also the common front put up by the finance ministers against the federal government and realize that the views of the province of Quebec were also shared by the nine other provinces in some respects. And now, a few days ago, the Prime Minister laughed at us when he said that no government has ever been as flexible as his. But, Mr. Speaker, a few provincial Liberals remember that the measures advocated by this government led to disaster in the last provincial election.
The dairy policy which deprived Mr. Bourassa of invaluable support because of the mismanagement of an ill-conceived, ill-prepared federal policy proved very costly to the Quebec milk producers. I could mention the Ontario milk producers because that issue has not been settled, but 1 will come back to that. Mr. Speaker, for ten long years we have listened to those men, and I say again that they have the gall to ask for our cooperation, to win the public confidence. But the only way to settle that question is not through a cabinet shuffle which will not produce any new ideas due to the absence of new faces.
Mr. Speaker, I remember that it was rumoured at the time of the by-election that the hon. member for Langelier (Mr. Lamontagne) had been promised a portfolio in the forthcoming cabinet shuffle. I realize that he must be disappointed, I am sorry he is absent from the House, and I suggest he could have brought something new to this 10-year old government. The ministers have played some sort of musical chairs; the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was shouting from the top of his lungs last Thursday that the worst thing was the fear of fear itself, not realizing that he was shaking all over as he was saying this. We are not to expect any new idea from this cabinet, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance has been there, with all his colleagues, for the past 10 years and he was supposed to come up with new ideas. What did we get? Leftovers. The government has clearly demonstrated that it is exhausted and the only solution is to get rid of it.


Mr. Bechard:: Are you kidding?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard) is asking me if 1 am kidding, after this huge failure of some 10-year duration in the area of unemployment. Huge failure also in the area of national unity, under a government which still claims to be the government of the people, even after the elections of a separatist party in Quebec.
Furthermore this same government, elected in Quebec, promised ten years ago to achieve Canadian unity. Is it not a colossal failure, Mr. Speaker? And do you suppose that we, the members from Quebec, are going to co-operate with this government in an effort to convince the Canadian people to
The Address-Mr. La Salle
back it up? The Canadian population would resent it, Mr. Speaker. They have shown unparalleled incompetence. And as far as the economy is concerned, to this day this government has shown complete lack of competence and effectiveness; for how long has this been going on?
I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) boast about the tax reduction when we know that our leader and our financial critic have been asking for this reduction for the past two years in order to give a minimum purchasing power to Canadians in view of the absence of positive action and new initiatives. Are we going to support this government, Mr. Speaker? No, we are not and we shall do everything in our power to remind the Canadian people of its colossal failure at the political and economic levels.
In Washington recently, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine certainly heard his beloved leader express his wish to make an in-depth re-evaluation of our constitution and say the exact opposite of what he has been doing for the past ten years. Suddenly, the truth has to come out. Recently in this House he gave us a lecture on history. Canadians know it and Quebecers think that they do too. Mr. Speaker, I believe that because of our responsibilities as members of parliament, we must denounce the stand-patitis of this government and refuse to help it regain the confidence of the people when this government has continually favoured confrontation among unions, businessmen and provinces at a time when it would have been essential to bring all these people together for a round table discussion!
It is unthinkable to try to restore our economic climate without those people, and on this level also, the government is doing nothing. And we know that it needs now the co-operation and the advice of these businessmen. We have been asking for a long time that the government meet with these associations to try to find a way to restore the economic climate, and now of course, there will be the question of a referendum, which is another original idea of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this government to hide the real problems. They are not afraid of increasing the tensions which exist in Canada by using the referendum issue in order to conceal the real problems. These problems have been concealed under the bilingualism issue. As this may show a lack of initiative or imagination, they are coming up with the referendum formula. But this is not what we need. I think, Mr. Speaker, that the important thing is to prove not only to Quebec but to all the provinces that there is a possibility of restoring the economic climate, thereby enabling the Canadian people, both English and French, to fraternize just like they did ten years ago during the centennial celebrations. This is the way to proceed.
When Canadians are made to believe that the solution lies in national unity, this is not true; this is a smokescreen. It is by restoring the economic climate, by establishing a minimum income for each citizen that we will be able to get Quebec and all the provinces around the same table and I would be very pleased to accept this challenge. We now have the proof of the tremendous failure of this government. We, in the opposition, cannot believe for a single moment in the projections made by
262

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. La Salle
the Minister of Finance, for instance, since those made by the previous ministers have proved to be false, thereby embarrassing the government. And the financial qualifications of the Minister of Finance are probably not any better than mine, in spite of all his goodwill, Mr. Speaker, and I shall never go so far as to solicit the Minister of Finance, for example.


Albert Béchard: Good luck!


Roch La Salle: But he has announced measures and estimates which we have heard long ago, with the same economists and the same experts, and which have turned out to be just as wrong. How is it possible to ask the Canadian people to believe in these estimates? It is unthinkable. It has been proven a hundred times, Mr. Speaker, that these were outright misrepresentations and that all the objectives set by the government have turned out to be failures. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will be difficult for me to vote against this throne speech. I repeal that I will not miss the opportunity during the coming session to urge these Quebecers-who certainly feel like interrupting me from time to time-to ask these Quebecers sitting on the other side to consider the responsibilities which fall on their own government.
Is there anything more odious, Mr. Speaker, than to pretend that there are problems in my province since November 15? Mr. Bourassa was saying yesterday in a broadcast that he saw these problems coming for three years and that he deplored the narrowmindedness of his colleagues in Ottawa. So my dear friends, how many times have you made fun of your little cousin? You held him up to ridicule enough, I repeat, to be responsible for the election of a government which aims at the division of the country, and contrarily to what you have told me, you have abused people in the past. I do not seek independence, but between the two extremes-


An hon. Member:: There is the third option!


Roch La Salle: -between the two extremes, contrary to the minister who is speaking of the third option-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roch La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall conclude on this, having no intention of exaggerating. The Prime Minister issued a warning not to opt for a third option. Is it possible, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister contradicts the reasoning and directives of the Pepin-Robarts Commission? Mr. Pepin referred to a third option. Mr. Pepin has been stressing all the time that between those two extremes, independence and the referendum on the one side and centralization and this
[Mr. La Salic.)
government's status quo on the other, we should opt for a central, third option.
Highhandedly the Prime Minister is rejecting the advice given by people he chose himself. Mr. Robarts and Mr. Pepin can give sound advice to the Prime Minister. But he feels that he is Canada, he cannot accept the advice given by Mr. Pepin, one of his former advisers, and Mr. Robarts, a well-experienced man. We should not choose a third option, we should remain by his side. When we were not thinking along the Liberal lines, when we expressed a concern for Quebec and provincial autonomy, we would be separatists. Well, we are neither Liberals nor separatists. Thank God, Mr. Speaker. My feeling is that between those two extremes, there is space for something else and after a meeting our leader recently-


Some hon. Members:: Which one?


Roch La Salle: -after-What an information gap! Those people over there are not even aware! After a meeting, our leader, with the four Conservative premiers-they are now five and this is encouraging-expressed the view that the constitution should be reassessed. We are ready. We are ready to reassess the constitution. We feel the need to reassess provincial jurisdictions. We are among those who believe that the provinces must take part, not in a meeting with the Prime Minister of Canada about decisions which have already been taken, but to prepare records so that the final national decision be shared with the provinces. Recently we had a typical example: once again the federal government offered money to the provinces for insulation programs. But this project is an example, Mr. Speaker, of the generosity of the federal government and is in itself acceptable since the federal government is responsible for conserving energy. We are grateful to the government but as this initiative had not been studied by the provinces, there have been some hesitations.
Is it not possible to get the provinces together, to spell out the proposals and the offers of the federal government and to have all eleven governments agree on how these benefits might be shared? No, Mr. Speaker, instead the government has preferred to tell the provinces: "We have $1 billion to spend and this is how you are going to spend it." This is arrogance my friends and this is the kind of attitude which irritates the provinces. That is what makes the premiers of the provinces so negative towards such policies.
We believe that the provinces must be consulted and there must be a dialogue between the federal government and the provinces. I know that the Prime Minister is much more flexible than he used to be and he always said it, but how many members kept silent, behind him, Mr. Speaker, about the needs of Quebec or of other provinces?
Mr. Speaker, of course we have problems. We want a wonderful country just as much as our friends on the other side, but we do want to have our say, and we do not see any change in that respect. It is unthinkable, Mr. Speaker, to talk about a new and beautiful Canada if this government does not show respect towards the Canadian population, recognizing its own incompetence and failure and its need for the help and
October 25, 1977

assistance of our businessmen, unions and provincial premiers. Canada will have to pay dearly for the pride of its government. The attitude of the government and its outright failure will have terrible economic consequences on Canadians over the next decade. We can expect a hard winter, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Ah! Ah!


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting occasionally to hear the hon. member for Laval. They are people like us, Mr. Speaker. It was also quite interesting to hear someone before me this afternoon say that we should not be negative, that we should remain optimistic. Let us tell the dairy producers about the optimism of the Liberal government. Right now, the government does not obey its own legislation, it is spurning his own agreement. It refuses to subsidize thousands of producers. They have no incentive left.
I know that some hon. members are very disappointed with the policy and attitude of this government. One of them told me so personally. Although it is a professional secret he had the guts to admit it to me. But the government breaks its own law!


Mr. Olivier:: You have been talking for over 40 minutes!


Roch La Salle: I have been given the floor.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: You abuse that privilege!


Yvon Pinard: It is the last time you will get it!


Roch La Salle: I know that I will have the opportunity to address the House again but when my colleague opposite speaks before this House it will be for the first time.


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


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


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to mention that we on this side of the House had the courtesy to let the hon. member exceed his normal 30 minutes' time. But the hon. member knows very well that many other members in this House wish to take part in this debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. So, I am asking him not to abuse the privilege hon. members have extended to him, and to be reasonable if he wishes in the future to avail himself of the generosity of this side of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would suggest to the hon. parliamentary secretary that is not a point of order. The House extended the time of the hon. member so he is entitled to continue.
The Address-Mr. Bechard


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the invitation which, unlike his leader, the hon. member graciously and unpretentiously extended. I am going to show my good faith and allow my hon. friends opposite to criticize their own government as much as it deserves, and if 1 were sure that they would, I would stop talking right now. I do not wish to deprive of their time hon. members who may have a lot to say, so I will merely state that I hope we all realize how important it is to find solutions.
If the opposition were asked to contribute positive steps conducive to solutions, our party would not refuse its cooperation but if our cooperation means we are expected to help this government remain in office, the answer is a definite "no" and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian people will not fail to vote this government out as soon as possible to make room for a new administration.


Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to straighten the facts which were so twisted by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
For instance, when he says that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) refuses a third option for Canada, the hon. member for Joliette knows that he is not telling the truth since the Prime Minister has never said that in his speech to this House. On the contrary, he did say that he rejects the option of sovereignty association but not a third option.
To start with, Mr. Speaker, if hon. members would permit me I would like to express my respect and admiration for our graceful Queen Elizabeth II on the occasion of her Silver Jubilee, and to convey to Her Majesty as well as to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, my appreciation for their presence which greatly enhanced the brilliance of these celebrations in Canada.
I also wish to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, my hon. colleagues from Louis-Hebert and Malpeque (Messrs. Dawson and Wood) for the admirable way in which they discharged their duties.
Mr. Speaker, to some people who are usually found in the opposition, the speech delivered by Her Majesty at the opening of this session offers nothing or next to nothing which might relieve the hardships which Canada is now experiencing. For anyone however who takes the trouble to carefully reread that important document, for instance if the hon. member for Joliette had bothered to read carefully the Speech from the Throne, we would not have had to listen, this afternoon before dinner and since eight o'clock, to the poppycock he has so generously delivered to this House. Any person who reads that speech carefully, Mr. Speaker, will see a large number of measures which prove how serious the government's intents are to alleviate, if not completely resolve our economic problems and one must admit, whatever the hon. member for Joliette may think and say, that since last November 15, with the coming to power in the province of Quebec of the PQ government which is determined to break up this country.
80025-18'/2

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Bechard
The most important measures of the legislative program mentioned in the Speech from the Throne and on which I would like to briefly comment in the time allotted to me under our rules are as follows: Those dealing with economic development, particularly in areas where unemployment is at the highest level, the overhauling of our national transportation system and the issue of Canadian unity.
As far as the economy is concerned, the measures presented to us in the Speech from the Throne and which become clearer as ministers take part in this debate and as this session unfolds, if implemented without too much delay and used wisely by manufacturers and Canadians at large to their advantage in the same spirit that motivated those who drafted them, namely the government, these measures alone, I repeat, should make our national economy healthy again as it has been especially since the last world war.
As representative of an area quite remote from large centres of the country with a relatively small population, I can say that its economic development has not kept pace with that of more favoured areas of this country. Our geographical location still offers a climate which is similar to that of many other more prosperous places in Quebec and in other Canadian provinces. It also has access to the St. Lawrence River, the cheapest means of transportation available and its scenic sites attract thousands of tourists every year. Furthermore its manpower, if given a chance, is characterized by its adaptability to all modern technological changes. Our geographical location as we have always been told is the major handicap to our economic take-off.
Our main natural resources are forest products, fisheries, agriculture, tourism and for the past few years, mining. These are, Mr. Speaker, the five economic sectors from which all the people in my riding directly or indirectly live off. Some commendable efforts have been made in the past few years- this must frankly be admitted, in spite of the objections of my colleague from Joliette-by successive Liberal governments in Ottawa and since the beginning of the 1960's to strengthen the economy of our area including my constituency of Bonaven-ture-Iles-de-la-Madeleine.
For example, in the forestry field, to the important sawmills of the Madawaska Corporation Limited, now the Lacroix Lumber Limited of Carleton, Nouvelle and Causapscal has been added a new pulp and paper mill in New Richmond and this through the policies initiated by the Pearson government, in the form of a tax allowance under regional development to create employment. Let us also point out the policy of land consolidation, more generous subsidies to milk producers, the increased development of tourism, the adequate development of fishing ports at designated places, subsidies for the establishment of various small plants or the improvement of existing ones, subsidies to fishermen and fish producers, increased activity in construction and establishment in our area of the sacrosanct Housing and Mortgage Corporation which up to 1962 was almost totally unknown to us, federal contribution to the improvement of our highway system within the federal-provincial program for the development of Eastern Quebec
(Mr. Bdchard]
and special programs for the creation of jobs: LIP, Canada Works, now Opportunities for Youth Program, manpower mobility program, on-the-job training program, etc.
But since our regional economy had been lagging so far behind, much remains to be done to bring it up to standards. Our people, specially our youths, are leaving gradually for lack of adequate jobs. We must try and free them from their ever present concerns over the spectre of having to depend in such large numbers upon society as a whole, to rely on welfare or too often on unemployment insurance.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, the March budget made me particularly happy, because it increased by 10 per cent the investment tax credit in my area so as to reflect the government's determination to support industrial development and create jobs. I am even happier now since the government announced in the Speech from the Throne that tax reductions will be reinforced to stimulate our economy. I feel the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) and his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) should concentrate their efforts on ways to promote greater productivity, to encourage our small and average businesses through fiscal measures and credit facilities more in keeping with their ability to pay and with conditions more acceptable and more suitable to their type of business.
For instance, we should not penalize the borrower who would reimburse the government or the Federal Business Development Bank before the expiry date. The state should not act as a banker or a money lender to gain benefits or make money. If a businessman or a merchant who borrowed from the Federal Business Development Bank or from some other federal agency is so successful in his business because of that government policy which enables him to repay ahead of time, so much the better for him. This would free funds from which a larger number of small businesses might benefit. Let us relieve them from the petty annoyances of stacks and stacks of paper work such as countless and complicated daily, weekly, monthly, yearly reports and so on.
One businessman in the Magdalen Islands told me recently that one of his employees works only one hour a week for him, spending the rest of her time working for the state to file weekly reports which must be made according to federal or provincial legislation. The individual, the small businessman is therefore an asset to the state, for he must hire and pay an employee to fill in the reports which should be done by a civil servant of the state. The only hour during which that employee who is paid by her employer actually works for him is when she prepares the payroll at the end of the week.
The Speech from the Throne gives us an idea of the government's optimism concerning the benefits which Canada should gain from the multilateral trade negotiations which are taking place in Geneva. I sincerely believe that the future will prove it right. For it is imperative, Mr. Speaker, if we want to keep our traditional industries which generate a great many jobs, such as the textile and shoe industries, industries which
October 25, 1977

are already facing great difficulties, that special efforts be made to make them more competitive than they really are just now. In this respect, my own province of Quebec is seriously affected. The pulp and paper industry is facing enormous difficulties and the province of Quebec, in view of the extent of its forest, is again greatly affected. Under the present conditions, the competition of the United States, which depends on various factors, is almost impossible to meet, partly because of their advanced technology, a climate which is more conducive to a quicker growth, and the cost of rail transportation which is notably too high in Canada.
It is consequential then that I should deal with transportation in Canada and particularly in my area. I could say the same about the whole of Eastern Canada, since the Speech from the Throne indicates without any of the details which will become known later on that several measures will be introduced during this session with a view to improving our national transportation system. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be too soon nor will it be a luxury! Members of the House of Commons have heard me plead rather regularly and often with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) to improve rail, air, sea and even road transportation in Eastern Canada so that 1 do not have to remind you that everything is not working smoothly in that area, particularly in my area.
As far as air transportation is concerned, not to mention the Magdalen Islands or other places, improvements have been required for more than ten years and they are long in being brought about. This means of transportation is so to speak almost non existent on a regular basis in Bonaventure. It seems however that the problem, as far as the Magdalen Islands are concerned, is about to come to a happy ending. I shall therefore refrain from dwelling further on the matter, reserving my comments for some later date, if need be. But, in the part of my riding located on the mainland, the situation is a disaster. Though the Minister of Transport and his officials are aware that there is at Bonaventure a landing strip of some 6,000 feet completely paved and lighted, with possibilities for an extension if warranted, there are hesitations, delays, regrettably, I would even say tragically, about the Gaspe airport as a regional airport, while the DOT experts have said repeatedly that it is impossible to equip it with air traffic instruments (ILS) because of the neighbouring mountains.
Improvements to the islands' airport have been delayed by the difficulties encountered at Gaspe, because, in addition, Quebecair demands the simultaneous development of those two airports. By virtue of what authority are those views now being imposed upon the DOT? The Bonaventure airport, which belongs to the Quebec government, it is true, lends itself magnificently to the improvements that would make of it an all-weather airport where aircraft of all sizes and power could land without any problem. All the government need do is to start negotiations with the authorities of the province of Quebec and obtain its agreement to setting up in that part of the Gaspe peninsula a regional airport from which an airline located in the Magdalen Islands could link the south-east coast
The Address-Mr. Bechard
of Gaspe, Bonaventure, and the islands directly to Quebec and Montreal.
That suggestion, which I have already made to the department, would take away nothing from Gaspe; it would naturally keep its existing airport which in turn could easily be linked with the regional airport at Bonaventure. That solution, Mr. Speaker, would, in the final analysis, be far more logical than that which is being suggested to us by asking the people of Bonaventure, which is located further west, and who want to go even further west, to Quebec, Montreal and elsewhere, to go board the plane at Gaspe, fly some 125, 150 or 175 miles further east, and then come back towards the west. Why, I wonder, can we not use what already exists before thinking of investing millions of dollars in relocating an airport that has already cost several million dollars?
Now, let us consider rail transportation.
In our area as well as in many others in this country, the railway is the most reliable and economical means of transportation and for us, in the Gaspe peninsula, it is the only means of transport we can now rely on. However, as I already said elsewhere, the negligence of the CNR in the field of passenger service, and I apologize to the man who is sitting in the Chair, a former railway employee, their failure to modernize their equipment and their passenger services, for example, has lead to such a disruption of our railway system that unfortunately the people are turning instead to the bus service which is not a very good alternative on long routes such as Gaspe-Montreal.
And now the CNR has asked the Canadian Transport Commission to abandon the passenger service, the only one we have in the Gaspe peninsula, between Matapedia and Gaspe. I had the opportunity to state my objections before the Transport Commission which held public hearings in Gaspe recently, particularly in my constituency, on my behalf and on behalf of my constituents, at this request of the CNR, and to make a number of suggestions. Therefore I shall not repeat the arguments I put forward on that occasion. I shall simply ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the government to categorically and unequivocally turn down that irresponsible and, moreover, unfair request of the CNR.
Our railway companies anxious as they are to make a profit, and to that end to get rid of passenger service, in my opinion and in that of several of my voters and several Canadians, are charging excessive rates, which places our industrialists and businessmen and the products they manufacture in an unfavourable situation in relation to their U.S. competitors, for example. A good example is that of pulp and paper mills which are not only unable to compete in terms of labour costs but are also at a disadvantage with regard to transportation costs. I hope that among the many measures proposed in the Speech from the Throne and aimed at improving Canada's national transportation system, there will be some to correct those anomalies.
I also want to take this opportunity to say that I am dead set against the policy of the Minister of Transport, not the depart-

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. Bechard
ment's, but of the minister who wants the user, in this area of transportation, to pay for the services he obtains, as if he did not, through taxes or transportation rates between Montreal and the Magdalen Islands. Such a policy is perhaps fine for the director of a private company, but when it comes to Crown corporations in a country as vast as ours where transportation costs among other things greatly affect the cost of our manufactured products, and thus the competitiveness of our products on foreign markets, it is not realistic to want to implement such a policy in Canada. Our remote areas will never be able to survive and prosper.
The people in this country are ready to pay for these services and they are already paying a good price, but to add to their burden would be to condemn them to perpetual stagnation. That is why they are prepared to pay directly, but they ask all better off Canadians to help them through the tax system, as has been the case and as is still the case today. If the minister persists in implementing that policy, ferry, air and railway transportation, and consequently the whole economy of our areas, of my area in particular, instead of making progress will decline, including all sectors-forestry, agriculture, fisheries, mining, tourism, and so on.
The measures proposed in the Speech from the Throne, if they are implemented immediately and with good judgment, understanding and consideration for remote areas, will restore the confidence that one can feel is at least shaky in the whole Canadian economic area. But one important factor also that does not help the present Canadian climate is the situation that was created in Canada by the advent in Quebec, on November 15, 1976, of a Parti Quebecois government whose avowed objective, I repeat, is the separation of Quebec from the rest of the Canadian Confederation.
Even though we may be deluded or even taken in by the PQ ministers telling us that Quebec has lost nothing from an economic point of view since this event and that, according to the Minister of Industry, inquiries from interested investors are more numerous than ever in Quebec, we cannot be so sure when we talk to businessmen and industrialists. Their response indicates the opposite. These are simply attempts by the Parti Quebecois to appease the business community and the people of Quebec and to have them forget the cruel facts while the PQ government is busy introducing a whole series of measures for this campaign on the famous referendum, campaign which began on November 15, 1976. Whether we want it or not, whether we shut our eyes or keep them open, the situation in Quebec is reflected everywhere in Canada and in the edginess of foreign investors who would like to come here to improve their Canadian businesses.
What happened in Quebec last November may have been called an accident by some people, but I believe that it would not be realistic or even honest for any Canadian who knows the history of his country or has ever read it to forget that the problem facing our two founding races, French and English, did not start on November 15, 1976. It has existed since Confederation. However, it has become more acute at various stages of our history with the coming into the political arena of

French Canadians, great politicians, leaders inspired by a nationalism which is very healthy and necessary for the survival of the French element, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I came to parliament as member for Bonaven-ture at the time when bombs were being placed in mailboxes in Montreal and under monuments in Quebec city, and so on. I for one have stated again and again to people all across Canada during the centennial year that what Quebec really wanted, was not to be given a special treatment, but to gain recognition of the identity, the language and the culture, of its French majority.
If since Confederation and in the course of these various difficult moments of our country's history all our Englishspeaking compatriots had shown more good will towards and less contempt for those "Catholic French Canadians, those French Canadian Pea Soups", outside as well as within Quebec, if they had understood as fortunately they seem to be doing today, our situation, we would not have had to use for so many years, and now in particular, we would not have had to use and waste our energy, our talent, our time and our money in the difficult economic situation we now know, discussing linguistic questions and constitutional changes. Mr. Speaker, I believe that all federal governments since 1962 have made fantastic efforts which no previous governments had ever made to give Francophones equality in their relations with federal institutions. When one considers the fierce opposition which all measures proposed in that area have met with in this the last half of the 20th century, in 1970-77, in some English-speaking areas, while the unity of our country was at stake, we should not, Mr. Speaker, be overly surprised with what happened in Quebec.
Was November 15, 1976, really necessary to finally get our compatriots or some of our English-speaking compatriots to see the light? What price, Mr. Speaker? I suggest it could have been avoided. But it seems that for some bold ones, you must be near catastrophe before starting to react in the face of danger. Let us still thank providence for even this late conversion of our compatriots or of some of them, and that conversion lets us foresee with confidence a solution to this problem which unfortunately has always divided us.
Quebeckers are federalists, Mr. Speaker. The Quebec people do not want to be isolated on this immense continent. They want to remain Canadians but they want to be full fledged citizens, respected everywhere in Canada, just as they have themselves always respected other Canadians. They want to take part in the great decisions which will affect their daily lives, their own and their children's future. They along with their countrymen want to keep developing this vast country so well endowed with natural wealth, and a great variety of regions which they and other Canadians are so proud and other nations so envious of. They are proud of their peaceful and free homeland which has been built thanks to the sacrifice and hard work of their fathers and ancestors.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote a remarkable paragraph from her Majesty's Speech from the Throne:
October 25, 1977

Few countries are as blessed as Canada, where a wealth of freedom and of this world's goods is apparent for all to see. Perhaps only those who have come here from less fortunate lands can appreciate to the full the great good fortune of living in a country so favored by nature, and so enriched by its cultural diversity.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker,
I suppose that many people in the galleries and many people outside watching cablevision are wondering how all this magnificence came about-the two cameras on either side of me, the two cameras at the ends, and your own seat pushed back, Sir. 1 will just give them one clue and then the knowing people can write in and receive some sort of a prize.
Last year there was one member of parliament who presented a motion to the House and suggested that the proceedings of this august Chamber be presented on television. The motion was debated and, lo, it has come to pass. 1 don't want to identify the member, but I just want to recall to people that in the same parliament as that motion was presented, television came to the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: It was the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, it was not the hon. member for Halifax. It was the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I begin in the traditional way? 1 should like to congratulate the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the Address in Reply to Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne. I do not think there is anything I can say about their contributions except to sum them up in one word-and that word is "envy". I thought they did extraordinarily well. In all the years I have been here I never cease to marvel about the members who come into this House and, for the first time, are chosen to address a group of people who, by and large, are strangers, and make some sense out of what they do and put feeling and passion into their expressions of belief in being a Canadian. It was just a thrill for me to listen to those men doing that. They achieved at the very top level of this special craft.
While I am on this congratulatory kick I look toward Your Honour as you preside over our proceedings, the member of parliament for London East (Mr. Turner), a long-time friend and the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. And I think of your assistant, the hon. member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), and I wish you both well in the duties you carry out. This is a pre-election session and life is not always going to be easy for you; you will not always be looking down and seeing some mild fellow from Halifax-East Hants addressing you. You will be seeing some angry natives around here some night, probably late at night, making your life a little more difficult. In any event, whatever happens this session, we esteem you and we esteem your own particular deputy in the House and know that you will serve us well.
The Address-Mr. McCleave


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Now, Mr. Speaker, television is here and we are all caught in this amazing age. People are showing up. They not only wear shoes, they also wear blue shirts and have this sort of tie and that sort of coat and everybody is getting their hair cut and people ask you where you are on television. My reply is that when the camera which is down behind the government's side fires it shoots over the head of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and through the head of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), and then it turns to somebody whose head is twisted out to the left. That's my camera, and that is where I sit in this Chamber.
Well, we all have to go back to school to learn how best to deal with this particular medium. I should say television here is long overdue. I would say that radio broadcasting of the House of Commons was more than long overdue. It should have been here since the late 1940's because our sound system all along has been good enough, to my understanding, to provide that sort of service. And Canadians should know what the House is all about. They should know that sometimes when the Prime Minister is speaking the benches are almost empty, and that when I show up there are immediately about 200 people who wish to crowd in to hear me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: There is the lone figure who sits up there from Canadian Press to hear me. I am sorry, there are two lone figures now. They are not always alone; there are a great many other people there during question period. I think that the cameras should be allowed to move about the Chamber though I realize that we are under ground rules and perhaps on strict behaviour for this particular week-and I do not see anything wrong with that either, at least until I am finished speaking.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: But we should be portraying more the nature of ourselves as an institution instead of the nature of what people try to pretend we are, whether we ourselves, going on the hustings, or the reporters in the press gallery who are so quick to have second opinions about us. In any event, the television age is here and we all have to live with it. We have to make a presentation of our handling of the public affairs of this nation we call Canada as best we can and I know that every last one of us, when we go home for this weekend with the whole bloom of the week upon us will learn very much from our constituents.
I want to touch on three or four topics tonight in the time which is given to me. One of them arises out of the personal and special interest 1 have as a chairman of a committee in which we have to deal in a special way with the meeting of government and the public. I refer to the Statutory Instruments Committee or perhaps I should say the Regulations Committee-that would probably make more sense to those who are listening to me-dealing with the orders in council

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. McCleave
and the proliferation of documents from ministers, departments, the cabinet and the like which do touch us all very much. The aspect 1 would like to talk about tonight does not deal with all that, but rather with the special case of where a person meets government through a form that has to be filled out to satisfy somebody in a government department. The forms I would like to consider tonight are two.
First of all, there are those which are being presented by the Public Service Commission of Canada to those who are graduating from higher institutions of learning. These are called post-secondary recruitment programs and I have such a form here. By and large I consider it a fair form, with one exception. When one is asked to go into such detail as one's academic achievements or what one has gone through by way of academic studies, notation 17 on this particular form not only asks you for your course number and title, but for the total number of hours per course, the number of credits, the length of the course, and whether it is a half course or a full course.
It seems to me that for someone who has gone through four years of university, for example, to be asked to retrace one's steps through that particular process and try to recall to the exact hour or half hour how much one has done, is going a little too far. These are young people. They may have been gifted when they went through their academic career and that part may have been duck soup to them. They made good marks, met every whim of their professor and wrote brilliant exams. Then suddenly they are thrust into that miserable old thing called the workaday world and perhaps another equally miserable thing known as an employer, one such being the Public Service Commission of Canada.
It strikes me we may be a society which depends too much on forms. You can take a person's social insurance number, take all sorts of other details from them and then give them a mark, A, B, C, or D, and punch it through a computer, but not necessarily come up with anything very meaningful. An absolute dunce might be able to answer these questions completely satisfactorily and be rated very highly, whereas a natural genius might not. I am not sure that Albert Einstein himself in his palmy days would have succeeded too well with this particular form. For one thing he was too diffident, but it is the Albert Einstein that we would like to get rather than some other type.
In any event, I think what is lacking here is a humanistic approach. It is not a question of how well one can fill in a form; it is a question of meeting with a prospective employer, talking with that person and outfolding one's personality in that way. I hope the Public Service Commission of Canada and my old friend, Mr. Edgar Gallant, who is the chairman and the only person in Canada whom I have heard speak English with an Oxford accent and French with a Parisian accent-hon. members can gather how gifted he is-will take these words of mine to heart.
On page 1 I am really surprised to see about one sixteenth of the page-a heck of a lot of space anyway-to decide this

momentous question: "D. Sex (for statistical purposes); Sexe (pour fins de stastiques)". Then there is a space for masculine or feminine, male or female. They give you all that space to make up your mind. I would have thought that about one tenth of the space provided would have sufficed and that the rest of the space might have been used to deal with one's other extraordinary abilities.
Another form I looked at-I searched for it today but it was lost among the other forms in my office-is one dealing with requests for financial assistance from the Department of Fisheries. I hope my hon. friend, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), will look at those forms and that the opposition fisheries critic will nod his head in agreement. He does, but he has not heard my question. That is comradeship and partnership.
What bugs me about the forms that you fill in for the Department of Fisheries is that you almost need a chartered accountant to assist you. Many of these people were not educated beyond the Grade 5 or 6 level. Good fishermen they are; statisticians and fillers-in of forms they are not. I suspect a large number of them miss thousands and thousands of dollars a year to which they are entitled under government programs simply became they do not have the patience or understanding to fill in those particular forms. Since I do not have the form in question here this evening, and I really cannot make my case without it, what I will do is guarantee that I will send the minister a letter containing my views.
I now turn to a national issue, but not one which is going to put any of my colleagues on either side of the House in trepidation in regard to their own brilliant positions as ministers or members of the opposition. What I want to talk about is the need, in my opinion, for a very important program to be carried on for those who are inmates in Canadian penitentiaries. I refer to a legal aid program. These people may be entitled to ask for legal advice and receive it with the state giving them some kind of help.
The reason I raise this matter is that there has been all kinds of correspondence back and forth on this matter between the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox), the chairman of the justice and legal affairs committee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), and others, but somehow the message has not been as strong as it should be.
In my own area of the world, Atlantic Canada, a survey was conducted by the law and social problems class at Dalhousie Law School in 1972. This survey asked inmates of the penitentiaries at Dorchester, New Brunswick and Springhill, Nova Scotia, to identify the legal problems they experienced and how best their needs could be met. Of all the inmates they checked with, some 56.5 per cent had met some legal problem since they entered the penitentiary. But more important than that, 95.7 per cent had no financial means with which they could pay for the services of a lawyer. Their problems were in the area of family law, criminal law, and correctional law. The correctional law referred mainly to debtor-creditor relations or
October 25, 1977

problems. The survey also showed they had rather a hard time in reaching a lawyer.
There is one law firm of which Miss Deborah Gass is a member, called "Penitentiary Legal Services", established in Sackville, New Brunswick. I asked her if they did not get help from the spending estimates which were presented in February by the federal government, would that program be down the drain? At least the people engaged in the program would have to scratch around and do most of their work on other aspects of the law where they had clients who could pay, and then hope that they would be able to give some service to penitentiary inmates. When 1 asked her what it was she wanted, she wrote this to me:
What we suggest is that we be contracted to the federal government or the federal and provincial governments under a cost-share agreement similar to that under which provincial legal aid schemes operate. Services to the institutions is a full-time job and is somewhat specialized, in that most lawyers have little if any familiarity with correctional law.
As a lawyer, I would say "Guilty, Miss Gass; you have described me exactly and, I am sure, most of us in the House of Commons". But while we do not have that familiarity, at least our hearts can be in the right place.
Anyway, she took her case to me and to others and had a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and several of his adornments on the other side, such as the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), and the member of the other place, Senator Margaret Norrie.
She responded positively to us by promising to look into the matter and see what could be done. Since I have put it on record, I know my friends on the other side will also add their very, very strong words.
I asked Miss Gass to do one thing before I took part in the throne speech debate and made this particular plea on behalf of legal services for those in penitentiaries. I asked her to provide me with some illustrations of what they were doing. She sent along 15 cases. I cannot refer to them all now because my time will be running out shortly, but I should like to mention as many typical cases as I can.
I will refer to seven out of the 15 illustrations which were sent to me. The first is the case of a young inmate, age 17, who has been diagnosed as mildly retarded. He was guilty of three car thefts, and the question was if that person should go to jail.
The second one was an inmate being transferred from a federal penitentiary in Dorchester to one in western Canada. He had a valuable ring which was taken from him before he left, so he said. He is trying to get the ring back.
The third one is an inmate who was severely beaten and attacked by another inmate in the prison gym during a movie. It was a fight for compensation under the Innocent Victims Crime Act, and the inmate was rewarded $1,500.
The fourth one is an inmate who had outstanding debts totalling approximately $10,000. He had no assets, and requested assistance in applying for the bankruptcy services of
The Address-Mr. McCleave
the federal trustee. Anybody who says that inmates are free to choose their lawyers like anybody else is wrong. They are in jail and they have no means of earning incomes. They have no money-crime does not pay after all-and then they are being asked to hire outside lawyers, which is impossible. I hope the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General will take this to heart.
The fifth case involves an inmate's father who died suddenly and had named no beneficiary in his insurance policy. The inmate, being the legal heir, sought help to settle the estate.
The sixth case is that of an inmate's mother who wished a divorce. She was on welfare and could not afford the services of a lawyer. Therefore the inmate requested legal assistance for his mother.
The seventh case is that of an inmate who sold his truck but was still owed $110 on it. That might not seem like much to anyone here tonight, but to that person it meant that it was the end of the world. He attempted to contact the debtor on several occasions but received no reply. However, the legal services group sent a letter to the debtor and the debt was acknowledged after a little bit of a fight. A settlement of $55 was negotiated, so the inmate was ahead by that much. The foregoing are some samples of what these people are up against.
If anyone in this Chamber tried to establish a successful law practice with those types of cases, I am sure he would be reduced to living on the parish as well. These people have very human problems. It is a matter of rehabilitating them and returning them to society as useful people. I hope their pleas to myself and others succeed.
In order to follow this up a little bit more, since I promised to spend a larger part of my speech on this subject than any other topic, I would suggest through Your Honour to the Bars of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that being a lawyer is not easy because of the fees and insurance which have to be paid. Someone located in Sackville, New Brunswick, or across the border in Amherst, Nova Scotia, who primarily services the inmates of penitentiaries and other federal institutions, will not come home with any real harvest even if he has received help from the federal treasury. I hope the Bars of those two provinces, which have been very, very co-operative so far, would recognize that there should be some special type of law firm established in that isthmus between New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. 1 am not saying that one has to be a member of the Nova Scotia Bar and not a member of the New Brunswick Bar. The hon. member for Gloucester is nodding his head. I am sure he understands what I am getting at. There must be allowances made for the special circumstances these hot, storefront lawyers are going into when they try to help people.
The name of our particular game in this parliament is jobs. How well we do that and how well we come through the current hardships afflicting the country will make or break a lot of hon. members in this Chamber. I do not think the public expect miracles from us, but they do expect an effort from us. My own philosophy is that I do not believe we can spend our

October 25, 1977
The Address-Mr. McCleave
way to prosperity. We have tried that, and we are approximately $8 billion in the hole this year.


Mr. Crouse:: It is $9.2 billion.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) is referring to $9.2 billion. Because he is more knowledgeable about those figures than I am, he is probably correct. This is a substantial cry from the approximate $7 billion forecast with which we started this fiscal year. We thought the country would go in the hole by that amount. We have proven to ourselves that we cannot spend our way to prosperity. Therefore, whatever initiatives are left to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien)-God knows I feel for the man and I will feel for his successor as well-they will be restricted and will depend on imagination, effort, and some old and ancient concepts which are being rediscovered, such as incentives, good hard elbow grease, and "let the state stay away, we will try to solve it on our own."
The only areas where federal spending can work are areas where federal spending has an obligation to work. For example, we have an obligation to the Department of National Defence. Ships, tanks, airplanes and various other things have to be built. They can be built in certain areas which have shipyards, aircraft plants, or the tank plants. One could use those to buttress the employment there. These things have to be bought. Heaven only knows the requirements of the navy have been put off for a long period of time. Sooner or later the government has to face the fact that these things have to be bought.
There is an absolute necessity for the government to create incentives and to take special tax measures. We will have an opportunity when the Bank Act comes up to see what we can do for small business, and that is important. We will not lose our shirts if we try to devise measures in this parliament which will help the tens of thousands of small businesses across this country to create more jobs.
I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the October 17, 1977, edition of the London Free Press, which reads as follows:
One intriguing new idea has been the proposal by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business that special tax credits be given to firms that increase their employment; it would have its greatest impact on small firms in labour-intensive business. It is these firms which suffer the most from high minimum wages and from their need to match Canada Pension Plan and unemployment deductions, and to pay other fringe benefits-and from the high cost of meeting the myriad requests of government for reports.
That makes an awful lot of sense to me. I should like to conclude by saying two things. One I will say now, the other I will say at a later time. There will be another debate, they always come around. They are like taxis in New York.
What I want to say is that in times of difficulty it is not only for each of us to think of answers but for each of us to provide those answers as best we can. I have not touched on the social problem that is besetting our nation-the future of Canada. I have touched on other matters and I have mentioned briefly

the economic one, but if I had anything to guide me over this particular winter of difficulty, there would be two things: one would be to think Canadian, and the other would be to buy Canadian. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to congratulate the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and of course, my colleague from the Mari-times, the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood). They have both made excellent contributions to the House.

1 might say that when the hon. member for Malpeque was describing his constituency in such a poetic way I thought for a moment that he was speaking about my constituency. In fact, many people do not realize that both my constituency and his are as similar as are other constituencies in Canada, despite the fact that they are in different provinces.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we are now going through difficult times not only in economic but also in politic terms. For the first time in the history of this country, a provincial government wishes to bring about a complete change in the political structures of that province within the Canadian Confederation. As a member of the French-speaking minority outside Quebec, I am most concerned with this matter.
As a matter of fact, all Acadians have been very concerned with the Canadian situation for the past year or so. They are worried because in the past they have benefitted from the fact that Quebec belonged to the Confederation. It would be almost impossible and unthinkable for us, the Acadians who are living in the Maritime provinces, to expect that Canada would make linguistic and cultural concessions to us if it were not for the province of Quebec. The fact that that province which we very much admire and have always been proud of is considering a totally new role within the Canadian Confederation is of great concern to us. Of course, the stand by the Quebec Premier, Mr. Levesque, and his party, advocating independence or sovereignty within an economic association with the rest of Canada, simply means that Quebec considers itself as the only voice of French-speaking Canadians.
The problem of Quebec nationalism is not a new one and we are concerned that the Parti Quebecois put foward such an idea because this concept of Quebec nationalism seems to mean that they will negotiate another arrangement with the other nine provinces on behalf of all French-speaking Canadians. At that time, some concessions will be necessary. Whether we think of a sovereignty-association or a renewed Federalism or any other special status, some constitutional concessions will eventually have to be made to Quebec for the sake of the French-speaking group.
Then the minorities outside Quebec could not claim anything and it would be difficult for them to get concessions as
October 25, 1977

they do today, among other things for instance to work in their own language in the federal public service or the fact that, just as Quebecers, Francophones outside Quebec have legal rights to services in their own language. All those advantages could be lost if Quebec were to quit Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, we often hear, specially from members opposite, that this government lays too much emphasis on the national unity issue, that we have more serious economic problems which need our attention. In the same breath those people claim that we have had problems over national unity ever since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. I believe they mislead themselves if they think that. For many years some regions in Canada have identified themselves on a regional basis, and that may be normal as we have a huge country and a scattered population. So we have more public administration per capita than in other countries.
Therefore regions and people give much importance to their own area; we see in the Maritimes, in the Prairies, in western Canada and in Quebec where it is demonstrated in another way. It all revolves around culture and language. But national tension in this country is nothing new and you do not know the situation if you say that the approach of this government, of this Prime Minister, which created that issue. Indeed, as I said earlier, the nationalist movement in Quebec dates from way back and as you know, Mr. Speaker, because you are from that province, that issue and that concept are not new.
Nowadays, in fact, they are simply expressed in another way, by another group, by another political party and by some people who choose another way even though they have the same idea. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk briefly about my riding, my own area in Canada. I stated earlier that most Acadians, indeed all Acadians, are much concerned by the present situation in Canada and also by the political situation in their own province.
Acadians in New Brunswick have made tremendous progress since the sixties because they succeeded in finding allies among others, in other areas of the province, because they have been willing to accept political arrangements, structural changes, although they were not constitutional structures; they have adopted new political arrangements which gave them the opportunity to restructure their community, to improve their standard of living, but also gave them opportunities on the linguistic side, a legislation on official languages. The Official Languages Act of New Brunswick is very important to us, even though it has some weaknesses and is not perhaps as important from the administrative support point of view as Canada's Official Languages Act. But obviously Acadians, specially those who live in northeastern New Brunswick, are preoccupied by the economic situation. The issue of national unity looms larger than the economic one. We must deal with both.
Playing down the importance of the problem between the two founding peoples of Canada will get us nowhere. Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) made it quite clear yesterday that when tackling both problems and trying to put one ahead of the other, we are mistaken
The Address-Mr. Breau
because if no solution is found to the national unity problem in Canada, the international business community outside this country will always feel some uncertainty about its future, which will affect investments here and our ability to secure markets abroad.
To revert to the economic situation in my riding, in addition to setting up national programs such as those in the social area, health insurance, unemployment insurance, sharp increase in old age pensions, and family allowances, the government has helped out low income areas. Furthermore, since 1966 the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has been involved in special agreements aimed at raising the standard of living and improving the economic structures of northeastern New Brunswick. Between 1966 and 1976 we have benefited from one of the first FRED agreements-the Fund for Rural Economic Development-which is a federal-provincial agreement designed to define certain problems by analyzing them and proposing solutions. This agreement has led to some success but also disappointment in some other cases.
It is very difficult to stimulate development in an area such as ours because as soon as you start defining a problem or identifying it, it is normal that the psychological response from the people living in the area be negative from the outset since people are likely to put the blame on governments or systems which have tolerated the kind of situation in which they have lived for so long. Consequently many hopes entertained by people of our region have been met with disappointment because, when these agreements were announced, they expected that development would be easier than it actually turned out to be. Anyway, the ten-year agreement of 1966 to 1976 has been replaced this summer by a new one signed by my colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) and the premier of New Brunswick. It changes slightly our approach toward development compared to the former type of agreement and we hope it will contribute a great deal more to improving the economic structure of that region.
This agreement provides outlays of more than $95 million within the next five years and is intented above all to create jobs and consequently enhance industrial development. Instead of coming up with social and community development or carrying out social experiments as contained in the former agreement, the new one will have a more industrially minded outlook. It seeks to develop major industrial centres which will attract investments and consequently create jobs. Naturally this agreement must be considered within the framework of other DREE programs such as the road agreement which greatly benefits northeastern New Brunswick and which, we hope, will help in rebuilding a major segment of Highways 11, 17 and 8.
Naturally, the other federal government departments will also have to keep up their good work in the field of transportation, in the field of maritime and marine structures, because the fisheries are very important in that region, and also in many other fields. We have heard a lot lately about the problems affecting the mining sector.

October 25, 1977
The Address

Mr. Breau
There is in my riding an important mining industry, and there are several others in the area, but particularly the most important mining industry in my riding, the Brunswick Mining and Smelting, is also having difficulties because world markets are depressed. And of course, unless that situation improves, many other efforts the government will try to make through the DREE agreement will not meet with the expected success.
Anyway, we are moderately optimistic that the federal government investment will help improve the economic structure of northeastern New Brunswick to the point that our area could become a lot more self sufficient than it has been in the past. But of course, the other economically oriented departments, as I said, will also have to keep on not only planning but investing in that area. And of course, the Canadian economy will have to remain strong, the federal government will also have to carry on its efforts to redistribute wealth in this country if people in that area are really to see a considerable change.
I should like to deal briefly with the debate on the economy now being carried on. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made a very important statement on this.
There is high unemployment in my constituency and it is chronic in that it is bad this year and expected to be worse next year because of restraints in provincial and federal government spending, and also because investment is low. I meet more and more unemployed tradespeople now than ever before. This chronic unemployment problem is due mainly to restraints in spending and less investment by the private sector.
An important aspect of the economy of New Brunswick in the last ten or 15 years has been the construction of major projects in the energy field and some other areas, which have created a lot of economic activity and employment. Tradespeople earn high salaries and this creates an economic spinoff in the whole province, but this has not been evident in the last year and it is not expected any projects will get off the ground in the months to come.
I hope economic restraints can be lifted before too long as the Atlantic economy has suffered more than other parts of the country from their effects. I find the position of the opposition very contradictory when they speak of less intervention in the economy, less spending by government, less deficits-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Hear, hear! Good.


Herb Breau: I am glad the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) emphasizes what I am saying. I wish he could reconcile it with what he said last Thursday evening when he condemned the Minister of Finance for not having done anything. I should like him to explain how he expects the economy to pick up if there is not more government spending in the Atlantic provinces. His colleagues from there always bring pressure for more government spending.

In the month of September my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces and I went around the area and listened to what a lot of community leaders and business leaders had to say. The thing foremost on their minds is the improvement of economic structures, improvement in the standard of living, more investment by government, more spending and more intervention by government.
The Tory party is advocating less government intervention and less government spending, but let us not be fooled by that. They are advocating a system of laissez-faire whereby the private sector will determine where it wants to go. That, of course, would benefit central Canada because that is where most of the industry of this country is located. However, if we want to maintain an equal standard of living and equal opportunities, the government has to intervene in the economy and has to take money from taxpayers and spend to initiate projects and programs across the country so that people across the country can have equal opportunities for finding decent jobs.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member seems anxious to hear from me again, and 1 wonder if he would permit a question?


Herb Breau: Sure, go ahead.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: After nine years of this government is the hon. member truthfully happy with the unemployment level in the five eastern provinces, bearing in mind that the unemployment level in those provinces is approximately twice the unemployment level in the adjacent New England states of the United States where conservative policies have been implemented very much along the line we would like to implement them to relieve unemployment not only in the five eastern provinces but particularly in the hon. member's own province?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question by the financial critic of the Tory Party, but what he does not know is that in the last nine years in the Atlantic provinces there has been a dramatic increase.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In unemployment.


Herb Breau: Back in 1969 when the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created there was an average of anywhere between 5,000 and 7,000 people per year leaving the Atlantic provinces. That situation has now been reversed, and people are coming back to the Atlantic provinces. The participation rate in the labour force in the Atlantic provinces has grown more dramatically than elsewhere in the last nine years, and it has grown a lot more than it has in the New England states.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Herb Breau: I do not want to be distracted by the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I have another question, if I may.
October 25, 1977


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is not for the Chair to decide. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has the floor.


Herb Breau: Sure, I will answer another question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. member. Does what the hon. member just said make the unemployed less unemployed?


Herb Breau: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for York-Simcoe has helped me make my point, and I am happy about that.
Despite the fact that we have a relatively good record of creating employment in Canada and in the Atlantic provinces, we need to create more, for the simple reason that many young people and more and more women are entering the labour force.
When the hon. member and his colleagues continue to downgrade the government because of higher government spending, and when they get worried about government deficits and government intervention in the economy, what they are saying is that those regions should be left alone. It was hypocritical of the hon. member to stand up last Thursday evening and condemn the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and say that his statement would do nothing for regions of high unemployment, and then to turn around and condemn the government out of the other side of his mouth for higher spending when, in fact, if we look at the economic structure of the Atlantic provinces, that structure has always been influenced by the starting up of large government projects in the energy field and in many other fields, either provincial or federal.
What we need in the Atlantic provinces is to have spending restraints liberated, if that is the right word, and to make sure that we can get projects off the ground again. Many people get upset about deficits, justifiably, I suppose. Because the opposition is in the game of politics, it exaggerates the effects of deficits. The reason we have deficits is not that spending has gone wild; it is strictly because there has been an economic slowdown in the world and in Canada. There is less industrial activity, and therefore a smaller amount of corporate tax is being collected. Less revenue is coming in because of the economic slowdown in the western world including this country, and therefore we have a deficit.
Hon. members opposite are saying that we should slash the deficit right away and that it is terrible, because they are interested only in making political points. There are only two ways to slash deficits, either by increasing taxes or by reducing government spending drastically. If we do the latter, the five eastern provinces, and probably Manitoba, would suffer. The other regions of the country would probably be able to get by pretty well.
It is not difficult right now for the Government of Canada to manage its debt and its deficit. The latest issue of Canada Savings Bonds was sold in record time, for the simple reason that people are saving money. I say it is not so bad, at a time of economic slowdown, for the government to have some
The Address-Mr. Breau
deficit financing because people will save their money, and they will be willing to buy Canada Savings Bonds. The hon. member for York Simcoe, who is an expert on banking, has never proven to me that it is difficult for the government to manage its debt. He is also an expert in deficit financing. Let us not get too nervous when the opposition exaggerates the figures. It does so because it is interested in making political points. If we intend to keep this country together and if we intend to have equal opportunities, we cannot slash the social programs we have now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: I venture to say that we cannot continue the spending restraints we have now for too long because unemployment rates in the Atlantic provinces and in some parts of Quebec will rise to a level which will be dangerous socially.
Let us not panic and think we have to slash the good social programs which have been brought in by this government, because they are just as necessary today as they were in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tell that to your ministers.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should not get too concerned about things he hears. He knows he has many friends on this side who will fight for those things he says which are reasonable.


Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: What part is reasonable?


Herb Breau: My colleague, the deputy whip, says the difficulty is finding the things the hon. member says which are reasonable.
I hope that in this session we will see a turn-around in the economy. 1 hope the economy will permit us to increase government spending rather than decrease it. In my area of Atlantic Canada, some parts of Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba, government spending is needed to initiate large projects that will be required. 1 hope we will see this turn-around and that, by the time we have the next Speech from the Throne, the economy will be in better shape.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
October 25, 1977
Adjournment Debate

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on October 20 I raised a question with the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) with regard to a public servant who had been employed in that department since 1967. That public servant is Mr. Sant Singh. He was classified as an ES2 on January 1, 1970. He was and is a member of the bargaining unit represented by the Economists, Sociologists and Statisticians Association, and was covered by a collective agreement.
This question has worried me very much because of its implications for the Public Service of Canada. It is a fact that he had risen in the public service to the fifth salary rate and he had been promoted in terms of his salary in any event to the sixth salary rate. In fact he was receiving a salary at that rate.
In terms of salary, he had crossed the "barrier," as it is known in the public service. That requires approval of the deputy minister or deputy head of the department. He was then informed that, for some reason or other, the department had made a mistake and they were paying him too highly. It was not his mistake. It was a mistake of the department.
In accordance with the standard rules, he was sent for a performance assessment. It is interesting to note that this public servant had two of them. On his assessment, his superior was called, a person who knew him very well. This was his assessment, and I quote:
I am very pleased to recommend that this Departmental Performance Assessment Committee approve the movement of Mr. Sant P. Singh beyond the barrier in the ES-2 scale of rates. Mr. Singh has been a member of my staff since February 24, 1969, and has been classified as ES-2 since January 1, 1970. I have been highly satisfied and pleased with his performance, competence, initiative, and loyalty-
The deputy minister, without interviewing the man, said he was not satisfied with that and sent him back for a second assessment. In the course of this unhappy period, the second assessment was held. Mr. Arthur Smith, his immediate supervisor, was not present on that occasion.
In the meantime, some question had been raised about the fact that Mr. Sant Singh had run in the constituency of Pontiac as a Conservative candidate against the sitting member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre). His judgment was questioned by Mr. Mennie, a member of the department. In fact the evidence was that this had a great bearing on the outcome of the case.
The upshot of it is that he was not approved and he aggrieved. What did Mr. O'Shea, the grievance officer find? First, he found that none of the reports he was entitled to see under the policy of the department would be shown to him.
Second, he found as a fact that the political involvement of this public servant, with consent under the normal rules, had affected the mind of the deputy minister, and that ought not to have been the case.
Third, he found that there had been some hanky-panky in terms of the two different boards, the first assessment board

with one set of witnesses and the other with another set of witnesses. Therefore the evidence was stacked against him.
I asked the minister whether she would intervene to launch an appeal against the appeal that had been launched by the department so that they would withdraw their appeal. Her answer was of course that they do not interfere with the judicial process. All that has happened is that the appeal has been launched. There has been no hearing by the judge.
This case cries out for action by the minister as head of the department. It is her responsibility to intervene for the welfare of her public servants. She has refused to do that. I charge her with dereliction of her duty.
I hope that when the parliamentary secretary rises in his place tonight he will indicate that he has decided to enter this matter and will ask the solicitor of the department to withdraw the notice of appeal so that this public servant, who has been found to be a man of initiative, competence, loyalty, and all the other adjectives which apply to him, can be granted that to which he is entitled, according to the finding of the adjudicator.
This is not surmise. It is not instinct. The cause I plead on behalf of Sant Singh and of all public servants who are caught in this process of hiring and firing in the public service is based on an adjudication. There is no justification whatsoever for Mr. Sant Singh to be penalized, either for his political involvement or anything else. I think the government owes the adjudicator at least the courtesy of withdrawing this appeal, and I ask the parliamentary secretary to relieve Mr. Singh from the burden he bears as a result of the failure of his minister to look to her constitutional duties with respect to public servants.


William Kenneth Robinson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the hon. member for the way in which he has presented the case of Mr. Sant Singh. He has done so from a compassionate and humanitarian point of view, and I think he can be congratulated on his approach.
He has stated that Mr. Singh has been denied advancement because of his political beliefs and because he ran as a Progressive Conservative candidate in Pontiac during the last election.


Walter David Baker: The adjudicator said that.


William Kenneth Robinson: The minister has stated that she does not intend to interfere in any way with the process established by regulations concerning the behaviour, classification and promotion of civil servants, and it would seem that the answer given at that time might have been sufficient for the hon. member. Nevertheless, I propose to go further.
This case revolves around an interpretation of a section of the collective agreement entered into by the employee's union and his employer, the Government of Canada. The collective agreement is with the Economics, Sociology and Statistics
October 25, 1977

Group (ES) and contains a section whereby employees at levels three and five can have their pay increased, or their progression in the pay range accelerated, by progressing beyond the so-called "barrier". Progression beyond the "barrier" is based upon the work performance of the employee. A departmental assessment committee reviews the work performance of the employee and, if that performance in the judgment of the committee meets the necessary criteria, a favourable recommendation is made and forwarded to the deputy minister for approval. If the deputy minister agrees with the performance assessment committee's recommendation, the employee's pay is adjusted to the first step beyond the "barrier". Such progression in the pay range is commonly called "progression beyond the barrier".
It is very important to note, however, that progression beyond the so-called barrier is not a promotion in the sense that the employee has moved up a level in his occupational group. I believe the hon. member told us that really what had happened was that he was given an increase in pay and there was no suggestion he was going to a different level of employment. No appointment is involved; the matter is only a question of pay administration.
The departmental assessment committee which reviewed Mr. Singh's performance in early 1976 issued a report that had conflicting recommendations and contained little supporting evidence in favour of the recommendation that the employee proceed beyond the ES-5 "barrier". The report of a second committee was invalid because of a technical flaw. For these reasons, the deputy minister did not give his approval to the performance assessment committee's report. Because the deputy minister's approval is required by the collective agreement, the employee's pay could not be raised.
Mr. Singh presented a grievance to the department over the fact that he had not been placed above the ES-5 barrier. When this was denied, he referred the grievance to adjudication. At the hearing before the adjudicator, the grievor alleged the collective agreement had not been properly applied with respect to his pay. The employer claimed that progression beyond the ES-5 barrier requires the formal approval of the deputy minister, but because that approval has not been given, the employee cannot proceed beyond the so-called barrier in the ES-5 pay scale.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I see he still has a long statement to make. We are operating under a very strict rule so far as time limitation is concerned and his time has expired, so I guess he will have to pass his answer directly to the hon. member.


INDUSTRY-CLOSING OF FLUORSPAR MINE AT ST. LAWRENCE, NEWFOUNDLAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise in connection with a question I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) on October 20 about a
Adjournment Debate
community which has been sentenced to death by Alcan Limited. This is the community of St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, where a fluorspar mine had been operating since the 1930's. Alcan announced earlier this spring that they were going to close this fluorspar mine, which is the only operating fluorspar mine in Canada.
Alcan still need fluorspar but they are now going to get their fluorspar from Mexico, where they have discovered that, as a result of cheap Mexican labour, they can import fluorspar from Mexico at less cost to themselves than operating the mine they own in St. Lawrence.
To add to the gravity of the situation, the people of St. Lawrence who have worked in the fluorspar mine have had a very tragic history. They worked for at least 30 years suffering unknowingly from radiation as a result of radon gas in the environment, emanating from the fluorspar mine. During the 1930's and 1940's they worked in the most primitive of conditions. The result was that several hundred of these people, a very high proportion of the work force, developed cancer. In the old days this cancer was said not to be related to their working conditions, and for years their widows or dependants did not receive any adequate or any workmen's compensation. This was eventually cleared up in the 1950's when a link was established between their working conditions and the cancer from which they died. In any event, there are books which have been written about this very tragic situation.
Alcan have discovered that they can now import their fluorspar from Mexico more cheaply than they can mine it in St. Lawrence, so they have decided to shut the mine and to lay-off the 400 workers employed there.
There is very little that the government of Newfoundland can do about this. The government of Newfoundland could seize their assets in Newfoundland, but they would be seizing assets which this company has already decided to abandon. The Newfoundland government therefore has no muscle to use on this group of callous employers. The government of Newfoundland is doing some studies to see whether there is an alternate mining operation which somebody else might be persuaded to take on. It is also looking to see whether a fresh fish filleting plant could be established there to provide employment. So the government of Newfoundland is doing what it can.
On July 21 it formally asked the then minister of industry, trade and commerce in a letter from the minister of intergovernmental affairs of Newfoundland whether the Canadian government would impose a tariff on the importation of fluorspar into Canada or impose quotas on fluorspar imported into Canada in order to put some pressure on Alcan to continue the operation of this mine. It was a simple request. No tariff has been imposed on fluorspar until now. It is the only way this decision might be reversed. The Government of Canada did not reply to the letter which was sent three months ago, until an answer was received on October 21 from the minister.

October 25, 1977
Adjournment Debate
I raised a question in the House on October 20, and the present minister did not answer the real question. He indicated that the federal government is making an effort to work out an assessment of the possibility of restoring the mine in order for it to become a viable operation in the future. That is gob-bledygook. That was not an answer from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) to the government of Newfoundland.
A second letter was written on October 11, 1977, and that is the letter to which the present minister is responding. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) has abandoned his 400 constituents. He did not put any pressure on the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, nor on the Government of Canada, to impose a tariff or to impose a quota.
Are we to close down all our industries in Canada? Are we to find Chinese coolies, poor Mexican peasants or whoever, to mine ore more cheaply than we can? Are we to forget the history of the poor miners at St. Lawrence? Are we to abandon them? If there is a lay-off in Ontario, the newspapers are full of it. We have seen the coverage of the recent INCO situation. If it is in Newfoundland, out of sight and out of mind, it is forgotten. That is one of the complaints of eastern Canada. Our people are thrown in the dustbin and forgotten. Therefore 1 object to the Minister's answer which he gave the other day. He indicated that he would reply soon. I also object to the letter he sent down, because it is a nothing letter.
1 ask the minister, through his parliamentary secretary, to have the Government of Canada take some action or explain to this House and the people of Canada what it is doing to protect these people. They have been abandoned by Alcan, which is a multinational corporation. It has no conscience, and these people were abandoned without a twinge of regret. After years of toil, hundreds of men are being deserted, as well as widows and children who are on pensions because of the previous terrible conditions that existed in the fluorspar mines.
In 1975 when I was the provincial minister of mines and energy, I visited the mines. If the mines are abandoned as they are now, they will begin to flood. If the minister does not take action soon, it will be too late. The miners are being laid off now, and the final abandonment will occur in February of 1978. That was postponed because of assistance received from the government of Newfoundland, not the Government of Canada. The minister has little time left, because they are no longer operating several of the shafts. They are starting to flood. People are being laid off now.
Action is needed. If there is no action, then surely the federal government owes an explanation to the people of St. Lawrence of why it cannot take some action to assist them. Are they to be put on the dole because Alcan can buy fluorspar from Mexico? Mexico is a country which pays much lower wages and has much more primitive working conditions than the miners now have at St. Lawrence after 50 years of effort by their union and by themselves to improve their lot.

The minister should be made aware of the fact that his answer is most unsatisfactory. The Newfoundland minister of intergovernmental affairs gave a press conference today to outline to the people of Newfoundland the abandonment by the federal government of its responsibilities to these people. I ask the parliamentary secretary to pass on to his minister the request that some action be taken soon, or confirm the death knell.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) in reply to his recent question that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) has replied to the Honourable T. Alex Hickman, minister for intergovernmental affairs of the government of Newfoundland, regarding the proposed closure by the Aluminum Company of Canada of its fluorspar mining operations at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland, early in 1978.
I should like also to advise that the question of the imposition of a Canadian tariff on the importation of fluorspar is a matter for the consideration of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). In that regard, my minister sent him a copy of Mr. Hickman's letter and his reply for his review.
As far as restricting the imports of fluorspar is concerned, the Export and Import Permits Act requires that certain criteria be met before an article can be included in the import control list. Since none of the criteria can be met in the case of fluorspar at the present time, it is not possible to restrict imports under present legislation.
The government is exploring other means of maintaining mine operations and in this connection the federal and Newfoundland governments have initiated an independent assessment of the possibility of continuing the operation with another operator. The consultant's report is expected within a month.


INDUSTRY-MINING REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO IMPROVE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, October 19, I raised in this House a question with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) regarding the fact that Falconbridge had announced a lay-off of some 500 workers to take effect by the end of December, 1977. I also raised with the minister at that time the fact that rumours were floating around the Sudbury basin with respect to the INCO lay-offs.
The minister replied in a typical manner, that is, he gave me a non-answer to the effect that he was aware of soft markets and he was exploring possibilities of finding solutions to these problems. But as long ago as April 17, 1973, as reported on
October 25, 1977

page 3370 of Hansard, I raised the question with the then minister of manpower and immigration:
Has the minister obtained from International Nickel Company projected employment and production levels at this company over the next few years? If not, is it the minister's intention to ask INCO to provide his Manpower consultative services with such information?
The minister's response in 1973 was to the effect that INCO was not required by law to consult with his department, but that:
the department encourages employers to inform us as early as possible of any decisions that will cause significant employment shifts, expansions and dislocations.
Then there is this gem of a statement in the minister's letter to me, dated April 18, 1973, which reads as follows:
Departmental officers enjoy a good working relationship with INCO, as indeed with corporations in all industrial sectors.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is with incredulity that I heard in the House last Friday, October 21, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) say in answer to a question from a member of the opposition, as reported on page 115 of Hansard:
Second, 1 met with two members from International Nickel who spelled out for us, the night before the announcement, the action they proposed to take.
It is fairly obvious that the government's view of a good working relationship with INCO and INCO's view of such a relationship comprise a phone call the night before a major announcement about a lay-off is made. Needless to say, this government's relationship with Falconbridge Nickel Mines is just as close as its relationship with INCO.
But INCO not only treats the government in an off-hand and cavalier fashion. It even treats its employees' representatives in an off-hand, callous, and lying fashion, because on September 23 of this year, at a meeting held among officials of the INCO, Mr. Woodley and Mr. Kramer representing the company, and Mr. Moreau, Mr. Sammut, Mr. Robinson and Mr. Ayres representing the union of workers at Port Colborne, a meeting which took place at two o'clock in the afternoon, the following question was put to the company, whether they were prepared to consider shifting the Port Colborne workers who were laid off to the Sudbury and Thompson areas. The company replied:
That is correct. We will review the job situation in each of these areas before we would offer jobs at these locations. As we get closer to January, we will have a much better feel of the situation. At present there is no problem for jobs at Thompson. It is felt that by January 30th Sudbury will be in a hiring position.
Those are responsible officials of the International Nickel Company speaking to the workers' representatives at a meeting, and these are the minutes as printed by INCO of Canada.
It is painfully obvious that the government has failed miserably not only in planning the economy of Canada but, what is even more important, in keeping on top of major corporation development plans.
Even as INCO announced the 3,400-man layoff in Canada and we were demonstrating our protest to that announcement
Adjournment Debate
this past week end, a cargo ship, the S.S. Latija, docked in Vancouver from Japan and was unloaded on October 21, 22, and 23. And what was unloaded? Seven hundred boxes, each containing 2,600 pounds of nickel carbonate from Japan. This material, 1,820,000 pounds of nickel carbonate, was destined for the Sheritt Gordon Refinery, Fort Saskatchewan.
What is going on, Mr. Speaker? That is the stuff we produce in the Sudbury basin. We have heard ministers say that our low interest loans to INCO's subsidiaries in the Third World countries are assisting those countries. Why are we importing nickel carbonate from Japan when we produce it ourselves? Since when has Japan joined the Third World?
Today, in meetings between INCO officials, union leaders and provincial government ministers, Dr. Smith, an INCO economist who is also on the board of directors of the company, noted that Japan has very high import tariffs on processed nickel products. They encourage import matter only. It is fairly obvious that the Japanese government places a great deal of emphasis on keeping its industry labour intensive, while we continue to operate like some banana republic.
There is no question that the government has mismanaged Canada's economy. The only immediate response is to instruct INCO and Falconbridge to accept the unions' five-point program, as well as the establishment of a government stockpile of nickel, and to rescind the layoff order at INCO and Falconbridge.
The time has also come for a special parliamentary committee to be established to investigate the metals industry in Canada, and INCO's and Falconbridge's recent layoffs and cutback announcements in particular.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, the announced layoff of some 2,200 people at Sudbury results from depressed market conditions for nickel throughout the world. After the layoffs take effect, INCO will continue to operate most of its Ontario facilities and will employ some 15,000 people in its Ontario division.
Since early 1975 INCO has been producing more nickel in Canada than it has been able to sell in world markets, and has accumulated a very large inventory of Finished nickel products. The excess production resulted in maintenance of employment at the company's Canadian facilities in anticipation of an upturn in world demand. The anticipated increase in demand has not materialized and is not expected in the near term.
A high level of inventories of nickel producers and excess output continue to exert a downward pressure on prices. In order to arrive at a better balance between supply and demand, a rate of production commensurate with consumption and a reduction of inventory are necessary.
In mid 1977 the company announced that it would reduce production at Sudbury and at Thompson by ceasing the hiring of replacements for employees leaving the company's work force.

October 25, 1977
Adjournment Debate
INCO has also announced it will reduce production at its operations in Indonesia and Guatemala to levels substantially below those planned for 1978-79. These operations are based on lateritic ore bodies as distinct from the sulphide deposits which INCO mines in Canada. Nickel output from laterites is expected to become increasingly important in the longer term because the reserves are much larger than Canadian reserves and laterites can be mined by open pit methods which require less labour than the underground mining operations in Canada.
Because of the lack of demand in world markets for most metals, it should be anticipated that adjustments in production rates will occur.
While international consultations amongst producers and consumers might make a contribution toward bringing about
an improvement in the market situation in the longer term, the government's immediate concern is to deal with the threatened lay off of workers in the Sudbury area. It is for this reason that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) is meeting with the company and the union to consider implementation of the various programs under his direction.
I want to assure the hon. member that the government has the real and firm intention of going ahead with programs to help the people of Sudbury, and I do not think we can play politics with such a situation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, October 26, 1977