1977-10-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity regarding the use of national defence aircraft by non-military personnel which is causing dissatisfaction and a lowering of morale in our armed forces. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the matter of the priorities given to dependents of military personnel in the use of national defence aircraft be reviewed by an appropriate parliamentary committee for the purpose of establishing more reasonable priorities vis-a-vis the priorities now enjoyed in the use of these aircraft by non-military personnel.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Considering that almost two years ago the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) had submitted to him a report by his officials warning that future expansion of INCO would take place in Guatemala and Indonesia at the expense of Canada, I move:
That this Flouse condemns the Prime Minister and his government for not taking corrective action during the interim to avert the layoffs which have been announced to take place in Port Colborne, Sudbury and Thompson.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has stated on Canadian television that Canadians do not spend enough in this country and too much abroad; considering that this situation is the consequence of a feeling of uncertainty over the future as well as distrust towards the Canadian economy, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House recommend that a discount on retail prices be granted to consumers on all Canadian products and that to that end the Minister of Finance be asked to make a special study to establish a national credit office which would be responsible for determining the discount rate which it would be advisable to set from time to time.


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 unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RELATIONSHIP OF NITRATE AS MEAT PRESERVATIVE TO CANCER IN HUMANS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I should like to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the relationship of nitrate added to meat preserved in this country to cancer in humans, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare explain to the people of Canada why she has not moved to safeguard their health in this regard.


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

October 24, 1977
Anaconda Brass


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the announcement by Canadian National Railways of its intention to terminate express service in the province of Saskatchewan thereby causing the layoff of a substantial number of employees and the prospect of a decline in express service within the province and the accompanying inconvenience of a great number of Saskatchewan communities, in view of the fact that immediate termination of express service will mean layoffs at the onset of winter when employment opportunities are most scarce and that CN retraining programs commence in the spring, and in the interest of continuing efforts to arrive at an agreement between the province of Saskatchewan and CN to allow for the continuation of CN express service in Saskatchewan, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to request Canadian National Railways to forestall any termination of existing express service in the province of Saskatchewan until at least next spring.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of the impending announcement of Atlantic Richfield Company which owns Anaconda Brass in Toronto, Ontario, to close the Toronto plant employing 870 people which would have a disastrous effect on the employees and their families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to contact the officials of Atlantic Richfield and Anaconda Brass to rescind the impending close-down order and develop strategies to maintain the plant in operation.
[Mr. Speaker.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the trial of communications engineer, Peter Treu, has recently been completed in Montreal behind closed doors and in secret from beginning to end, thereby setting a potentially dangerous precedent and in order to reverse this very dangerous trend of withholding information that is in the public interest as evidenced in the Laycraft commission inquiry in Alberta as well as the Keeble commission in Quebec and the excessive use by this government of Section 41, Subsection 2 of the Federal Court Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House instruct the Minister of Justice to table transcripts of the recently completed trial under the Official Secrets Act of Dr. Peter Treu, edited of course, to omit any matters of legitimate national security.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move an important motion. In view of the fact that Northern Telecom is laying off 1,000 employees despite federal government financial aid of millions of dollars to the company, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) refuses to investigate how Northern Telecom is using government funds, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House instruct the minister to launch a public inquiry into the causes of these layoffs and the relationship of government financial aid thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented pursuant to that Standing Order only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
October 24, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration,
I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Canada is facing a disastrous winter of one million plus unemployed people with serious consequences for the country in terms of loss of productivity and human suffering. In view of the particular vulnerability of one-industry towns and the trouble facing the mining industry, I should like to ask the minister what response we can now expect from the government in the light of the announcement by INCO of major lay-offs in Ontario and, further, the closing down of the ALCAN mines in Newfoundland following the refusal of the union to accept the only positive response from the government, namely, to put forward a proposal for a shared work week supplemented by payment of unemployment insurance benefits?
[DOT] (in?)


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I hope the union will re-examine its position. It would seem to me from reports I have read that the union was rejecting the proposal because it felt it would in some way be subsidizing the corporation instead of looking at the proposal on its merits as one designed to assist the workers.


LAY-OFFS AT INCO-PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH TASK FORCE OF GOVERNMENTS AND UNIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: It has been announced that the government is to meet tomorrow with representatives of the company and the unions, and since it now seems evident that the mining industry, a major employer in this country, is in a serious situation, may I ask what leadership the government proposes to provide to this troubled industry? For starters, given the fact that at least three or four departments of the government are actively involved in this matter, is the government prepared to propose the setting up of a task force combining the jurisdiction of the federal government, provincial government, and the unions?


Alastair William Gillespie: There are two aspects of that matter. On the broader issue, I can tell the hon. member that discussions are going forward between my department and financial officials
Oral Questions
and their opposite numbers in the provinces concerned in respect of the health of the mining industry. As to the suffering, the disastrous news we all received at the end of last week, it is clear that a number of federal departments are involved and they are concerting their actions. There have been discussions between federal officials and the provincial governments-I myself was engaged in discussions this morning with one of the provincial ministers on this question. I think there is an opportunity to provide significant employment in Elliot Lake and I hope it will be possible to work this out with the province, with the companies at Elliot Lake and with the employees concerned, because the uranium mining industry is ready to expand very substantially the operations which now exist.


LAY-OFFS AT INCO-ALLEGED INADEQUATE RESPONSE OF GOVERNMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the
minister this question? If there are on-going studies within his department to determine world market conditions, to compile inventories of raw materials in Canada and to assess the impact both can have on future operations of mining companies in Canada, did these studies prepare the government for this latest announcement by INCO and, if so, why did the government not produce a much better prepared response than we got from the Prime Minister on Friday?


Alastair William Gillespie: Anyone who has been following the mining situation would have recognized that the mining industry was in great difficulties.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you do anything about it?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member who asked that question does not seem to realize that the mining industry is an exporting industry which is dependent upon customers outside Canada. He does not seem to realize, for example, that 95 per cent of the output of domestic nickel is sold to overseas markets and that when those markets are down there is very little the government can do to change the buying habits of people outside the country. I wish there were something we could do in that regard. When the market turns down, as it does from time to time, there are very painful adjustments to be made in this country. I hope the need for these adjustments will be temporary and that we can ease the kind of adjustment which has to be made.


LAY-OFFS AT INCO-GOVERNMENT'S VIEW OF PROPOSALS BY ONTARIO LIBERAL LEADER
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, if there is one who can act. The leader of the Liberal party in Ontario, Stuart Smith, stated on Friday that the Ontario government should demand that INCO cease all operations in Guatemala and Indonesia right now, that all investments they are making with Canadian money in those countries should cease and that
158

October 24, 1977
Oral Questions
any contracts they have with those countries should be filled from the nickel mines in Sudbury. Would the Acting Prime Minister tell the House whether the government of Canada agrees with these policy proposals of the Liberal leader of Ontario, and will the government of Canada direct INCO to cease all operations in Guatemala and Indonesia, that they cease to use Canadian funds for investment in those countries, and that they divert their sales contracts exclusively to Sudbury?


Hon. John C. Munro (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the figures showing the amount of money which the Export Development Corporation has lent INCO are grossly exaggerated. In fact, I have the figures here. In 1973 the Export Development Corporation lent $17.25 million and in 1976, $40 million for their Indonesian operation. The 1976 loan is about 40 per cent disbursed. I might say that all of these loans were made on the undertaking that the money would be used for Canadian equipment, which means jobs, about 4,500 jobs, which otherwise would not have been available to Canadians. When one takes into consideration that very pertinent fact, together with the undeniable assertion, I think, which has been made before, that if we had not lent this money somebody else would, this again redounds to the benefit of Canada in terms of the export of our technology. So all in all, I think it has been a very beneficial thing.
With particular reference to the hon. member's question, 1 think he would be the first to agree that as a government we do not have the capacity to give that kind of direction to INCO. Even if we did, it seems to be a strange policy to be advocated by the official opposition, who have been arguing across the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I think the hon. member is now in fact endorsing this type of policy.


John Carnell Crosbie: We want to know what your position is.


John Carr Munro: If he is, it seems to be a strange type of policy, right now with high unemployment, to try to alienate the private sector, which is the very sector we are trying to stimulate to create jobs badly needed by Canadians.


John Carnell Crosbie: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Acting Prime Minister has certainly misinterpreted my question. I asked him to give me the government's response to policy suggestions made by Mr. Stuart Smith, his leader in Ontario. Mr. Smith also stated that if INCO failed to do these things there was power in the government of the province to force INCO to do them. Does the Acting Prime Minister agree that the government of the province of Ontario has power to make these directions? If not, does the government of Canada; and will the government of Canada accept these suggestions of Mr. Smith? They are not my suggestions; I am putting them forward for an answer.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Smith asked Premier Davis to consider that. I think the hon. member might agree that Premier Davis might have the capacity to answer Mr. Smith's assertions, I do not know. That would be up to the premier of the province to whom this suggestion was directed. I have already indicated my view that I do not believe that as the federal government we have the authority to issue directives of that kind. Nor do I think it would be wise in the circumstances.


John Carnell Crosbie: Would the Acting Prime Minister agree that these are irresponsible and politically motivated suggestions and that they should be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MEMBER OF UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT, WINSTON SPENCER CHURCHILL
Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing with the question period, I know all hon. members would want to join with me in recognizing the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor from the United Kingdom parliament, himself a member of the United Kingdom parliament and the grandson of a very distinguished former member of that parliament. I speak, of course, of Winston Spencer Churchill, member of parliament of the United Kingdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I put my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister contact the real Prime Minister some time today, wherever he may be, and ask him, I request most seriously, to get in touch with Mr. J. E. Carter, chairman of the board of INCO, in advance of tomorrow's meeting to deal with the INCO situation in order to make two important requests. First, will he rescind now the order announcing the lay-offs to take place in three Canadian communities in February; and second, in relation to that, will the government with INCO begin procedures now which could lead to stockpiling of material produced by INCO in Canada on the reasonable grounds that it makes more sense to put money out now, which may be regained later when we sell that, than to spend $20 million in unemployment insurance payouts which will have to be paid if these lay-offs take place? On the grounds that we have done such stockpiling in the past for Canadian farmers, what is good for Canadian farmers surely is good for Canadian miners.

October 24, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the Leader of the New Democratic Party is requesting that I relay his request to the Prime Minister, certainly I will do that.


John Edward Broadbent: Will you support it?


John Carr Munro: He is asking another question now as to whether or not I will support it. As far as stockpiling is concerned, I can indicate only that 1 do not believe that that is any fundamental answer to the question at all. There is indication that there has been months of stockpiling already. Increased expenditures or incentives to further increase those stockpiles seem to be putting off the day when we can get this industry back into a healthy condition to guarantee jobs for the people who are unemployed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know that we stockpiled uranium for seven years and not for seven months, and as the minister is aware, considerable profits were reaped after that period. I do not know why it cannot be done for nickel.


RESOURCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In January, 1976 he had a report which was submitted to him indicating that future development in nickel by INCO was going to be taking place in Guatemala and Indonesia at the expense of Canada. I should like to ask him why he did not make some report to the cabinet outlining the correct steps which should be taken to ensure that these jobs remained in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the NDP seem to find it convenient to suggest the building of a nice, tight little fence around Canada and that we can forget about the rest of the world. They seem to feel that we do not have to concern ourselves with the ambitions of other countries to develop their resources.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Alastair William Gillespie: They seem to feel that somehow or other we can insulate ourselves as a major mining and exporting country from the rest of the world, and I think that is absurd.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister should know the absurd because he specializes in it. With reference to this red
Oral Questions
herring, members on both sides have generally supported assistance for Third World countries. I ask the minister seriously and not rhetorically, does it make sense for the government of Canada to be taking taxpayers' money to encourage the development in other countries of specific industries which will compete with Canadian industries? Given the problems of the textile industry in the province of Quebec, would he favour giving millions of dollars to Taiwan, Hong Kong or South Korea to encourage more sophisticated production of textiles in those countries, which would drive thousands of workers out of work in Canada in the textile industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I put it to the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party: if one of the South American countries decided that it was going to develop its nickel deposits with the assistance of the World Bank and other international agencies and was looking for engineering assistance, hardware and mining equipment, would the hon. member suggest that Canada should stand back and say: "No, we are not going to provide that kind of assistance"?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare to whom I wish, first of all, to extend my congratulations and very best wishes of success in her new duties.
As the setting up, in Canada, of a guaranteed annual income has been the topic of many studies in the last few years and negotiations with the provinces, can the minister tell the House whether she intends to introduce in Parliament during this session a bill providing for the adoption of such a plan, so that we can hope that this new formula will encourage people to work and so help considerably in solving the unemployment problem?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, first, I wish to thank my colleague from the opposition for his good wishes, and tell him that I hope his wishes for success in my work will come true. As for a guaranteed annual income, may I say again what I have already had the opportunity of explaining through the mass media, namely that I shall do everything in my power to take a step in that direction, a big step, I hope; it will, of course, require passing legislation which will reflect the promise of the government to have some form or other of guaranteed annual income. I hope this can be done as soon as possible.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I want to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of National Health and Welfare be in a position to inform the House in a more specific
80025-1 1*4

October 24, 1977
Oral Questions
way of the state of the negotiations with the province of Quebec, considering the situation we all know? Are those negotiations carrying on normally or are there major squabbles which could delay the establishment of such a scheme?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am presently carrying on the negotiations initiated by my predecessor with the provinces, and more specifically with the province of Quebec, on the proposed transfer of lump sum payments under the social services legislation as opposed to the 50/50 formula we used to know. This would parallel the lump sum payments we have already agreed on with the provinces in health matters and which seem to satisfy everybody, providing fewer administrative complications for us and more independence in the program selection for the provinces. I have nothing specific to tell about any province in particular since we are still carrying on negotiations which I feel positive.


ABILITY OF COUNTRY TO AFFORD GUARANTEED INCOME PLAN
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. We have just heard interest proclaimed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in a guaranteed income plan or some take-off on it. Given the fact that the provinces have been very concerned about the possible administration of it, that it could be a disincentive and that it is questionable whether we can afford it, would the minister now be in a position to give us some indication as to whether he has reached any particular decision on this matter? Has he looked into it, and can we afford this year or next year even to consider it?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the latest details, so I could not make any comment of that nature.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
I am very interested in the fact that the Minister of Finance is now saying we should spend more and save less. I hope this does not apply to the government front benches. Given the fact that the government indicated that it wanted to cut the growth of the civil service below one per cent and that it has grown by 2.4 per cent, adding some 14,000 to the civil service rolls, which does not indicate that there is any restraint or discipline, would the minister be in a position to indicate what his target is now with respect to the growth in the public service? Are we still looking toward a cut below one per cent in terms of growth?
(Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).]


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, our commitment was to contain the growth of authorized man-years in the public service under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board to less than one per cent, and that commitment will be met.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, 1 suppose my question will have to be to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises from what the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said and from what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said this morning about the situation with regard to nickel. There is a complete misunderstanding on the part of the government of the problem which is clearly and simply the fact, not that the economies of the world are slowed down, but that Canada has gone from supplying 95 per cent of the world's nickel to 40 per cent. 1 would like a very specific answer to this question. Has the minister's department protested to GATT, as it may do, about the fact, as asserted by the Minister of Finance on Friday, that one of the reasons Canada is losing its share is that dumping by other countries, and particularly a firm called AMEX, is taking place? Under GATT there does not have to be dumping into our country, but if we think there is dumping, we can protest. Has the department officially protested to GATT in order to protect our share of the market in the world of nickel, which could provide the employment we are trying to get?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for the preamble to his question. I will not argue with him about the share of the market we are receiving. However, I do think that there are a couple of other considerations, and I am sure he would agree, if there was time to discuss them. On the specifics of his question, we are examining now whether a legal case exists for us to make such a representation. An examination of the AMEX proposal is now going on, and if in fact there is a technique or a means by which a formal representation can be made to GATT, this will be done.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In its operation of the Export Development Corporation and in its foreign trade activities, is it the position of the government that the government is properly
October 24, 1977

carrying out its responsibilities by funding activities which will in fact become competitive with Canadian jobs?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to an earlier answer I gave to the House, he would understand the situation.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully and was so shocked by the answer I could not believe a responsible minister would give it. Is the minister suggesting that we should trade off short-term one item sales in mining equipment against the possibility of maintaining a strong and forceful position for the nickel industry in the markets of the world?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member supports the hewers of wood and drawers of water approach to Canadian policy.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Alastair William Gillespie: He made that very clear a little while ago. If the hon. member is really sincere in that position, we should not export any machinery to anybody if that machinery might compete with a product which is made in Canada.


POST OFFICE
Hon. Walter Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General, who has some responsibility for a department which is vital to the employment situation and economic stability of this country. Now that a senior official of the Post Office Department has added his voice to the request of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, along with 79 per cent of the members of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, spokesmen for the opposition parties in this House and a growing number of exasperated Canadians, in asking the Government of Canada to consider replacing the bureaucratic tangle of departments and agencies running Canada's Post Office with a Crown corporation type of organization, would the Postmaster General inform the House and the Canadian public what action he is taking on the matter?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there has been in the past serious consideration to making the Post Office a Crown corporation. However, as he knows as well, our deficits have progressed from somewhere in the vicinity of $70 million some five years ago to approximately $560 million for the current fiscal year. At a time when that much public funding is involved in postal operations, surely it is essential that the government keep its hand in the operation and maintain the operation of the Post Office in order to ensure that the expenditures are kept at the lowest possible level.
Oral Questions


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does the Postmaster General feel that Canadians can continue to afford a half billion dollar deficit in the Post Office which results from mismanagement, inefficiency and continuing labour-management confrontation?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the increase in the deficit bears no relationship at all to the question of management or efficiency. It is a question of increased labour costs and transportation costs. I hope that the hon. gentleman will wait until Friday when 1 am prepared to participate in the throne speech debate and will inform the House completely of the situation relating to the post office.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport regarding whether air traffic movement at Toronto international airport has at last returned to normal; that is, to the rate that was considered normal and safe until parliament acted to order the air traffic controllers back to work and their apparent slowdown began?


Hon. Otto E. Fang@Minister of Transport: Mr. Speaker, the procedures being followed in Toronto are still somewhat different from the situation prior to the air traffic control strike. I should assure hon. members and the public that safety is in no way impaired. Discussions are going on between air traffic controllers and my senior officials concerning various matters that lead to the problems and difficulties. The air traffic control situation in Toronto is much more complex than in other places in Canada on a number of counts. A variety of steps to deal with the problems created may eventually lead to a solution.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Postmaster General. Has the minister been informed of the long delays in clearing parcel mail at Terminal A, Toronto. If so, what action is he taking to clear up the backlog of parcel post mail which amounts to an almost complete breakdown in the service?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of any difficulty in Terminal A relating to the parcel post. The hon. member's information is usually reliable, so 1 shall make sure an investigation is conducted

October 24, 1977
Oral Questions
immediately and will provide the hon. member with a reply as soon as possible.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly surprised that the Postmaster General has not heard of this. The Vice President of the Doubleday Canada Limited is having great trouble with the backlog in Terminal A. I wonder if the chaos in the parcel post service in Toronto is due to mechanical difficulties at the new huge bulk mailing plant there? Can the Postmaster General inform the House when this expensive facility will become operational?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the shortcoming is not due to any problem in mechanization. The bulk plant in Mississauga, in the riding of the hon. member to my left, is operating successfully and there is no difficulty there, as I indicated to the hon. gentleman. If there is a problem with one large user, Doubleday, I have not received any representations from them but I shall look into the situation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the economic importance on the east coast of the renewable fishery resources on the Georges Bank and the importance on the west coast of the boundary separating Canada and the United States in Dixon Entrance, Juan de Fuca, and in our northern area in the Beaufort Sea where Alaska joins Canada, would the minister elaborate briefly now, and later make a statement on motions, concerning his release of October 21 and inform the House how negotiations on these important matters are proceeding and what the prospects are on the east coast of obtaining the equidistant line between Canada and the United States on Georges Bank followed then by talks on joint management of the resources?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in saying that the first phase of negotiations with the United States was completed successfully from our point of view, as well as from that of the United States, I believe. Essentially what was achieved during the first round of discussions was an agreement about the manner in which the ultimate resolution of the problem will proceed. In that context an important development occurred as far as Canada is concerned in that the United States accepted the proposition of joint management of fish stocks, a plan which was advocated in large measure by east coast fishermen whom the hon. member represents. The next phase will be to see, on the basis of this agreement, how it can be translated into a treaty. The negotiators will be resuming talks within about a week or ten days. In the interim, our

negotiator will be carrying on discussions with the east coast and west coast provinces that are interested.
As for the ultimate resolution in terms of the boundary itself, I would not wish to jeopardize the negotiations by indicating a specific Canadian position at the present time. I can say to the hon. member, however, as I believe he knows, that the negotiating position laid down by Canada was the equidistant line in the case of Georges Bank. This was without prejudice. This is the way things stand now. As the negotiations proceed I am very hopeful and most pleased that, despite the forebodings when the negotiations started, considerable progress has been made. The atmosphere for a resolution looks good, even though there are a lot of problems ahead.


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-ACTION TO PROTECT CANADIAN JOBS IN VIEW OF LAY-OFFS
John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there will be a $3 billion deficit in the auto parts business relating to the Canada-United States auto pact, and in view of the intended lay-off of 870 employees at Anaconda Brass which would result in a further loss of Canadian auto parts business and a loss of Canadian jobs, what steps does the minister intend to take with regard to adjusting this difference and protecting jobs for Canadian workers?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate that we are very concerned regarding the possibility of lay-offs at Anaconda Brass. I know that officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and others have been meeting to see if we can alleviate the situation. Perhaps further particulars can be given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on the next occasion he is in the House.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would act in the same casual way if this affected the steel industry in Hamilton? I should like him to tell the House whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has received a reply to the telex he sent to Anaconda officials in regard to delaying the decision to rescind the close-down order and to continue the operations to protect Canadian business?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated the minister in question will be able to give all the details necessary with respect to the negotiations he has had with the company. I hope he will be able to do that very shortly.
October 24, 1977


FISHERIES
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. I shall try to put it without making a speech. I wonder if the minister can inform the House if a final decision has been taken with regard to a commercial salmon fishing season on the Atlantic coast next fishing season? If so, has the manner and form of that season been decided or is it subject to negotiation with the fishermen?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the decision to open a modest commercial salmon fishing season on the east coast, where it had been banned for six years, has been taken in principle. I am awaiting the latest reports from the biologists about the escapement of this year's run. The manner in which this re-opening would take place is the subject of consultation with fishermen and fishermen's organizations on the east coast. I hope we can arrive at a unanimous agreement.


RESOURCES
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and follows the line of questioning by the hon. member for Don Valley on Friday and today. In view of the situation at Sudbury and Thompson, and soon in all mining communities in Canada, in view of the fact that the new government of British Columbia has reduced its taxes on mining, in view of the fact that the new government in Manitoba indicated its intention to reduce the high taxes on mining in that province, will the minister ask the Minister of Finance to consider removing the double taxation on the mining industry which was imposed in 1974 in the budget brought in by John Turner? This is one of the reasons our mining industry is not competitive, taxwise, with other countries.
[DOT] (U52)


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, 1 would agree with the hon. member that there are instances in certain provinces where the combined federal and provincial tax rates clearly indicate a major disincentive to that industry and in those provinces. As a result of a significant study, we have brought the situation to the attention of various provincial mines ministers and finance ministers across the country. I hope that, as a result of that study and the work we have been doing in my department with various provincial governments, other provincial governments will act. If the hon. member were to talk to industry, he would find that there is no major complaint with the federal govern-
Oral Questions
ment tax level. The complaint is with respect to certain provincial tax levels which discourage mining investment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question. Will the federal government offer to the provincial governments their proposal to reduce the double taxation imposed on these companies because of the quarrel between the civil servants in Ottawa and the civil servants in the provinces over who will get the most from the mining industry. My question is simply this: Will the minister, on behalf of the mining industry, recommend to the Minister of Finance the ending of double taxation imposed by the Turner budget of 1974?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat a part of my answer because I made it quite clear to the hon. member that the federal tax level is below the provincial levels. If, in the words of the hon. member, there is double taxation of the industry, then I would say to him that there is a very simple solution. Those provinces which have a combined tax level which is significantly higher than that in other provinces and than that, perhaps, in some other jurisdictions, have it within their power to reduce their tax level so that the combined tax level in this country would be a more propitious one.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of the fact that a prisoner in the province of Ontario has just been released on mandatory parole-as set out by the law over which the minister and his department and the Solicitor General have no control-is it the intention of the government to amend that section of the law so that in cases such as this one, where a prisoner with a long record of sex crimes and who is now under police surveillance in two towns in Ontario, could be brought either before a judicial body or someone who would have the power either to grant or not to grant parole as was laid down in Bill C-51 last session?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: As I understand it, in the case to which the hon. member referred, the man had served his sentence and was therefore, by operation of law, released from the penitentiary. As the hon. member knows, in the last session of parliament in Bill C-51, we amended the law to do away with statutory remission by which people could earn a reduction in their sentence simply by serving it and that statutory remission, as of October 15, has been done away with. People now have to earn any remission by good behaviour. In that same legislation we implemented the revision of the dangerous offenders section which also came into operation on October 15.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister is well aware of the fact that one of the most difficult charges to prove is the habitual

October 24, 1977
Oral Questions
criminal acts charges under the Criminal Code and now the dangerous sex offenders charge under the amended code. In light of that fact, these prisoners continue to be released on what we call mandatory parole, I am asking the Minister of Justice this question in all seriousness, because I brought to his attention last year a murder in Calgary where the accused was released and now we have a situation in Ontario which is creating a great deal of anxiety.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I appreciate that, but the problem is that when people have served a fixed sentence, they are subject to release from the penitentiary. That is the reason the Criminal Code was amended last session and the dangerous offenders section was included to deal with those with an indeterminate sentence under which a person cannot be released if deemed to be a dangerous offender without the approval of the administration and of the courts.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. On July 15 of this year, in answer to a question about the deployment of the neutron bomb, the Prime Minister said that he had not been consulted and the Minister of National Defence said that all he knew was what he had read in the newspapers. Since the minister has just attended a.nuclear planning group meeting in Bari, Italy, can he tell the House what policy he advanced on Canada's behalf concerning the deployment of the neutron bomb?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member. 1 was not present at the meeting in Bari. We are rotating members of the planning group and we were not present this time, although we are kept informed on what goes on there. The first thing to do is to realize that the term "neutron bomb" is a misnomer. Actually it is not a bomb and it is not a strategic weapon. It is known in NATO circles as an enhanced radiation warhead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barnett Jerome Danson: It has a reduced blast. We are not dealing with very nice things, Mr. Speaker, but these are part of the arsenal of modern nations today. The neutron bomb, as my hon. friend calls it, the enhanced radiation warhead, is not in production. It has not been decided by the President of the United States that it would go into production as yet. In his considerations he has decided to consult his NATO allies. Some discussions are taking place or have taken place, as I understand it, at the NPG meeting in Bari, but there is not a unified position on it at this time and no decision has been made, but all the allies will be consulted on this matter. There is no question about its
[Mr. Woolliams.l
effectiveness as a military weapon but the considerations go quite beyond that.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The nomenclature used by the minister is rather surprising. People in some circles might think that this use of the word would fit better the minister of housing, which was the previous portfolio of this minister, in that the bomb is designed to protect houses and kill people. The serious thing about it is that if deployed it might well lower the nuclear threshold in western Europe and make the likelihood of a nuclear war breaking out more serious than it is at present. Is he telling us that Canada has no position on whether we are for or against the deployment of the neutron bomb or, as he prefers to call it, the enhanced radiation warhead?


Barnett Jerome Danson: It is not, Mr. Speaker, that there is no position. The whole question is being studied at this time by us and our allies. Obviously one of the considerations would be the reduction of the nuclear threshold. There are counter arguments to that and we want to hear them all before we go running off shooting advanced radiation warheads from the hip.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs in light of the general question of the nuclear disarmament. As you are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, the minister is about to depart on another extended tour, and yet we have not had an in-depth report from him on the last of a series of meetings in London, England of the nuclear supplier group. My question to the minister is whether it will be possible for us to have an in-depth report from the minister on this important subject before he leaves?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not before my departure, Mr. Speaker. I should say to the hon. member that, through nobody's fault, and I think hon. members opposite will agree, a statement had been prepared the summer before we adjourned and could not be presented nor could a debate take place. Within the next two weeks some significant developments are to occur, including those at the INFCEP meetings in Washington with regard to restrictions on reprocessing and the like. Probably, it would be appropriate to await the outcome of these, and I will undertake to the hon. member and to the House to have a full statement as early in November as possible when we get the details. In the meantime, if the hon. member wishes to have some form of briefing, I will be glad to arrange it for him while I am away.
October 24, 1977


CODE GOVERNING FOREIGN SALES OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not
only talking as an individual member. Obviously, 1 am trying to elicit information that should be available to the Canadian public on a matter such as this because it seems to me that those who are interested in it have to go to the foreign press or to foreign governmental officials to get this type of information. Here, especially, the House is pretty well united on the general subject of nuclear disarmament, and yet we have to go overseas to obtain that kind of information. For instance, can the minister inform us if at the London meeting, as reported in the Washington Post of Tuesday, October 4, agreement was reached for the first time to publish a code governing foreign sales of nuclear technology and nuclear information? If so, why have we not heard this from the minister? When is the code going to be published? When can we have something specific instead of these vague generalities we always get from him?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With the greatest of respect, Mr. Speaker, 1 have been ready ever since the House has been opened to answer any questions which the hon. member might care to pose. This is the first occasion that he or any other member has seen fit to ask this kind of question. It might have been possible to make a statement on motions. There were two days. I am not sure that hon. members then would not have complained that we were taking time away from the throne speech debate. Let's be frank about it. However, that does not detract from the importance of the matter which the hon. member has raised.
First of all, let me answer that specific question. The report that the hon. member has read is basically correct. There is an anticipated published proposal. The drafting of that, of course, is something which has to be done. The contents of it will obviously not be known until the drafting has been completed.
On the broader question, a number of developments have occurred. I am sure the hon. member knows, for example, that within the past two or three weeks the United States has made an arrangement with Japan which significantly alters the total situation with regard to nuclear non-proliferation. We are seeking to find exactly the proper time and the proper occasion on which a statement can be made that will be something other than an invasion. I have no reason in the world to withhold from this House anything by way of a frank assessment of the proposal. In fact, I would welcome some clear declaration from the opposition as to what they themselves would do. Given what they have been talking about with regard to Sudbury, I am very much surprised and doubtful whether I would get that kind of unqualified statement.
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF FACILITIES AT BURWASH- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the cutbacks by INCO in Sudbury which will have a very adverse effect on the whole Sudbury district, and the negotiations which have been going on between the Solicitor General's department and the Ontario government for the establishment of a federal correctional institution at Burwash, can the minister say whether he is prepared to move immediately to establish a new federal facility at Burwash and thereby create several hundred new jobs for the Sudbury Basin?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have of course received representations of this kind from the hon. member on this subject. 1 wish to report to the House that we have completed our initial negotiations with the province of Ontario and have now set a price for the acquisition of the institution. At the moment, we are determining our own evaluation of the type of upgrading and the cost of that upgrading that would be required to use the institution as a federal correctional facility. I am most interested in the acquisition of the institution. Not only would it provide additional jobs in that area, but it would permit me to implement one of the recommendations of the subcommittee of the House which investigated the penitentiary system last year, a recommendation in connection with the establishment of some specialized institutions in the country. I therefore hope to be in a position to make an announcement in this regard in the very near future.


RESOURCES
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to this problem at INCO which concerns a number of members of the House of Commons, including yourself, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister for clarification of his position with respect to it. On Friday, the Prime Minister gave the impression that he had just heard of the problems at INCO. His answer is in Hansard at page 114. He said that they were informed of this very serious decision yesterday morning. That was last Thursday. Today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that the matter had been under study for a period of two years. Assuming that the minister was telling the truth when he answered his question in the House today about studies undertaken with respect to this matter, will the minister now tell us why he did not go to INCO a year ago or perhaps two years ago, to advise them what those studies revealed to see whether this dreadful situation could have been averted? We now see that situation snowballing to Newfoundland and other parts of
166

October 24, 1977
Canada Elections Act
the country. The House is entitled to an answer to that question.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the preamble at all. The hon. House leader of the opposition is now trying to present himself as an instant expert on the mining industry. If he had followed the work that was done over the past year, he would know that there have been consultations between my department and the industry on a regular basis. He would know that the international market for mining activity in Canada was in a very depressed state. He would know that capacity outside the country had increased very substantially. He would know a lot of these things and would not have to ask that kind of a question.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if 1 should have known these things, then the minister should have known these things. Why has he not done something about it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I thought 1 made it quite clear that we have been working with the industry. If the hon. member has just become aware of the situation, he should have known that it could happen in the mining industry at any time. Anybody in the mining industry unfortunately has to live with that spectre.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I am pleased to table in both official languages a green paper entitled, "A National Policy on Amateur Sport".


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Hon. Norman A. Cafik (for the President of the Privy Council) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-5, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


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

Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-6, respecting Canadian ports.


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

Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, some concern has been expressed about a change in Standing Order 65(1 )(q), which was implemented last year, designed to have a permanent reference for the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. We have discovered that there is a flaw in this particular resolution. I have discussed this with House leaders. The following has been agreed:
That Standing Order 65(1 )(q) be amended by inserting between the word "been" and the word "referred" the word "permanently".


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that is in accordance with discussions we have had. I want to thank the deputy government House leader.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There seems to be general agreement that that motion be proceeded with now. It cannot be proceeded with without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to deal with the motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to 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.
October 24, 1977



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, October 21, 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Clark (p. 30).
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would have hoped that perhaps the Speaker would remain in the Chair for 1 would like later to make a few comments on certain statements he is reported to have made during the weekend. I think the hon. the Speaker of the House will have to listen to some advice which will be given him.
This is the first time in several years that I have the chance of participating in such a debate. 1 have indeed been in this House for a good many years and I always have given up my turn since other opportunities were offered to me. This year however, I decided to try and catch the Speaker's eye to participate in the debate.
I would like to point out that the two young members, young in terms of seniority, who moved the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, namely the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the newly-elected member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) did very well in those rather symbolic duties. Younger members are always called upon to move the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Once again, I would like to say that they did a fine job, for which I congratulate them.
However, before discussing the motion of those hon. members and the motion moved by my leader which is a non-confidence motion, I would like to comment on what is taking place in the House. As I said, it is regrettable that Mr. Speaker is not in the House because I will refer in a rather specific manner to the discussions of this past Friday when my col-
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert league for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) moved the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26. [English]
Mr. Speaker, there have been some incidents in the past week, the first in which we have had television in the House. It is a trite saying now in newspaper articles and elsewhere that this chamber is going to be greatly modified, that this is the greatest thing since the discovery of sliced bread. Well, I want to make certain observations about what has been said here in this chamber with the advent of television and about what I hope will not be the attitude of members in this House. I hope that this will scotch, once and for all, the idea which may now be growing as a result of certain things said, and may be repeated, with regard to what speeches are made and to whom those speeches are being addressed.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) startled me on Thursday last when she wished to comment on a question put by the House leader of the official opposition, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). According to the Chair, the question was out of order but the hon. minister indicated that because the House was now on television it was quite wrong to prevent her from answering or making a comment. What a nonsensical argument, that if a question is ruled out of order as containing certain allegations, as they often do, because we are on television the Chair's ruling of out of order should be set aside and a reply or comment made. That is utter nonsense, yet that was the argument of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In the same way, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has commented and attributed motives.


Walter David Baker: The Postmaster General (Mr. Blais), too.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am coming to the Postmaster General because he, too, participated in these totally improper references to the conduct of members, allegedly because television is now in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, if this chamber is to become merely a podium for representatives of parties to address larger audiences, then those who allege that parliament has become irrelevant are vindicated. Incidentally,
I don't know why they make these wiseacre comments, because that is all they are; many of those who make such statements have rarely been inside this chamber, and do not know how it works. But if this chamber is to become merely a speaking platform from which to reach an audience out beyond, it merely becomes, then, a method whereby a message may be put out, to what audience, one never knows. In the immediate future it may be limited to the Ottawa area, to those who subscribe to a cable system and have a converter. Those are the people who will be following-possibly-the sittings of this House.
Then there is to be a weekly wrap-up, and we have seen that in the news clippings certain ministers make certain statements in reply to questions. All I can say to hon. members is this: take a look at the performance of the province of Alberta where the legislature has been on television since 1971 or
80025 - 12'A

October 24, 1977
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert
thereabouts. All that great program to take the legislature to the public no longer exists. It is only when ministers, in reply to a question, give an answer which is of public interest that there is a clip taken of the minister. Backbenchers never enter the picture, of course, unless they position themselves behind ministers.
The comment about what may have been some shifting around here on Friday afternoon, when frankly there are not many members in the House-there never have been and there never will be-ignores the fact that members have timetables to keep, airline schedules to follow, and that great distances have to be travelled by hon. members to get to their constituencies where they have important things to do. They also have families and, as members of parliament, they have the right of access to their families just as anybody else has. Somehow the public seems to forget that. Members of parliament are nailed to their desks here from Monday morning at the opening of the session until Friday at five o'clock when the session closes. I say that comment was utter tripe, utter nonsense.
Let me say something about the nature of this debate. I raised this point with Mr. Speaker the other day and I regret that he did not wish to listen fully to my argument, as I think he should have. This debate is for the purpose of discussing the Speech from the Throne. By tradition it has been reserved for backbenchers. Government ministers review certain aspects of policy, but it is for backbenchers to raise problems, to report from their constituencies, and in fact to report to their constituencies from this chamber.
But what has happened in this debate, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been the first to admit that into this throne speech debate has been inserted a mini-budget. That has been done perfectly legally, but it was done, said the Prime Minister, to save time, or so he alleged. I ask, whose time? The government's time at the expense of the backbenchers, who would under normal circumstances, and who should under all circumstances, have the opportunity of discussing the throne speech through the full tenure of the debate, as well as discussing a budget.
We voted on an amendment last Thursday and we are voting on the main amendment tonight. There may be another amendment. But none of these amendments should have to do with the content of the budget statement or resolutions which were put forward by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) the other night. This would be pre-empting that particular debate. Depending upon who moves another amendment to be voted upon on day six, there will not be any expression of opinion by this House on the mini-budget until we get to the individual bills, primarily the income tax bill. It is on this expression of opinion by the House that the government must survive.
I doubt whether it has occurred to a number of cabinet ministers that we are still operating under a form of responsible government and that the government holds power for so long as it has the confidence of this House; but if subterfuges

like introducing a mini-budget are used-indeed, it is a budget because there are major modifications in proposals put forward by the former Minister of Finance-then the House has had its opportunity foreclosed.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is one other point. While I must accept the rulings of the Chair on particular questions, I do not have to agree with them, and I do not agree with Mr. Speaker's ruling on my colleague's motion under Standing Order 26 on Friday. The subject matter was indeed most urgent. I say there is no case for insisting that debate on that particular item pre-empts the right of members to participate in the throne speech debate. But that is what has happened.
Under the rules, if Mr. Speaker had been prepared to accept the motion, debate on it could not have commenced until three o'clock on Friday afternoon. Members who were interested in that question-I would hope there would be many because it is a very serious matter-would then have had unlimited time to discuss the question until the debate was finished. But no, Mr. Speaker, it has been thrown into this debate, the Chair ruling on the basis that if members indicated they wished to discuss the Sudbury and Thompson situation, the Chair would recognize them. I say that is an improper insertion of that debate into this. Say over the weekend some other very important event had come up. Following the logic of Friday's decision by the Chair, that item too could be brought into this debate. I disagree with that and I record my disagreement publicly and as forcefully as I can.
In the same way I also object to being told, as I have quite often in the past, that subjects brought up for discussion under Standing Order 26 will have to form the subject matter of an opposition day. I participated in the formulation of the rules in 1968 and I know why provision was made for opposition days. In effect, they were a curtailment of the opportunities the House used to have, when dealing with motions, to introduce estimates, and also motions for interim supply.
Again in the spirit of so-called efficiency, emergencies are to be discussed at the expense of the opposition's time. By what right is that done? Emergencies and adjournments of the House are debates at the expense of government time, not that of the opposition. Should the occasion arise again this year, then this House can certainly expect to hear from me on this particular point.
I am eternally interested in the rights of the backbenchers on both sides of this House. They have been abused over the years on every occasion by this sacred white cow known as efficiency. It is the backbencher who gets in it in the neck. We can always improve, shall I say, the handling or expedition of business in this House, but in this regard let me warn hon. members, particularly those on the government side whose experience in the House may be somewhat limited. I will use the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that it is a long, long road that has not got some ash cans, and it is a long, long road that has no turning. What suits the government today can be a terrible, terrible restriction tomorrow when there is a change of power.


It
:
October 24, 1977

Back in the fifties in a moment of weakness, the Chair accepted a certain proposition with regard to the discussion of supplementary estimates. At that time the opposition thought it was great, but when they took over on the other side they discovered what sort of hair shirt they had fashioned. I caution hon. members opposite that they are fashioning hair shirts which they will have to wear.
I will not discuss the budget presentation which occurred the other night. That will come in due course. There are changes and inadequacies but, according to my argument today, this is not the time to discuss the matter proposed by the Minister of Finance.
It is unfortunate that the ministers involved with what I am about to discuss are not here, but on Thursday past there was considerable questioning by my colleagues, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis), the hon. member for Edmonton-Centre (Mr. Paproski) and possibly others with regard to an agreement signed by the deputy minister of National Revenue and a representative of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in April of 1972. The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) has indicated that everything was legal. When 1 asked the Minister of National Revenue about the definition of organized crime, the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) said that it was contained in Bill C-51. 1 do not know how one of the principal officers of this House can assert that a definition contained in a bill passed by this House in mid-1977 should define the terms of an agreement signed in 1972. What is this? Is it a new form of retroactive legislation?
I say to hon. members opposite that the argument made by the Solicitor General is fatuous. That is the best I can say for it. Perhaps there is a definition of organized crime in Bill C-51 which can be found in clause 7 at page 47. Possibly there is some wording that can be interpreted as a definition of organized crime. The hon. member for Central Nova indicated that the best definition of organized crime is contained in Bill C-24, the Immigration Act passed this summer. Presumably that has a retroactive meaning to 1972. I have a copy of the agreement which the Solicitor General tabled as a result of my question to him. This agreement is supposed to deal with investigations concerning unreported and innocent accumulation of wealth amassed by organized crime figures. Perhaps the authors of the press release are aware of what organized crime figures are because they base themselves on present legislation; but when one looks at the agreement, there is no such thing.
All hon. members are subject to investigation under the terms of this agreement. I should like to refer to the memorandum of understanding between the Department of National Revenue, and the Department of the Solicitor General which in part reads as follows:
The Minister of National Revenue, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of section 241 of the Income Tax Act, hereby designates the members of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as authorized persons for the purpose of assisting him and his officials in carrying out investigations for such purposes as the Minister of National Revenue may designate related to the administration or enforcement of the Income Tax Act.
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert There is not one blessed word limiting such investigations to criminal activity. The memorandum continues as follows:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police acknowledges that the members of the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will conduct for the purposes of the Income Tax Act-
Remember it is limited strictly for the purposes of the Income Tax Act.
-Such investigations of such persons as the Minister of National Revenue may from time to time request-
There is one exception and that is if the RCMP does not have enough personnel they are permitted to say: "No thanks, we cannot do it."
The memorandum continues:
The Minister of National Revenue will furnish the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with such information or material in his possession which in the minister's opinion will facilitate the conduct of any investigation which the Directorate of Criminal Investigations of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is carrying out on behalf of the minister.
Mr. Speaker, that reveals the precise situation. The Minister of National Revenue says: "All legal", I say "Totally illegal activity" under this agreement as revealed in the Laycraft inquiry. I am not making any brief with the Royal American Shows, but where this agreement comes into play is in the Minister of National Revenue turning over to the RCMP the tax returns of one Albert J. Anderson not only for the year 1975 but for previous years.
As far as the RCMP were concerned, they were interested in Mr. Anderson because of charges under the Criminal Code, and that is totally denied under this agreement. There was no investigation of Mr. Anderson with regard to the Income Tax Act, but officials of the Department of National Revenue gave his income tax returns to the RCMP who were looking into his background with regard to a charge under the Criminal Code. Of course, the whole thing has fallen through so far as prosecution of Mr. Anderson is concerned, but let not the Minister of National Revenue stand up in this House and say his officials acted legally. I say they acted illegally.
Second, there was the question of tapes. The provisions of our privacy legislation which deal with wiretapping under the Criminal Code are related to offences under the Criminal Code and others designated specifically in the statute as passed by this House. Nowhere does it mention income tax, yet the representative of the Department of National Revenue admitted in the Laycraft inquiry that he had listened to tapes furnished to him by the RCMP for which authority had been obtained for criminal purposes. At no time was it mentioned that these tapes were going to be listened to by a representative of the Department of National Revenue. The section does not include the Income Tax Act as a legal purpose whereby the police may obtain permission to-


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. Does the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) have unanimous consent?

October 24, 1977
The Address-Hon. M. Lambert


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks also to hon. members of this Elouse. I will not abuse this privilege.
I have pointed out the inconsistencies in the answers of the Minister of National Revenue and of the Solicitor General with regard to this particular matter. I have also asked the Minister of National Revenue whether there are any other types of agreements with regard to the use of social insurance numbers, for instance, other than for that which may be given under this particular agreement. Is there any other type of agreement whereby the Minister of National Revenue can give selected bits of information from tax returns? We received a total non-answer the other day, but I want warn the hon. gentleman that he will have to produce that information somewhere along the line, and the sooner he can give the House the proper information the better it will be. If he wishes to join in this debate, that is perfectly fine. If he wishes to stand up on motions and make a statement to correct the information with which he inadvertently misled the House the other day, that is perfectly good as far as I am concerned.
There are other subjects on which I would have liked to have spoken, a particular subject being the rejection by the Treasury Board of the much needed improvements and modifications to the terminal at the Edmonton International Airport. I notice that the previous minister of transport, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) is here. He knows about this because those demands were in existence when he was minister. However, the situation has become chaotic. The matter is urgent, and no reason was given; simply that the Treasury Board had turned down these much needed improvements. It is not that I want to spend the money; it is that the public using that air terminal is being prejudiced. The public pays the airport user tax just as anybody else, but frankly cattle pens are better than the customs facilities there. We treat cattle better than we do people coming off major planes, and those people have to use those facilities. Calgary is doing much better. It has its Mirabel of the west at $150 million, plus or minus. The public there can get customs clearance. People can be handled quite adequately there, but Treasury Board and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) have to come up with answers as to why for the third year in a row those improvements to the air terminal in Edmonton have been turned down. That is my plea.
I said I was going to mention one other point. It is with the greatest sadness and respect for the Chair that I say I do not think Mr. Speaker should introduce himself into controversial questions such as the one regarding the proposed layoffs by INCO at Sudbury. It is Mr. Speaker's own constituency, I know, but there is already controversy between the government of Canada and parties in this House. If I may say so, the Chair must not get itself involved on one side or another of the controversy. That is one of the limitations or characteristics of the Chair. Never, never, should Mr. Speaker, appear at a public controversial meeting.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


Mr. O'Connell:: Not even in the House?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Outside the House. The hon. member may have different ideas as to the standards which should be followed by the Chair.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: He is a member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Let the hon. member make a speech, and possibly on some other occasion I will be able to reply to him. Let me simply say that I hope we will not see the Chair become involved. I have gone through this. The temptation was great, but I know all our predecessors in the Chair have deliberately abstained from controversy, even though during election compaigns one is involved. An election com-paign is something different. This should not be done whilst the hon. gentleman is presiding in this House.
With that I thank hon. members for giving me this opportunity and allowing me to extend my remarks.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I notice that it is about eleven minutes to one. However, in the interests of using up all the time of the House I will refrain from the tendency of calling it one o'clock and proceed, and I presume with the indulgence of hon. members I will resume after the luncheon break.
First, like all speakers, I want to compliment the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and also the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) for their splendid contributions to the throne speech debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1 happen to know something of that experience because it was ten years ago, I hate to admit, that I had the honour of moving the Address in Reply during centennial year.
Of course, this year was also a special occasion for the participants because of the gracious presence among us of Her Majesty the Queen. I know I speak for all Canadians and most particularly for my fellow Newfoundlanders when I say how delighted we were, not merely at the Queen's presence here, but also with the charm, dignity and grace with which she carried out such a tremendously heavy burden of functions and responsibilities while she was with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Understandably, the emphasis during this debate has been almost exclusively on what we can do and ought to do within Canada in order to bring about an improvement in present economic conditions. I say that this is the appropriate emphasis for most hon. members because it has been made abundantly clear that there is a great deal we can do within this country. There is a great deal in fact we must do of our own volition if we are to regain the momentum of economic progress which is so important to the future. I think it is also important in this debate that some member-perhaps I might venture to say that I am the most appropriate one
October 24, 1977

given my responsibilities-ought to say a word or two about the international implications of the current economic situation and related questions.
1 think all must recognize, and I believe most of us do, that despite all the things we do for ourselves during the next weeks, months and years, Canada will not really be restored to full economic vigour unless there is a companion improvement in the economic situation around the world. It would therefore be a mistake if we were to assume that we had within our own hands all or even most of the levers necessary to bring about a desired situation.
Having said that the importance of this international dimension ought not to be overlooked, 1 think it is also of the greatest significance and importance that we as Canadians understand the real nature of our role in internationl affairs. Sometimes I believe there is a tendency to over-estimate or over-state Canada's ability in various world forums to bring about circumstances which we consider desirable. It is important that we be realistic and understand the limitations placed upon our actions internationally while at the same time identifying, clearly and unmistakably, those areas where we do have capability not only to improve our own circumstances but to enhance the general position of the world.
As has been demonstrated time and time again, Canada has the respect and confidence of many of the international groupings where decisions affecting all of us are made on a regular basis. For example, Canada has had for some time membership in the so-called summit group which had its most recent meeting in London in May of this year. It is made up of the eight largest economically powerful countries in the world. This was quite a recognition for Canada and 1 say that in a totally non-partisan sense.
Similarly, Canada plays a leading role in the OECD, the economic and co-operative development organization, based in Paris in which members are drawn from all developed countries in the western world. We also have participation in the International Monetary Fund and a range of other organizations, all of which are coming to have a far greater importance than ever before in terms of this universal or global effort to come to grips with the unique situation we face on this planet. At all of these meetings, most of which I have attended, a consensus has emerged clearly and unmistakably on certain key and important points. While these have been uttered so often as to become trite in many respects, the fact of the matter is they must be repeated because we ignore them at our peril.
There is a range of conclusions, some of them so simple that I would not insult the intelligence of this House by going through a recitation of them. One conclusion stands out above all others, however, as being central to international planning for economic recovery. It is that the energy crisis and the events associated with it over the past four or five years and certainly since 1974, have brought about significant and permanent changes in the world economic structure. I emphasize
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
the word "permanent" because this is really the key to moving toward a solution. In other words, since these structures have altered in a manner that cannot be restored, new structures must be tried; new concepts have to be developed. As well, we must slough off some of the old conventional simplistic techniques which have been used with relative success over past decades to correct imbalances as they occur in the world economic order.
I emphasize this point for the particular reason that there is still a tendency for all of us, instinctively, whether in the public sector, in this House in government or opposition, or in the private sector, to ask what we did last time and to apply that remedy again. The truth of the matter is that in terms of our present problems there is no last time. This is a new, a unique situation.
At one of the international forums not long ago I heard a gentleman quote a Scandinavian philosopher, I believe, to the effect that the essense of tyranny is the denial of complexity. These words certainly ought to drive home to us that we are in an enormously complex situation and that those who propose simplistic answers are guilty, first of all, of the tyranny of tending to look inward in a very narrow self-interested fashion which ultimately will fail.
There is another danger with the simplistic approach and we are seeing it on every hand around the world. It is the tendency for people to believe that all will be well if only they put into decision-making positions some miracle-maker who can put everything right without any effort on the part of the people themselves. Of course, when the miracles fail to materialize, as they inevitably will, and when there is a continuation of the problems, as there inescapably is, the inevitable result is as we are seeing in one country after another, not merely a deepening of cynicism but a very real threat to democracy itself.
It is demonstratively true and necessary, therefore, that we in this House and all the people of Canada recognize the nature of the difficulties we face. We must not seek to proceed with a whole series of unilateral actions, many of which are mutually exclusive and which in the end will create a situation far more devastating than anything we have seen to date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If I may have just one moment before we recess for lunch, Mr. Speaker, let me try to put in perspective one or two issues in international economic affairs that are often overlooked. First of all the free market society-countries pursuing an open approach generated by and supported by democractic governments-have shown themselves to be far more vigorous, far more resilient than anyone thought possible in 1974. One has only to recall the dire forebodings expressed in this House just three or four years ago with regard to the free world economies and the structures of those nations to realize that they have shown remarkably more toughness than any of us had predicted. In other words, we had a tendency to underestimate our own capabilities. When you think that countries such as the United States, the European Economic Community or Canada have been able to withstand within a

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
three year period a fourfold increase in energy prices, then this of itself should give us reason for confidence that we can move through the remainder of this difficult period and emerge both wise and more strong than we were before.
In calling it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, may I say that after lunch I will try to demonstrate some of the means through which we can achieve that goal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: When we adjourned at one o'clock, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) had the floor.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. When we rose for lunch I had said that the international dimension of the current economic problem was such that virtually all of the leaders of the western, developed countries had acknowledged that what we were facing was a permanent change in world economic structures brought about primarily by the dramatic changes in the energy situation, which in turn, of course, was the result of the fourfold increase in prices. I had pointed out, as well, that although we have had, in the western world and in the developed world, very difficult times since 1974, the performance was not as bad as many had forecast and the free democratic system had shown what I described as far more resiliency than even some of its advocates had thought possible at that time.
There is another aspect of the situation which gives us cause for confidence. That is the fact that during this period from 1974 on, we have also seen the development of international organizations, some of which I have referred to-the OECD, the summit meetings, the International Monetary Fund, and a number of others. They have once again demonstrated the free world's capability to come together to act in concert in order to fend off some of the most difficult aspects of this unprecedented world situation.
While in 1977 we can scarcely say that conditions are normal-if, in fact, that is an appropriate word under any circumstances in today's world-the truth is that progress has, in fact, been made. If one looks at the statistics relating to the OECD countries, it is encouraging to note that the rate of inflation around the world has dropped sharply from what it was in 1974. Then it was running at something close to 14 per cent. In 1975, this concerted action to which I referred reduced it to a little more than 11 per cent. At the present

time, while the statistics are not in, and will not be until November or December, it is fair to anticipate that the average rate of inflation in the developed world will be something in the order of 8 per cent, some countries obviously doing better than others.
I might point out that while the Canadian figures are deplorable and, indeed, far too high, OECD statistics indicate that only two countries, the United States and Germany, had lower rates of inflation than Canada in the period up to May, 1977; that is, in the period of the last 12 months or so. So there has been a slow reduction in rates of inflation.
At the summit meeting in London in May of this year certain conclusions were reached which were subsequently confirmed by the larger group in Paris at the end of June. It was understood, as I said earlier, that these structural changes have occurred and that new processes are necessary. Everyone in the OECD group concluded that, unlike previous troubles, we were now facing inflation and high unemployment at the same time. Furthermore, there were within the international community significant differences in capacity in terms of coping with such a situation, as well as different problems. The problems of the United States, for example, are vastly different from those of Japan even though, to use a popular expression, we are all in the same boat.
The decision was, therefore, taken at the London meeting that countries with stronger economies would undertake to promote a degree of stimulation, while the less strong countries would, in addition to doing what they could on the stimulation front, seek to bring about a greater degree of stimulation by cutting back on pulic expenditure and in other ways. Six months have passed since those decisions were made. Obviously, the two healthiest economies, judging by the statistics, are those of Japan and Germany, and in each of those cases the countries concerned have, within the last few weeks, announced certain stimulative programs designed to develop additional consumer demand, thereby generating a greater demand for imports and providing assistance to exporting countries whose economies are weaker.
On the other side of the picture, success has not been so easy to achieve. In the field of domestic restraint, country after country has indicated that it is locked into certain levels of expenditure established over many years, and that a sudden withdrawal from a variety of programs would be exceedingly disruptive. It is important to remember, in this fight against inflation on one hand and against unemployment on the other, that unless stimulation is handled with considerable skill it tends to drive up inflation, and that if stabilization is carried out in too restrained a fashion it tends to generate increased unemployment. The assessment made six months after the summit decision is that though there has been movement, it has not been as great as anticipated and that it will be 1978 before there is any real evidence as to the effect of the action taken, for example, within the German and the Japanese economies.
October 24, 1977

In addition, another phenomenon of our time has emerged, one which is interesting to note and which has far-reaching effects. I refer to the balance of payments on current accounts, particularly that of the United States. This is largely, if not wholly, due to the United States deficit in terms of oil imports. For the most part it is energy-related. The irony of the situation is this: as the United States stimulates its economy, the demand for energy in the country increases; the volume of oil imports must be increased and consequently the balance of payments situation deteriorates. I said this morning, quoting the gentleman from Scandinavia, that the essence of tryanny is the denial of complexity. I imagine few situations could be more complex than the one to which I have just referred.
However, in the area of joint action-the basic theme on which I am reporting to the House today-there are two aspects which are of particular importance to Canada. The first is what we have committed ourselves to doing in the context of the world community in terms of stabilizing our own domestic activities and, indeed, of reducing our own balance of payments deficit to the extent that we can. This, of course, means increasing our productivity.
The word "productivity" has been bandied around in the House and outside for a long time now, and in many respects the debate has been sterile because, first of all, there has been no general agreement between business and labour or between the private and the public sectors as to just what it is we are talking about. The time is certainly ripe for a broad public discussion on the question of productivity. It is not enough simply to proclaim that we need to increase productivity. When a businessman talks about increasing productivity, he usually means there ought to be a reduction in the demands of labour. Labour, on the other hand, tends to suggest it might be brought about if the plant or factory were made more efficient, or equipped with more modern machinery, without realizing that both these things are part of the same equation.
There is a further important consideration. If we wish, as part of the free world, to make this contribution of greater productivity, we have to determine how productivity is to be measured in areas where there are no convenient yardsticks to employ. How, for example, does one measure the productivity of a nurse, a teacher or of workers in a whole range of occupations within what is described as the service industries. Only when one takes the total figure for the national economy as a whole at the end of the year can one assess a general measure of productivity reflected, of course, in the level of growth of related industries. But until we can compare many areas starting from the same base of understanding-one which so far we do not have-we shall be faced with enormous problems when attempting to decide how a credit for productivity increase is to be distributed.
If, for example, a worker in a highly mechanized industry such as woodworking can show a 15 per cent productivity increase, ought the credit to go exclusively to that worker, or should some of it be reserved for those who support him in the service industries but whose productivity it is not possible to measure? I mention this to show that the argument on produc-
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
tivity will not get us very far unless there is agreement as to the basis on which we are going to take our measurements.
All this aside, there is no question that Canada must take all the steps at its disposal to improve its export position and to ensure that our competitiveness is sustained. And these are principally for the private sector. I might point out in this connection that the value of the Canadian dollar is an important element, though let me hasten to add, parenthetically, it does create serious problems in terms of levels of imports brought into the country. That, surely, is not a source of argument. However, it does have a serious effect on the balance of payments, and the more we can do to generate import replacements in Canada, the better it is for us.
Having said that, it brings me to another of the dilemmas which we are going to face as we work our way, as a free world community, out of the present circumstances. I refer to the approach that not only we but other countries are going to take to the whole question of the present round of multinational and multilateral tariff negotiations. The last three or four days in this House have demonstrated very vividly and very clearly how very little below the surface is the instinct for protectionism and the tendency toward protectionism. Of course, that is an understandable and a natural situation and we should not try to hide the reality of the problem that it reflects.
Clearly, even though Canadians are among the most generous people in the world when it comes to assisting the Third World, it is natural to react when imports from certain countries are below the cost at which they can be produced in Canada and, therefore, become a threat to Canadian employment and to the Canadian economy. We see it often in textiles and shoes. We are today hearing about it in terms of primary industry. Therefore, the job before us-which, incidentally, is one involving the whole community and not simply either the government or parliament-is to devise a tariff structure which will to the maximum extent possible allow us to take the greatest advantage of, for instance, our mining industry and various other industries where we have an obvious and a built-in advantage.
But let me caution the House, if that is necessary-or perhaps a better way of putting it would be to remind the House-that we, of all countries, must be extremely careful of protectionism. The old adage that every action brings a reaction is never more true than it is in the case of Canada. We have already seen, in terms of some of our comparatively limited actions, for instance vis-a-vis the United States, what kinds of opposition that can generate.
I was interested this morning to hear someone comment on certain countries to which we are providing various forms of aid in regard to textiles. May I remind the House that our largest single customer for wheat, for instance, is the People's Republic of China, which is also a country very interested in selling some of its products, including textiles, to Canada. So that the question we have to ask ourselves is: How can we

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Jamieson
ensure an adequate degree of protection, on the one hand, without blocking ourselves from access to exports, on the other?
Those who talk about helping the depressed areas of the country, but who at the same time talk about moving toward greater protection, should recall that in my province of Newfoundland, for instance-indeed, in the whole Atlantic region-at the very least the advantages of the 200-mile limit and the new developments that we are going to achieve in the fishing industry as a result can be thwarted overnight unless the multilateral tariff negotiations proceed smoothly and we get greater access for these additional fish products into the various markets which right now many people are advocating we ought to penalize in some way.
There are literally hundreds of those kinds of examples. That is why the multilateral tariff negotiations are going to be difficult for this country. That is why it is going to be of immense importance that on either side of the House we do not seek to achieve very short-range political or other advantage at the grave risk of underming the potential which we must have if we are going to expand both our natural resource base and our manufacturing base.
May I remind the House very briefly that Canada is unique in a number of respects, but particularly in this one which is very rarely stated. The United States is one of our markets and comprises over 200 million people. The European Economic Community has come together and consists of over 300 million people. The ASEAN countries of Southeast Asia now represent what is coming to be a trading bloc, which again has over 200 million people. Canada is the only industrialized country of 23 million or 23'/2 million people which does not have that large trading area in which no tariff considerations, or virtually no tariff considerations, exist. Apart from everything else, unless we can have access on a reasonable basis which gives the maximum assurance possible to our present domestic industry, then economies of scale, production runs and various things of this sort will put us at a decided disadvantage, even if we are successful in the tariff package which we achieve.
1 see my time is very nearly up, Mr. Speaker, and I have barely scratched the surface. I would invite hon. members, either at a special session of the committee or through debates here if these can be arranged, to address these particular matters. I give them my assurance of total access to whatever information is necessary in order to make that debate meaningful; because there is nothing, in my judgment, that is more important, not just for 10 or 15 years from now but for the very near future, than how we cope with these particular problems.
If I may have one more minute, Mr. Speaker, I want to say something about the argument that is frequently presented here, that you can in some way or other separate the national unity question from the economic question. My experience around the world tells me that this is quite impossible.


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


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we agree that the minister continue.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courtesy of hon. members and I assure them that I will not abuse it. In addition to the matters to which I have referred, and in relation to international co-operation an enormous amount depends upon how Canada is perceived by the rest of the world, and particularly how it is perceived by foreign investors. We have all conceded, whatever our ideology in regard to foreign ownership, that Canada is going to need large amounts of foreign capital if it is to be able to develop and to prosper. Therefore, this question of Canada's future, of its national unity, is hovering now over a tremendous range of decisions.
Regardless of the country one visits, regardless of the number of economists to whom one speaks, or the bankers, if hon. members are in Switzerland, Paris or New York then I will set it up for them. I will set it up for the government of Quebec, because if they think this is not true, then they are deluding themselves; they have their heads in the sand. Clearly, no one is going to undertake massive capital investments at the present time unless there is more clarity as to what the future is going to be, particularly in the province of Quebec. But it is also of concern to the rest of us in Canada because it spills over into every other part of this country. Therefore, to say we can fix up the economic conditions first and then deal with national unity is to oversimplify it; the two are inextricably linked.
I have one final comment. I know this is a time in this country when we are prone to breast-beat and to be depressed and concerned about our future. But the good fortune I have had through the opportunity the House has given me to be the representative of Canada around the world has put me in touch with at least 100 leaders in the last 12 months. Having listened to the problems they have-and I wish each member here had the opportunity to do so-whatever our difficulties may be in this country, if I had the chance to swap the problems of any country in the world for those we have in Canada, I would take back my own, our own; and I think you would, too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Blackburn:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question at this point?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Due to the fact that the minister's time has expired, we need the unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) to ask the minister a question. Does the hon. member for Brant have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
m
October 24, 1977


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank my colleagues for giving me this opportunity. I have one brief question. A few moments ago the minister referred to the fact that Canada did not belong to any major trading bloc in the world. He made reference to the European Economic Community, to the new ASEAN community, and so on. I should like to ask the minister whether he thinks, in his own judgment, it would be to our economic, financial and material benefit to enter into a customs union or economic union with the United States.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that in one minute I could answer that very big question. However, I think the short answer is no. On the other hand, I emphasize what I said earlier, namely, that we can achieve much better access for our products in the United States through these multilateral tariff negotiations. The alternative to that is to see the tariff become less and less significant for the large manufacturer with the long-run production line in the United States who may very well be able to leap over the tariff barriers and, therefore, would have no disposition to establish here in Canada. That is quite an inadequate answer to a very big question which at some point I hope we can discuss in detail in this House. I am opposed to it.
[ Translation)


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I want with my colleagues to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and before I begin my speech 1 want this afternoon to pay tribute to one of my greatest friends in Canadian politics who died Saturday morning, Gaetan Mireault of Sutton, Quebec. Wounded during World War II, he was sergeant-major of Paul Sauve's regiment, who became premier of my province, and he was my organizer-in-chief for eight elections. He was a great Canadian, a great soldier during World War II, a great soldier in peace time for his country. I want to pay tribute to my great friend, a great Canadian who has among his friends several Liberals.

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my actual speech, 1 think everyone in this House, be he Liberal, Progressive Conservative, Social Credit or New Democrat, does not have a chance to pay tribute to those foot soldiers at the grassroots level who make it possible for us to be here. I know all 260-odd of us have foot soldiers back in our constituencies who do the hard, day to day work in the political game and get very little credit for it.
On Saturday, my organizer-in-chief, Gaetan Mireault, of Sutton, died at the age of 58. He was Paul Sauve's regimental sergeant-major during the Second World War. As I said a few moments ago in the other official language, he counted many good Liberals among his friends. He thought the political process was very, very important, so he fought for the party of his choice and for his country in peacetime, as he was a great soldier in wartime. Far too often we do not talk in this House
The Address-Mr. Grafftey
about our foot soldiers and our friends at the grass roots level.
I should like to pause very briefly and pay tribute to my greatest friend in politics who fought side by side with me for eight federal elections. I should like to bring the attention of the House to this fact.

I was in complete agreement with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) when he said earlier that the matters of the Canadian economy could not be separate from the matters relating, say, to the constitution and national unity. Even now we are faced with important questions related inter alia to the Canadian economy. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that he is greatly involved among other things in the issue of national unity and the constitution-what I call the third option for today's Canada. This afternoon I want to discuss briefly what I have been saying for nearly 12 years inside and outside this House, and that is the need for us Canadians to write a modern constitution for modern times.
As I have often noted both here and outside the House, I am firmly convinced that it is time to prepare a modern constitution adapted to the needs of modern time, a constitution written in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the development of this constitution could be done over two years. The first year, the federal government would establish a parliamentary committee on constitution with representatives of all parties. The provincial governments would do the same. Mr. Speaker, during the year, meetings could be held between the federal committee and each provincial committee. The second year, a federal-provincial commission including representatives of all political parties in the House of Commons and the provincial legislative assemblies would develop a new constitution.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that this will not be easy. We will need extraordinary perception and political sense, a lot of courage, of imagination, hard work and the will to preserve Canadian unity. To ensure prosperity in Canada and unity of the country, we must make every effort to find an acceptable compromise between status quo and separatism. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting challenge which should stimulate us. It is no longer possible to have political confrontations to obtain short-term gains. Canada is more important than a political party, whatever it may be.


An hon. Member:: Separatist!


William Heward Grafftey: That is not very bright. I thought you were more intelligent. You are perhaps a bit tired this afternoon. You say that I am for separatism. Are you making a statement or asking me a question?

In discussing the need for the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to form an all-party constitutional committee of this House made up in proportion to party representation in the House, the Prime Minister must let the elected representatives of the people in on the constitutional debate. After all, the Fathers of Confederation were all elected public officials,

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Grafftey
meeting with their counterparts in the various regions of this country. Task forces of appointed people are one thing, but in the best and truest sense of the word, constitutional documents are political documents.
In searching for an acceptable third option between status quo federalism and the separatist option of Mr. Levesque, the Prime Minister must, without delay, establish an all-party parliamentary constitutional committee of this House of Commons. As I said in the other official language, it is my hope that our provincial counterparts will do the same thing. Also, it is my hope that during the first year after the establishment of such a committee we can meet with our provincial counterparts in provincial capitals from one end of this country to the other, and in the second year we will sit down and draft a modern constitution suited to modern times, made by Canadians for Canadians here in Canada. The whole operation will be more than just symbolism. It will create the cement in which we can get this union back on the road. It will not be easy. It will require statesmanship, hard work, guts and imagination. But the time to get going is now; we cannot tolerate further delay.
I appeal to the Prime Minister, and I say this perhaps advisedly, who at times has not shown too much respect for the pith and substance, the centrifugal aspects of the elective system, to let the elected representatives of the people in on the constitutional debate, if he wants to have that kind of profound and all-embracing consensus which will bring this country together. It is obvious that with the representation on his side of the House from the province of Quebec, and with our representation this side of the House largely from western Canada, it is important to inject this note of bipartisanship into such an important debate.
I heard the Prime Minister suggest a federal referendum. Quite frankly, I have not consulted other members of my party on this, but it is my reaction-and in this debate we are talking as Canadians, rather than as party people-that we should be very careful with that federal referendum. We must be very careful that we are not playing Levesque's game. Possibly no province has the unilateral right to separate, and if we admit the principle that referendums can divide and bring this country to an end-which I do not admit-we are falling into a trap.
So 1 say to the Prime Minister, go very easy on admitting the validity of any referendum, be it provincial or federal, in this whole national unity debate. It is no idle threat when I say that for many Canadians, particularly in my part of the world, separation will become an increasingly viable option and those who defend the federal status quo continue to support separation blindly.
I have thought about this for a long, long time. I know that national unity is indivisible, but I think it is true to say that those of us who live in my part of the world are living with this thing day by day. Frankly, I myself am not satisfied with status quo federalism, and for many reasons. In my view,

much more is involved than language, culture and the so-called Quebec question. Ottawa no longer responds to legitimate regional needs from coast to coast. After 1958 and during my first year in Ottawa, I was appalled at the waste, duplication and buck-passing which went on between different levels of government. Action on gut economic and social issues was, and is, being shelved because of the irresponsible handling of these issues within an outmoded constitutional framework.
As examples, I think of housing, the humane delivery of medical and health care services, urban renewal, public transit, job creation, and the rest. How can I tell my constituents, be they French or English-speaking, that contemporary federalism is working, when in many instances in their home towns they are faced with staggering unemployment rates of well over 18 per cent and galloping inflation of well over 10 per cent?
Far too many federalists who are defending the status quo feel that the provinces can be strong only at the expense of a strong federal authority. I have never understood this argument. Perhaps it is true within the present constitutional framework that needs immediate changing, but I do not believe it would be the case under a new, modern constitution drafted within the next two years, made in Canada by Canadians and for Canadians right here. Modern constitutional objectives should underline and encourage strong federal and provincial powers within their respective jurisdictions. Can we expect less? If I have oversimplified the issue, I would like to hear from individual members in this debate before it is too late. I repeat, can we expect less? In view of the present situation, where we have escalation of confrontation between the Prime Minister of Canada and a provincial premier from my province, can we have a continuation of this debate, confrontation and escalation while the economy goes down the drain? I say no, and the time for action is now.
When we analyse federalism in other parts of the world, sometimes we erroneously attempt to make analogies and comparisons, but one which is close at hand historically and geographically has some pertinent relevance. In the United States, after the Declaration of Independence was signed, the first constitutional document was the Articles of Confederation. It proved too weak to hold the union together and a big second step had to be taken before the present constitution was finally drafted and became operative in Washington.
In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation were all elected public officials. There was no task force of defeated members of parliament or of retired premiers. There was no task force going from coast to coast without any elective responsibility to the people. The Fathers of Confederation were elected public officials back in 1867, but it was impossible for them to envisage all the changes which would take place within the next 110 years. Unfortunately for many status quo federalists, the fear of change causes them to resort to irrational words in defence of the status quo, and thus confrontation and escalation, while the country becomes more and more divided and the economy becomes more and more paralysed.
October 24, 1977

I understand much of what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) was saying, but there is far too much buck-passing in this country. When the economy is going down the drain and we are dividing much more than we should be, it is not very comforting to individual Canadians to be asked to look at other countries around the world. I remember, when I was in school, when everybody was flunking exams it was because they did not study for them. It was very cool comfort for me to go home to my father and tell him that I flunked my exam, but that that was all right because the other fellows did not study either; they all flunked.
We are the luckiest people in the world. Very often Canada reminds me of a company I had something to do with. I asked one of the members of the board of directors whether it was a good company, and he said, "Hell, Heward, it has survived 25 years of successive mismanagement". Let us not take comfort by saying that everybody is in the same boat with us. We are blessed with many things and we could be doing one heck of a lot better than we are. I hope those on the treasury benches will convince the Prime Minister that the time has come to let elected people from both sides of the House dialogue with their counterparts at the provincial level as we bring this new constitution to pass.
The Fathers of Confederation of 110 years ago would be the first to tell us in this House to get on with a big second step as they did in the United States. They did not freeze the Articles of Confederation in a museum, as we have done with the British North America Act. Are we up to this challenge? We had better be. Have we the will to preserve the union?
Let us stop talking about this referendum nonsense. The Prime Minister pulled this referendum idea out of a hat, and I am not convinced that we will ever have a referendum in the province of Quebec. I repeat for the second, third or fourth time, who in this House will admit that any kind of referendum, be it provincial or federal, can be an instrument to bring this union to an end? If we carry this kind of confrontation to its logical consequences, do we know what those consequences will be? Do I need to say?
Let us start talking common sense in this debate. I am not afraid to stand up-and I will say it in French and in English-and say that no province has the unilateral right to bring this union to an end. I would like to hear the Prime Minister say the same thing and forget about this referendum nonsense. I am very doubtful about the efficacy of referen-dums in the whole tradition of the parliamentary system, in the first place. I well remember 12 years ago when inside and outside this House I pleaded, not because of language and culture issues or because of the so-called Quebec issue but because of my experience in the four years between 1958 and 1962. I was appalled. If the average Canadian could come to Ottawa and see the waste, the buck-passing and the duplication-not of a few dollars but of billions of dollars, and not because of languages but because of our outmoded constitutional framework-he would surely push us to get on with the job. I had many extremely interesting conversations in those days, upstairs in the cafeteria, with the then new member for
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo Mount Royal, now the Prime Minister, who had the ear of the then prime minister, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
As we debated those matters 12 years ago, I took the position that the time had come do draft a modern constitution, suited to modern times and made in Canada for Canadians by Canadians. It was good debate, although he did not agree with me for all kinds of reasons. First of all, there was the classic notion that any weakening of the federal authority would diminish the possibility of putting on paper the kind of plans he had for Canada. I did not agree with him. But what has happened in the past ten years is there for everybody to see; I am not going to make any partisan interjections about that.
About a year later, a man called Levesque was driven from the Liberal party. He went to Toronto to make a speech, which I heard. He proposed what I thought was a modern outlook, a new federalism, when he said that if the then government and its successors stubbornly held on to the status quo, he would unfortunately be forced into another option. I am not going to be naive and say he was not going into that other option anyway. What I do say is that 12 years later a lot of people inside and outside Quebec deplore separatism and the separatist option. I do not want to use phrases like "cave in," "give in" and "back down", but unless we can be led by some statesmen who understand what the third option is, in terms of drafting a new constitution, this blind following of the status quo will drive more and more Canadians to accepting the separatist option.
Children who go to an ice-cream store for chocolate icecream are willing to accept a second option if the store does not have chocolate ice-cream. When we talk about the future of the country and the provinces, however, it is another thing. The blind faith underlining of status quo federalism cannot go on indefinitely without something cracking. I am not just talking to leaders of political parties, but to every member of parliament, of all political parties, when I ask if we have the guts, the muscle, the clairvoyance, the statesmanship to preserve this union. Are there enough statesmen with muscle, imagination and courage who are ready to go to work?
I do not think the next two years is going to be easy for the parliamentary committees. It is going to take a lot of guts, hard work and give and take. The Fathers of Confederation had fewer tools of convenience than we, but they had the guts, the muscle, and were forward-looking. In this House, most members are Canadians first and party people after. Let us go to work. We can do it, but time is fast running out. The hour for action and leadership in this great country has finally arrived. I do not think, sir, that time is on our side.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, it is not seven years since the last public statement on sport. I am pleased that today, having tabled a green discussion paper toward a new national policy on amateur sport, hearings will be held across the nation on amateur sport so that it will be possible for people in every

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo
community to have input, should they wish to, as we forge our directions and goals into the 1980s.
Canada's accomplishments in sport are often unknown, but that does not diminish them in the slightest. Canadians have, through their own commitment, proved that it is possible to surmount great odds in order to achieve, and achieve in almost every realm of sport. The powerful bond that is forged by sport is recognized on many levels of society both in performance and in mass participation endeavours. There is real joy of effort in seeking personal excellence, as well as enjoying the camaraderie of getting to know others better as we strive toward new plateaus of personal accomplishment.
The sport movement is broadly based, with implications that go far beyond the playing fields, with increasing significance as a tool in the enhancement of both social and health perspectives in a very special way.
Canadians spend $7 billion per year on health care. Over 40 per cent of this cost goes to the overwhelmingly unhealthy lifestyle habits which many people have difficulty changing- habits such as smoking, use of liquor, the licit and illicit use of drugs, nutritional imbalance and physical exercise that is abandoned, to name only a few. As a people we are slowly learning together to change our attitudes and expectations. It is as essential to our physical well-being that we learn a more healthful lifestyle as it is also essential to our economic survival. The two are irrevocably linked together. We have to learn to match reduced expectations to our ability to produce. A radically changing world economy is part and parcel of everything we face today, whether it be sport or national unity.
The main theme of the sport policy formation document set before the House and Canada's sport family today is the scale of the federal role in sport-the structure of sport, its administration, its technical development, its promotion and many other programs. The commitment of this government to sport access is complete. That is the one immutable factor in the paper tabled in this House today. Everything else, I submit, is once again subject to the people. Recognizing that there is federal involvement in sport, the public sector neither can be, nor would want to be, all things to all people. The federal role in sport has, quite naturally, become largely the national and international level of participation. The combination of public funding, lottery revenues from Loto Canada and private funds, is proposed as a means to greater stability in sport endeavours. I expect considerable discussion to take place on this point in the hearing process.
The precept, clearly, is that every Canadian should have equitable access to sport at his or her level of achievement. Certainly, this involves all other levels of government at the community and provincial levels as well where renewed cooperation and consultation can possibly lead to improved accessibility in sport opportunity. Sport at the level of the community and of the provinces is burgeoning just as it is at our level. It is, therefore, essential that we seek together a new means of sharing in sport as in all other attributes of Canadian life.
The mandate at the national level is clear: to assist in providing equitability of sport access in every part of the nation, so that within and between provinces and territories, as far as is practicable, there is a Canadian level of attainment open to every person. This is a national priority and it will only be obtainable through provincial co-operation. But the mandate is not solely here at home. The federal government sees its role as more than just a financier of sports enterprises. Achievement has been made possible by innovations at the national level. Achievement also has been made possible by such systems as a game plan which is a support mechanism including coaching and training access for national athletes and for national teams. A new, developmental coaching school system, in concert with the universities, to develop a national master coach plan through apprenticeship training has been begun, so that Canada will be able to have world-class coaches of its own and not consistently bring coaches from other countries which have had the foresight to train them in advance.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Will this help the Tiger Cats?


Iona Campagnolo: I know the hon. gentleman is a well known sport, but we are trying to keep politics out of sport, and sport out of politics, at this moment.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am still a sport.


Iona Campagnolo: In any event, these master coaches will be the first Canadian trained world-class coaches who will assist us in many ways to bring up the certification for which we are looking. Right now, 44 of the sports governing bodies in this country have attained level 1 in coaching certification, 25 have attained both levels 1 and 2, and 14 have moved up to level 3.
Then we have the national sport and recreation administration centre which was established in 1970 and has provided services to the sport and recreation governing bodies in ever greater number. By 1981, we expect to have all the national associations in residence, additional professional personnel in the form of technical directors, and the development of official referees and judges. As well, program administrators will be employed. These have been added to the roster of expertise that is available to the Canadian sports person. We seek new knowledge in sport research and in sport medicine-another area where Canada has famed pioneers. Few people recognize the contribution made to Canadian sport medicine by Dr. R. Tait McKenzie, who is more often recognized for his beautiful statuary than for his significant contribution to sport medicine.
He is the man who discovered, in the trenches of World War I, that it was possible to bring people when they had been injured in the war back from the brink of despair by involving them in physical exercise. I think of Tait McKenzie as being one of those who made it possible for the famous games for the handicapped that take place in Canada at this time. These games are a joy. I hope that every member will go to see them

October 24, 1977

and will watch a most inspirational form of sport in this country.
We also have what is called S.l.R.C. the first of the national computers in sport analysis. It is the largest and best in the world, the most significant computerized sport and fitness resource centre in the world. Following us in this data centre is East Germany, and following that country is West Germany, just to show us there are accomplishments in the world of sport which are of significance. Our programs for the disadvantaged continue in conjunction with the provinces and other agencies.
I have only touched on various items of the present program.
This new Canada of ours has responsibilities beyond our borders, however, and one such responsibility concerns sport relations with South Africa. It is the same South Africa which this week stated it would "show its fist to the world" in answering U.S. President Carter. There has been much discussion of our sports policy concerning Canadian participation in this nation of racial separation. I should like to reiterate, for those who have been concerned about our policy, a very clear and succinct understanding. The government of Canada will not underwrite with public funds, or provide moral support for the participation of Canadians in sporting events involving South Africa, in either South Africa or Canada.
In Third World countries, we consider the good judgment of both Canadian sports people and the host country will prevail in decisions made by them concerning sport contacts with South Africa. Naturally, we reserve the right to be publicly critical of actions which might contravene the spirit of the Commonwealth heads of government accord reached at Gleneagles, Scotland, on June 12, 1977. The Gleneagles compromise, largely spearheaded by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), put Commonwealth leaders on record as being opposed to sporting contacts of any significance between Commonwealth countries and South Africa. This is a consistent policy of this government, and not just something conjured up to keep next year's Commonwealth's Games at Edmonton on track.
From as early as 1970, Canadian government investments in South Africa have been removed. Canada no longer sells defence goods to South Africa. That is our answer to the heinous social policy of apartheid. There have been politics in sport since well before Athens and Sparta used to seek perfection against each other on the Olympian field, or later when Philip of Macedon was assassinated at the Olympic Games in order that Alexander the Great might succeed him. Politics is an everyday part of life, whether in this historic chamber or in teaching your children a value system which is consistent with your own free beliefs. In turn, sport is part of politics. Our political and economic relations with many countries have been changed for the better by sports people in the sports context. Do any hon. members here think that the head of IOC, Lord Killanin, would be negotiating now to bring China back into the Olympic family if Canada and our Prime Minister had not stood firm and the Prime Minister had not remained adamant on the issue last year of Taiwan's bid to attend the Montreal Olympics?
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: It is vitally important that our high performance athletes seek competition against the best. Best on best cannot always be arranged within our borders, but in co-operation with my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), it has been increasingly possible for Canadians seeking excellence to compete against top athletes in many nations; and our young people are proving equal to the test, primarily here in the western hemisphere against the United States, Cuba and Mexico, but also in the U.S.S.R., in Japan, in Poland, in Hungary, in West Germany and in East Germany, with growing exchanges with other nations as well. These exchanges do not come easily; they are worked at; they are representations of human contact; they are a very fine example of the Helsinki accord.
More than any other human endeavour, sport has proved over and over again that it is the bridge-builder between peoples, the friend-maker, the ice-breaker. It all starts right here at home on the corner lot; at home where there are hundreds of thousands of devoted volunteers, from Inuvik to Point Pelee and from Newfoundland to the Queen Charlotte Islands, making it possible for everyone who has the inclination to participate, to be able to do so. There are fine facilities from coast to coast in this country, and although it is hard to believe, too many of them are not used as much as they should be. We have only to think back to the Canada Games last August, in St. John's to know that more than Games' records are the achievements of such endeavours.
Every province now has provincial editions of mass participation games. These games are a human achievement. Now we look toward the Arctic Winter Games of March, 1978, at Pine Point and Hay River, Northwest Territories; to the giant undertaking with Alberta, the host province of the Commonwealth Games next August in Edmonton, where our goal is to achieve first place. The national contribution of capital and services to the Commonwealth Games exceeds $40 million from the Canadian people. Alberta will demonstrate the efficiency of their building and budget management and the friendly hospitality of our nation's largest northern city.
Then we will move on to Brandon, Manitoba, in the spring of 1979 for the next edition of the Canada Winter Games; then to the Pan American games, in Puerto Rico also in 1979, where we are aiming for second place; then on to Moscow in 1980 where we hope to exceed our tenth place finish in Montreal, which was a significant leap forward from our average twentieth placing over the last 40 years of Olympiads. Gold medals are not everything. Achievement of excellence of our best selves, is. It is as true in our striving for personal improvement as it is in our striving to become the great nation of our potential.
The goal of this government is to ensure that the athlete, at whatever level of competition, is regarded as a full-functioning, productive member of society. The goal of this government is to see that sport, fitness and recreation is acknowl-

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo
edged by one and all as a full-functioning part of that culture which is Canada. No more the sweaty athlete syndrome. No more the denigration of the athletic scholarship. No more the culture which is divided between artists and athletes. Athletes are artists, and some artists are athletes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: We are struggling now with a rather difficult economic period in our evolution as a nation. For too long we have been a nation that is top heavy with those who produce only services. Do hon. members know that today only one-tenth of the labour force is literally "carrying the can for Canada?" Do we know that the world is reallocating its trade priorities, that this global economic earthquake is rocking us to the very limits of our ability to pay for those goods and services we all think we cannot live without?
Even so stern a critic of the mining industry as former Premier Barrett of British Columbia, in a speech in my constituency last week made the alarming statement for him and exhorted that resource exploitation must now be undertaken. He was the premier whose deathless words, "leave it in the ground", are still well remembered in my province and are still ringing in the ears of others, in reference to minerals. Competition in copper from Chile is overwhelming. The attack in zinc, nickel and other metals is hurting our nation. All this reminds members that it is the primary producers of this country, the loggers, the miners, the fishermen and the agricultural producers who are so pitifully few in number, who literally support the rest of us.
The contribution made in Canada by the resource producers to the welfare of this country of ours is gigantic. We will together seek means of weathering this earthquake of the economy so that Canada can turn the corner once again to prosperity. However, in my opinion there will never again be the profits which were reaped so effortlessly in the fifties. They will not be realized in our time. 1 believe that in order to survive, we must be willing to make sure that not only do we survive, but the rest of the world as well.
I could not enter this debate on the Speech from the Throne without talking about reconfederation. There should be no losers in confederation. Our building of unity must be based on real values, not stereotyped ones. As long as one deals in stereotypes, tolerance and understanding are impossible. It is on the real and intrinsic value of each citizen that the strength of a nation can be reinforced.
We are the second largest nation in the world; our geography is overpowering. It has at times intimidated us as a people and it has deterred us from knowing our fellow citizens intimately. Until the banding of our nation by rail and by road, by radio and by television-and the task is still incomplete-we could perhaps afford the luxury of not knowing each other. No more. That which other nations may perceive as an economic burden of transportation and communication, we know to be a social necessity, linking together our people in a federation that takes into account our differences and our regional and geographic inequities.

When I came to Ottawa, I was often perplexed by continued reference to our country's five regions. My consciousness as a northwesterner turned the large end of the telescope on our own differentials and needs and, naturally, my five choices were, the Atlantic, central Canada, the prairies, British Columbia and the north. But here in Ottawa a central viewpoint from our national telescope showed the same malaise I had had, as I heard the regions solemnly named, B.C., the west, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic, half an hour later in Newfoundland, with the north, if perceived at all, seen through the wrong end of the telescope by most everyday Canadians. This distortion, this telescopic myopia, is perhaps unavoidable in a nation where London, Ontario, is closer to London, England, than it is to Old Crow, and where it is cheaper to fly to Hawaii or the Caribbean for a winter holiday than it is to travel from Prince Rupert, my home, to our nation's capital.
Inevitably, there are forces, fed by the unique aspects of each region, which exert pressures on them to pull apart from the rest of the country. These pressures were what we overcame to create this Canada of ours. We must continue, both to respond to the pressure points and to resolve the legitimate grievances they spawn, in order to maintain and to improve the unity that we won through such effort over the last century. But we must address the issue on the basis of a united nation, not on the basis of six regions, each seeking to gain a better deal at the expense of the rest. "Balance-sheet" confederation has never worked, and it never will.
If we succumb to the forces that pull our regions apart, and neglect those that bind us together, we may well become, like Pirandello's characters, six regions in search of a nation, or like the blind people describing an elephant, with each defining, however he or she pleases, his or her own part of the beast, and with the additional burden of a tacit agreement that no line be crossed, that each remain within his or her own region and not "meddle" in the others' territory, while each seeks ever greater power and favour for that region.
It was this type of regionalism that led the premier of British Columbia to say, in 1872, when that province was still smarting over what were felt to be the inequitable terms of the Act of Union:
I would not object to a little revolution ... if after confederation we were treated unfairly.
This quote is from a truly unusual man, but perhaps an archetypal Canadian, a man from Nova Scotia, by way of California, named Bill Smith who so fell in love with the west that he changed his name to Amor de Cosmos, "lover of the Universe". But did his universal love include Canada? Looking backward in time it appears to be "cupboard-love" to me. But surely Amor de Cosmos was not alone then, and would not be so now, within confederation.
Small revolutions? There have been many of them. In fact, we are now in a time when psychologically we are six giant regions and numberless special interest groups waging small revolutions, based on sometimes real and sometimes suspected grievances that reflect the new reality in confederation. One hundred and ten years ago we were 4'A million people huddled
October 24, 1977

around the pivot points of Upper and Lower Canada like winterchilled children around a bonfire.
The fires are banked now and stretch from Newfoundland to the Queen Charlotte Islands, but our constitution remains geared to the bonfire rather than the solar cell. Unless collectively we have the wisdom to perceive the nature of a just and equitable reconfederation and to work continuously toward that goal, we will become fragmented into cultural, ethnic, linguistic, economic and geographic ghettos where regional self-interest, and "What's in it for me?" federalism saps the strength of our national union.
Listen to another British Columbia of early day, a "rentable federalist" of the same era as de Cosmos, John Helmcken, who on conversion to confederation several years after the Act of Union in 1871 said, "Love for Canada had to be acquired by the prosperity of the country and through our children."
"A Canadian is a Canadian, is a Canadian", the Prime Minister said shortly after Quebec made known its intention to secede from Canada. But who is this new Canadian? What is this larger Canada? We are a people who founded ourselves on an indigenous culture which we are only now coming to appreciate. The native people of Canada can teach us love of land and the warmth of sharing in a society that depends on each other in a co-operative manner. We are an officially bilingual nation, which does not mean every citizen must speak both English and French, but that every Canadian must be able to address the national government in his or her official language.
This government, unlike the opposition, does not regard language as a "divisive" force, but strongly and adamantly follows a policy of freedom of choice, genuine freedom of language choice as the only sensible policy. Canadians, too, are a polyethnic society where the best of each culture and of the past is nurtured and husbanded with devotion and retained as part of the fabric of this new Canada. Canada is a promise to the world. If we, with all our regional inequities, racial and cultural differences and political estrangements, can pull this grand diversity into an even greater nation, we shall have set the pattern for a global community that must inevitably follow.
Twenty-five years ago, in Prince Rupert, Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent said: "We shall never have real peace until the whole world becomes one large, good neighbourhood in which all men and women respect the rights of others and work together for the common good." We must remember that all men are our neighbours. As we, together, engage in this battle for our nation's future, I cannot ignore the heroic fight of the Fathers of Confederation 110 years ago to bring Canada into being. Some of their words still ring true today. I should like to quote from a speech made by Thomas D'Arcy McGee in Halifax in 1894. He said: "Who will oppose? Who are now opposed to the union? Only those who have a vested interest in
The Address-Mr. Brisco
their own insignificance." As a British Columbian, 1 say to Quebec:

Your presence is not without value for the future of our country. You are essential to its life and your presence is of absolute necessity.

Each person in this nation is the mother or the father of a new federation-a new and better Canada for all.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. If the subject of part of my remarks is parochial, it is with justification. The federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia signed, in June of this year, a series of agreements. Indeed, two substantial agreements were signed under the DREE program, one dealing with industry and the other with agriculture.
It is interesting to note that in the subagreements, according to the terms of reference laid down by the governments themselves under the general development agreement for British Columbia, attention was paid to two or three areas which are closely spelled out. These areas which are singled out for special assistance are the northwest portion of British Columbia and the northeast portion of British Columbia. I have no quarrel with that; indeed, I think it is most commendable. But it is also interesting to note that the one area which is clearly identified in the agreement, but which has been totally ignored in terms of special consideration, is Kootenay West.
I must say that reading the industrial agreement I was amused and more than a little frustrated at the minister's definition of "small business". I know he is prepared to provide as a loan or a grant-it amounts to the same thing, because it is forgiveable-some $30,000 on the basis that the capital investment of the person making application for the money does not exceed $60,000. I would ask the minister responsible for small business, if he were in the House today-I see that his predecessor is here-whether, in his opinion, the $60,000 limit on capital investment can be considered to qualify under the definition this government has of small business. I am curious to know what, according to the colourful imagination of this government, $60,000 is going to accomplish. I suggest a person would have difficulty in establishing a Dixie Lee outlet or a Colonel Sander's chicken-stand with that amount of money, at today's equipment prices.
However, it is some comfort to us to learn that the Liberal caucus is visiting Kootenay West this weekend. I am encouraged by this, because as a result members may have an opportunity to grasp the problems they have ignored for the last 40 years. Perhaps they will learn for themselves about the rape they have imposed on Kootenay West with their Columbia River treaty. Perhaps they will get to understand the problems of Castlegar. Perhaps they will sit down with Audrey Moore. I hope they do. Perhaps they will ask her what she thinks of the DREE program and the amount of assistance likely to be forthcoming for Castlegar which is suffering from a serious water shortage.

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Brisco
The government has told us it is seriously concerned about unemployment and that it wishes to support measures taken by industry to increase employment. Castlegar has within its borders a provincially-owned pulp mill and sawmill. This complex is now to undergo a $7 million expansion, which means additional jobs. However, there is no place where the workers may live, because any new homes which may be constructed in Castlegar today are built on the understanding that they will not have a water hook-up. The problem is that Castlegar, at the confluence of the Kootenay and Columbia Rivers, has to rely on wells in its own subsoil, and because of geographical configuration those wells do not draw water from the Columbia River system. They are wells whose content is highly alkaline. Instead of the soft, clean water which lies above the Keenleyside dam, the residents of Castlegar must put up with this system.
I urged the minister responsible for DREE to consider a subagreement similar to the one drafted for Fort Nelson, involving $3 million or $4 million-$7 million, as it was with Fort Nelson-federally, provincially and municipally shared. That plea fell on indifferent ears. They said, "We are coming up with a new industrial and rural agreement, and surely within this context there will be something for Castlegar". Officials of DREE have advised me that as far as they can determine, there is nothing in the terms of the subagreements which affects the city of Castlegar, even though there is a less than adequate supply of water through the hydrants for fire fighting: 50 per cent of the fire hydrants register less than 50 per cent of the required pressure.
Hon. members are aware, as is the minister responsible for DREE, that the Cominco plant in Trail is in process of a $435 million expansion program. That is more money than the federal government has ever spent in the riding in the history of Kootenay West. Here again, more jobs are being created and there is a need for housing. Because of its geographical position, there is no more room in Trail for houses to be built, so people are looking to Castlegar to provide the accommodation they need. The problem, of course, is that if they move to Castlegar, since no water supply is available they cannot build houses. If the government is going to put its money where its mouth is, if the government is truly concerned about employment and about human values in British Columbia, then when government members visit my riding of Kootenay West this should be the very first issue to which they address themselves.
One of the things I have discovered, to my despair, during the short interval I have been a member of parliament is the lack of social conscience on the part of the government. It really is not entirely the fault of government parliamentarians. Clearly, in my view, ministers fail to get the message across to senior civil servants, who have established their own little empires, that there is need for a heart and for sensitivity in government. How many members, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, have appealed to the minister of health in the past and said, "Mr. Minister, I have a senior citizen in my riding who has paid into the Canada Pension Plan for a number of years,

and when he applied for his old age pension he thought he was applying also for his CPP. After three months without his cheque, he discovered his mistake, and he is now asking to apply for his rightful benefits under the CPP and for the three or four months' lag in benefits which he missed because of his own ignorance"?
It is only recently that the minister, due to pressure from members on both sides, has at last amended the act to make provision for such cases. However, how many senior citizens have been robbed-there is no other word for it-of their Canada pension for a period of months? Because it was engraved in stone in some ridiculous government regulation, the minister was determined to stick to the book. How very unfortunate for Canadians. That is only one example, Mr. Speaker, of many in which the government has demonstrated its total lack of feeling.
If I had an opportunity to sit down quietly with some of my constituents, or indeed with all Canadians, I would say to them that one of the biggest frustrations I have today, as a member of parliament, is that some members of parliament have been dishonest and have deceived Canadians; that this government has on occasion demonstrated what can only be called corruption; that the government and its members sitting opposite, when confronted with evidence of corruption, of lying, of deceit and dishonesty, have jeered, hooted, howled, smiled and grinned at those who have with justification levelled charges.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are among us some who have a conscience. I find it very disturbing that a member would not accept with a great measure of seriousness the charges which I have heard levelled in the House in the past. But rather than accept those charges seriously, rather than expressing concern, they adopt a united front-the big grin, the deceitful laugh. I think Canadians are going to wake up somewhere down the line and realize just how dishonest this government has been, in terms of its dealings with the people.
So many examples have been raised before in the House of government arrogance, of the pork-barrel system. The Liberals laugh it off. What disturbs me most is that Canadians do not rise up in their anger and frustration and let the government know what they think of the blatant pork-barrelling of this government. One of the most laughable instances is the government's decentralization program. Let me refer to a Conservative riding, Cape Breton. One of the most laughable decisions of the government has to be the movement of the passport mailing office to Cape Breton. Quite frankly, I have advised my female constituents that the minute they give birth to a son or daughter they should consider making application for a passport, because it might just arrive at the same time as puberty of the child.
If you review, Mr. Speaker, the last round of pork-barrelling, you will notice that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), our Deputy Prime Minister, received a hand-out in terms of public service decentralization. The community involved is Antigonish. Then the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais) received some goodies for North Bay. The Speaker of the House had some goodies for Sudbury-and God knows



jt
if
g-V
October 24, 1977

they need them right now. Then we have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) whose riding of Saskatoon also benefited. This brings me to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), that corn-fed youth of the west. I can just imagine what the farmers are saying, as they thump across the fields in their tractors at this time of the year, about the grain exchange, or the Wheat Board, or whatever it is, that has gone to Camrose. Does this government really think that that is going to buy some votes? If they really believe that, let me tell them they are in for a very rude and serious awakening.
Then we must not forget our new Minister of State (Environment (Mr. Marchand)) and the goodies for Kamloops, B.C. The minister of Indian Affairs has received a hand-out for Peterborough. Then there is the allocation for Thunder Bay, represented by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), which has enormous unemployment of, I think, about 2.5 per cent. Then, of course, we have the parliamentary secretary from Thunder Bay, the parliamentary secretary from Sherbrooke, Quebec, and on and on it goes. The list is nauseating and is a condemnation of the system with which we are saddled at this time. Yet hon. members opposite sit there and laugh and grin. They should hang their heads in shame.
Since October of 1974, which is not that long ago, I have sat in this House and listened to the charges laid in connection with Sky Shops. I have seen the emasculation of the standing committee dealing with Polysar and AECL, the failure to disclose the truth, the fear to disclose the facts. I have seen the "dial-a-judge" affair go through the House, and the cabinet resignation which resulted. There has been the contempt of court by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouel-let), and the travel agents and Air Canada question. The principal secretary of the Prime Minister found himself conveniently promoted to the Senate, thereby avoiding the necessity of answering questions on the order paper.
Then there was, more recently, the uranium cartel, in which we now find that champion of truth and justice moving forward to the television sets of Canada and telling the people that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand) has come to their rescue, that he is going to hold an inquiry and that the government is going to examine itself. It is going to test its own integrity, Mr. Speaker. It is like a patient with a long-standing disease making a self-diagnosis. This self-diagnosis would be without the benefit of any outside impartial analysis. Let me assist in the diagnosis. The first thing we would find in the victim is a hardening of the policy arteries of this government. We would find a cerebral atrophy of ideas. We would find an emphysema of rhetoric, a social disease of arrogance, a pox of corruption, and tunnel vision of ideas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Carry on, doctor.
The Address-Mr. Brisco


Robert Hylton Brisco: The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went across this nation in 1974 and told Canada that everything was fine, that we had nothing to worry about, that the federal government was now addressing itself to one of our major national concerns and that a whole new transportation policy would be evolved. Where is the transportation policy? I suspect it is probably residing somewhere at the bottom of the St. Lawrence Seaway, or in Hamilton harbour with the rest of the scandal.
The Prime Minister assured Canadians that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), the then leader of the opposition, was woolly-headed in his thinking in terms of an economic policy for Canada, and that this idea of prices and incomes control was something abhorrent. It was just as serious as the social disease from which this government now suffers. Yet what do we have. We have a government which has saddled Canada with a prices and incomes control system far removed from the concept advanced by the hon. member for Halifax. There is no comparison. It is nothing short of an economic disaster. It demonstrated most of all that the Prime Minister, that renowned athlete who was going to wrestle inflation to the ground on God knows how many occasions-


Mr. Railton:: Watch your language.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I can give you a few medical terms. That renowned athlete suffered from a hernia and introduced prices and incomes control after telling Canadians that it would never be done by a Liberal government. What Canadians lost when they elected a Liberal government, when they believed in their Prime Minister and his deceit, was a man of integrity and basic honesty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: They won a performer on television. They won a man with a convincing tongue. They won a House full of Liberals who at every challenge to their honesty and integrity sit there and grin and laugh up their sleeves.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Robert Hylton Brisco: They won a foghorn for a minister representing Canadian farmers. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has now assured Canadians that all will be right with unemployment and that the government will throw SI50 million into Canada Works. Riding after riding has submitted, for approval, Canada Works' applications. They have rejected some and are unable to fund others. Whether it is called Canada Works or a rose by any other name, we will probably see that those frivolous projects which should never be funded will be, in fact, funded.
If this is the minister's proposal, there will be no frivolous applications coming from Kootenay West. You can keep your dirty money. 1 would rather see that money advanced to solve the problems within Kootenay West in terms of the community of Castlegar and its water supply.


Mr. Whelan:: Oh, oh!

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. McRae


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have a question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He is taking notes. I hope he is paying attention.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I would rather this government spent $150 million on some policies of permanence. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has been urged by members on this side of the House to consider a major upgrading of the manpower training program, much greater support, in conjunction with the provinces, for our skilled trades and a need which has been clearly demonstrated to fill those jobs which require skilled trades. What do we find? Tool and die makers are being imported from Europe. Coal miners for British Columbia are being imported from Taiwan and Southeast Asia. What is wrong? What is the problem? Clearly, the government is not listening. How can this government allow industry to import these skilled trades which we need, and turn a blind eye on the necessity to provide apprenticeship programs to fill the jobs waiting for Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Robert Hylton Brisco: What possible use is there in a decentralization program, if this government is not prepared to go ahead, in concert with the provinces, and think about the decentralization of some of our universities and university programs into the area of skilled trades? What is wrong with putting skilled tradesmen out in the marketplace where they are needed, instead of filling the streets and the taxis of the nations with people who have university degrees and nowhere to go?
There is a great deal more I could say about Canada, our government and national unity. I have addressed myself to only a few of those points. I apologize if I have been overly parochial, but I should like to remind the Liberal members of the British Columbia caucus-I see one representative of that caucus in the House today-that when they come to Kootenay West they should consider sitting down with the people who can inform them how their government has failed so completely to address itself to the economic problems of Kootenay West and this nation.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled, in the last week of the debate in which we have been participating, at the way the opposition has attacked the government without really any understanding of the kind of problems we are facing at this time. Also, I am appalled at the rather weak defence the government has made of a rather good record.
Before we talk about the problems of our time, we should look at the record of this government over the last ten years to see if its record is as bad as the opposition is saying it is. I can see it is much better than the government is declaring it to be. The most useful document I am able to acquire each year is the annual review of the OECD, the economic survey dealing with Canada. The books on this document were closed on June

30 and the document arrived in Ottawa some time in late August or early September.
I would like to refer to a few of the figures included in the document, to indicate the success this country has had relative to other countries. The OECD uses four indicators. They survey the seven major countries, of which Canada is one. This summit group representing those countries met in London. If the opposition had a chance, I suppose it would say Canada is seventh in that group because Canada has the smallest population and there is something wrong with that. However, we are part of that group of seven.
There are four indicators. The first indicator is real personal consumption. Canada leads in the group. The average annual increase for Canada over the period 1970 to 1976 is 6.5 per cent. Canada is first and the United States is fourth at 3.4 per cent. Another indicator is real disposal income per person employed. Canada is fourth in this category at 4.2 per cent. The figure for the United States is 1.6 per cent.
In total number of new jobs created, Canada leads the list with 3.2 per cent for every year, on average. Canada leads the seven countries in that category, with the U.S. second at 1.8 per cent. Let us talk about the increase in the household savings ratio. Canada is second and the United States is seventh. In these four categories which are used by the OECD-and we are talking about the years 1970 to 1976-we come first in two, second in one, and fourth in the other. Is that a bad performance? Is that an intolerable performance? Is that a mess? I say that is a fine performance, and I am critical of the government for not bringing this to the attention of the public.
There are a couple of other points which should be made with regard to this document. The document says that in 1974-75, at the cost of deterioration in the relative inflationary performance and the external balance because of this, Canada resisted the international recession much better than most other industrial countries. Following the shift in emphasis during 1975, which was a recession year, economic policy continued, in 1976, to give priority to reduction in inflation not only as an immediate objective but also as an essential condition for sustained improvement in output and employment. Those in the NDP said we should not have gone into controls; OECD said we did the right thing. We had the right priorities at that particular time.
In 1976, private consumption grew by 6 per cent in this country. Private savings also grew. The OECD says that this consumption did not grow because of any propensity to consume. In fact, the household savings ratio nearly doubled in the same period, but buoyant, real disposal income growth was achieved, thanks partly to an extremely rapid expansion in employment. That is why Canadians are better off, and to say that the government has not done these things is to miss completely the point of the OECD which, I assume, is a neutral body dealing with some 20 countries.
Let me refer to another figure, which does not come from OECD but from the Canadian Press of last week. Average family incomes, before taxes and deductions, rose by 5.9 per
October 24, 1977

cent to $19,110 in 1976 from $16,613 a year earlier. After inflation, that represents a 7 per cent increase in family incomes. Yet we put this forward and say that Canada is doing very badly.
In real dollars, since 1968-which was the year the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took the reins of government-that is, dollars which are not inflated by taking 1971 dollars as a constant figure, the gross national product increased by 42 per cent over these eight years. Canada's personal consumption- in real dollars, again-increased by 52 per cent. This, again, is from OECD.
Let us consider the clincher. Hon. members opposite say that the government is spending too much money and bankrupting the country. But personal income, in real dollars, increased by 52 per cent. Government expenditures-in other words, government consumption-increased by only 41 per cent, in real dollars, in that period. So are government expenditures in excess of personal expenditures? No. Personal consumption has gone up 15 percentage points faster than has government consumption. These are some of the things the government has not told the Canadian public, and I am annoyed that it has not. The reason 1 am annoyed is that I think it is unfair, in these very difficult times, to say that Canada has performed badly in the past eight or ten years, that it is all our fault and that it is only happening in Canada.
I have three major ideas I would like to convey in this speech, aside from getting the foregoing off my chest. I will be saying a great deal more about this as time goes on. The first point is that in a global sense there has been a great increase in the seriousness of problems which governments have had to face. Second, the institutions, the techniques and the means we have had at our disposal traditionally to solve these problems are not working. Third, there is a totally new element involved today with which we have not had to deal before, and that is scarcity of energy resources.
From these three points I would like to draw the conclusion that we have come to the end of an era, and that to get around the frustrations which are bothering all of us-the opposition, the government, and so forth-we have to take a new look at different techniques of solving our problems. I will not spend a great deal of time on the first two points, but 1 will try to illustrate what I mean in terms of inflation. For the first time in a non-war setting we have worldwide inflation which is serious. I understand that the summit group meeting last summer agreed that, generally speaking, 5 per cent must be a minimum inflation rate. In the industrial countries we have had an inflation rate over the last 100 years of between 1 per cent and 1.5 per cent. The rate went to about 2 per cent during the late sixties, and from 1973 on it jumped to 10 per cent and 12 per cent in this country and in other countries.
The summit group says that a 5 per cent basic figure is going to be common. That is the basic figure to work with, and there is very little we can do about it; we have to work with that figure. That is something we have not had before. I must remind hon. members that 5 per cent means a doubling every 14 years; it means that prices will double in 14 years, and in 28
The Address-Mr. McRae
years they will be four times what they are today. In 42 years they will be eight times what they are today, and so forth. It gets ridiculous. I am explaining this because I think it is important when we deal with energy growth.
There is a large unemployment problem all around the world. I am not just talking about Canada. For those who say that Japan has no unemployment problem, I refer to a couple of points made in the Globe and Mail last week. Only 8 per cent of companies recently surveyed expect any increase in permanent employment. Official statistics show that about one million people are wholly unemployed, but at least two million people are considered redundant by Japanese companies which are unable to dump them. In other words, workers are not fired in Japan; they are just made redundant. It is a kind of unorganized work-sharing. The article also makes the point that the Japanese stock exchange is very sluggish.
The New Democratic Party constantly assure us that everything that happens in Sweden is right. I should like to read a paragraph from The Economist, one of the best magazines in its field. I am not trying to show that Canada is worse, or better, but that the problem is global. Referring to Sweden, The Economist article reads as follows:
The picture is already bleak. The first half of this year saw Sweden's gnp falling (0.5 per cent) for the first time since 1945, and the total drop for 1977 will be 1 per cent-just as other industrial countries are averaging 4 per cent growth; unemployment (whether the visible 2.1 per cent unemployed, or 6 per cent total if those in subsidized employment or retraining are counted) is rising and inflation (prices are 14 per cent up on a year ago) is accelerating from 10 per cent a year-
This is in a country with a population about one-third that of Canada. The article goes on to say that subsidies to industries in trouble are gobbling up over $2 billion per year, and that the latest devaluation of the Swedish currency was 10 per cent. To say that Sweden, Japan, or any other country in the group I have mentioned, is doing better than Canada is ridiculous. I mentioned the indicators of the OECD. We are first in two, second in a third, and fourth out of seven in the fourth. To say that is a bad performance, or that Canada is in worse shape than other countries, is wrong.
All the industrial nations have the problems of inflation and unemployment, although to different degrees. Traditionally, inflation went up when unemployment went down, and went down when unemployment went up. But today inflation and unemployment are rising at the same time in all these countries. This is not the only area where we Find an increasing severe problem. We also find it in government spending. This year, we will have a deficit of around $8Vi billion and the Americans will have a deficit of about $60 billion. This is at a time of high inflation. That is another area we do not seem to be able to master.
At the heart of a lot of our troubles, and maybe at the heart of the situation in Sudbury, is the rapid rise in the size and power of multinational corporations. Several good studies have been done in the United States, particularly one by the finance committee of the United States Senate, which show that global

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. McRae
corporations control 1 Vi to twice the amount of the liquid assets of all the national banks of the countries they deal with. Control is not in the hands of governments-Swedish, Canadian, Japanese, West German, the United States-to the extent that it used to be. A good deal of it is in the hands of global corporations. We have a global problem of much greater magnitude than we had in the past.
The second point I should like to make is that our institutions are not working the way they should. Keynesian economics do not seem to be working the way they did. The New Democratic Party has taken a lot of swings at us for not putting enough demand into the economy. They say we only put a very small amount of demand into the economy by means of the last budget. Actually, we put $2.2 million worth of demand into the economy, in the budget as well as through indexing income tax, pensions, etc. It did not create as many jobs as they say the same amount of money will today. It is interesting that much of Canadian income today goes into savings-about five times as much as in the early 1960s. Therefore, if money is put out it does not necessarily go into demand.
We do not just face problems of economics today, but also social problems and stresses. In the community of Thunder Bay, for instance, there has been a great leap in adolescent problems in recent years. Perhaps that has something to do with unemployment, and so on. Recently, I attended a conference of the social planning council of Thunder Bay where the problem of adolescent social misbehaviour was discussed. It is interesting that during the whole evening only one mention was made of the school as an institution. People do not see the schools as the solution to their problems or as having any major effect in solving this kind of problem.
1 could go on talking about the fact that the institutions are not working and that we need new techniques, but I should like to deal with the third subject because it is one that concerns me even more than any others. I refer to the growing scarcity of energy resources. When I studied economics at high school and university, I was taught that scarcity was invented by bankers, and that if we could rid ourselves of the notion of scarcity there would be plenty for all. I grew up with the idea that there was nothing more sacred than an ever-growing gross national product; that whether you were a socialist or a capitalist did not matter-growth was what counted. Almost overnight-I have some thoughts on this because I think we were badly misguided-the world was told that there are shortages, that we are going to run out of energy, and that these shortages are going to produce some very serious problems. This is difficult for people to get used to. Have we been lied to, or is this the truth?
I have said in this House, in committee and outside the House, that the National Energy Board was negligent in not giving us fair warning of the danger. I have said it was negligence bordering on the criminal for not telling us long ago what the situation was. We are getting the figures today, but we did not get them in the past. I think this was gross negligence. I do not mind saying this outside the House, Mr. 
Speaker. I will say it anywhere, because I believe it and the figures will prove it.
There are all kinds of ramifications of the energy problem that we must face. We are told by the National Energy Board, and by a global group dealing with the problem on a global basis, that by 1985 Canada will have a shortage of oil roughly 25 per cent of our needs. The cost of oil alone will be about $6 billion. At present, 45 per cent of all the energy used in this country comes from oil, and 20 per cent from natural gas; so we cannot convert to something else very rapidly. A recent study by MIT indicates that this will be a worldwide problem.
We had some negative testimony, which did not refute the statement that I made in committee some time ago, that Saudi Arabian oil will probably run out in about 30 years' time. I made the statement which, again, was not refuted-that my son, who is now 15 years old, when he is my age, that is, 53, he will be living in a virtually oil-less world. The implications of that are horrendous in terms of the whole of our industry which is based on oil, such as the automotive industry, and so on.
There are alternatives, but they are not easy to achieve and they require a tremendous replacement of energy. The gas situation is not as bad, but we can expect a five or ten-year gap between gas and oil depletion. What kind of heritage will we leave to our sons, daughters and grandchildren? If this were just something I had in my mind, or something the National Energy Board had stated-as I indicated, the National Energy Board has not been too accurate in its predictions in the past- we could say, well, this should not be taken too seriously. But there are all kinds of other groups, such as the group which has put out the book called "Global Prospect" this summer, which say exactly the same thing, namely, that we have a massive problem.
The problem is not just in terms of scarcity of oil, but also in terms of scarcity of capital. I am told-I am not able to vouch for the figure-that the James Bay project is using up 50 cents of every capital dollar being used in Quebec today. The capital dollars that are badly needed in the pulp and paper industry to refurbish that industry, to make it more productive, are being used up in an energy project. When we talk about the future of energy capital growth-$180 billion over the next 15 years- in today's dollars, we are saying that 30 per cent, 35 per cent or perhaps 40 per cent of all the capital we will use in this country will be used for energy projects. That means there will be fewer dollars for consumer products. It means that a whole series of things will happen.
I would like to sum up some of these ideas because shortly my time will run out. First, there has been a quantum leap in the problems faced since the war-in the seriousness of problems facing governments. Second, the techniques and simple answers, about which I hear so much from the opposition and which I find so exasperating, are not working. The institutions we have are not working. For instance, some of our institutions have been bureaucratized to the point where they cannot work.
October 24, 1977

One of the reasons, I suggest, that the schools are not working is that they have become bureaucracies which have had to take on all kinds of other problems besides running the educational system. They have taken on the family, the community, and so on, and so they have ceased to function well. I am saying that our institutions, our techniques, the Keynesian techniques that we use, the social democratic notions that some groups use, are not working at this time and are not likely to work.
Third, we have an element of scarcity of energy in our industrial economy, which could be disastrous. From those three points 1 am led to believe, very much as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated two years ago this coming January, that we are coming to the end of an age, to the end of an era-an era that has been dominated by the notion of growth. This does not mean that we do not need growth, but we are rapidly coming to the end of this era, dominated totally by growth and in order to solve our problems we must look at new ways of doing things; we must adopt new approaches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: The frustrations which we feel in this House when we come together and shout at each other are caused in part by the fact that there are no simple answers to these problems. The techniques we have are not working.
I think that these frustrations will begin to go away when we start looking at new techniques. What are some of these techniques? I cannot tell you what the new world is going to be like, but I can tell you about some of the things that might happen and some of the things that might work. One of the things that will be coming into existence is a reduction in the size of things-the "small is beautiful" concept. The John Bullock independent business group is talking about this. They are saying that if you are going to be efficient, the best way is to be relatively small. This is not the total global picture, but it is one thing that I think will be there.
I think it will be terribly important that we develop into a conserver society, as opposed to a consumer society. We will still be consuming a great deal, but we must learn to conserve, to cut back on what we are using at this point.
I think we will find many people-1 found myself doing so this summer-returning to the land, returning to doing things oneself, returning to growing one's own produce, to using wood from the forest and food from the garden. This may sound fanciful, but in my community of Thunder Bay hundreds of people have moved to the country, to non-agricultural land, to good woodlots, beginning to cut down their cash flow requirements, to consume less and to conserve. Eventually, they will be living practically independently in terms of their economic needs.
We also have to look at-this will be the last point 1 will make in this respect, because my time is running out-some of the techniques which are not working in terms of creating employment. I do not believe, if we have a 6 per cent or a 7 per cent growth rate-we had one last year of 5 per cent-that we will be able to create the number of jobs that will be required,
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
given the degree labour participation in this country. We have approximately 300,000 people coming on to the labour market each year from schools as opposed to 60,000 in the 1950s. We will not be able to create enough jobs, even with a fantastic growth rate. So 1 do not think this is the solution in the creation of jobs.
There are two ways we can do it. One is to keep a certain group of society off the labour market permanently, which is one of the things we are doing now when we are saying the unemployment rate among our young people between 15 and 25 years of age is 12 per cent to 14 per cent. The other is to start sharing the work that is available among the people who are available to do the work. It seems to me that the Sudbury situation, which is a very grave one, has all kinds of ramifications.
We have here, essentially, a very strong case for doing some serious work-sharing. That work-sharing should involve three ingredients. First, it should involve a fairly large unemployment insurance fund which would be used in Sudbury, for example, to pay people who are not working. Second, it should involve a very big commitment on the part of INCO, perhaps refunding some of the tax already deferred. Third, there should be a sharing of work among the employees. I know many people in my community told me that, given the fact they have good incomes, they would prefer a four-day week, at the same hourly wage they are earning, than a five-day week. If one went to the individual workers-not to company representatives or union representatives-one would find many people in Sudbury who are well paid, who have a house, a car, a Skidoo-and will be getting a second Skidoo-who are beginning to think that perhaps their life would be better if they had more leisure and that work-sharing in the context of the three elements of industry, government and the worker, may be an answer to this problem.
I repeat what I said earlier. Is it much better to share the amount of work that is available among the people available to do the work, than have one group working for 40 years, eight hours a day and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Edmund McRae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might take a question at this point and let it go at that. 1 believe I have pretty well made my point. We live in a new age. The answer is to start looking for new ideas, and not condemn each other. If there is a question, I will be glad to take it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to follow in debate the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae), whom I have always thought of as an optimistic member of this House who looks upon life in a

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
rather cheery way. However, if he was evincing the attitude of this country, more particularly within the ranks of the Liberal party, with regard to the future of this country, his solemn and somber attitude is something with which we should concern ourselves.
We live in a land that is replete with resources and a work force that has shown itself able to rise to challenges. If we must suffer under what he terms a conserver society, where we have to turn up our collars in the face of winds that are temporary, we are in much deeper trouble than we thought. I do not accept, and I hope others in this chamber do not accept, that the future of this country needs to be burdened with the sombre and doleful picture painted by the hon. member for Fort William.
Let us face up to a few things. In his speech today, the hon. member for Fort William said he was appalled at the weak defence of the government. Has it ever occurred to that hon. member that the government is defending weak case, not in terms of the ability of Canadians to come together and meet a difficult situation or crisis, but in terms of the government's involvement in it?
The hon. member mentioned the 1NCO case. That company, and indeed the whole of the mining industry in Canada, has become the handmaiden of the taxation policies of government. Governments have conveniently looked upon industry in Canada as the place from which they can soak up money with which to operate a whole host of programs. They did not think that when they are taxing and double-taxing, as they have done in the mining industry of Canada-and not just this government but other governments as well-they were removing from those agencies which employ thousands of Canadians their ability to function in competition with other nations of the world.
There are 21 nickel-producing countries in the world. If our taxation policies are so out of line that industries cannot compete-and that is the case with INCO-a lot of the blame must fall at the feet of the federal government as well as other governments. If that is to be the case, is it any wonder we are in trouble in competition in the world with respect to the production and sale of nickel?
What does the government do? Today, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) was asked in this House whether the government would consider taking leadership in terms of relieving the burden of taxation on this aspect of the mining industry. What did he say? He said the burden is a responsibility of the province, not his government. That is nonsense. The leadership, change and new approach which the hon. member for Fort William spoke about has to come from somewhere. I suggest the leadership should come from the national government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I listened with great interest to the very eloquent and far-ranging speech made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). He said, as did the hon. member for Fort William, that when

we look at our position in relation to other countries, we should consider ourselves fortunate. Of course we should. However, that begs the question.
I would be the last to argue that, in terms of a nation which is just emerging in the middle of Africa, we should not consider ourselves fortunate, or in terms of some European nation that has been fraught with economic difficulties. What the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the hon. member for Fort William did not say was that we have moved from second place to ninth place in relation to all the nations of the world. While we can consider ourselves fortunate today, the question that must be in the mind of every Canadian is, why have we made that leap downward? Who was responsible for it? It was not Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, nor was it the New Democratic Party or the Social Credit Party. Those parties have not been in power in this country for ten years. It does not lie in the mouth of the hon. member for Fort William to make that assertion. What has happened is that there has been a failure on the part of this government properly to study or interpret what has been happening in the world; it did not relate its approach to Canada's economic policies in terms of other nations. There is a serious responsibility there which we should take. It does not help the fishermen, the INCO worker, the Newfoundland miner, the linerboard plant employee in Newfoundland, or the thousands of students and young people who over the past five years or more have come to me and other members of parliament, to say that we are as good, or better, than other nations in the world. That is a political cop-out.
The hon. member is correct in saying that we have to take some new approaches. We must look at the way our society is going, and ask ourselves whether we have now reached the point where we are asking too much of government. Is it the job of government to do things for you and for me, or is it the job of government to create an atmosphere where I can start doing things for myself, whether I am a farmer, a businessman or a teacher or whatever. It is not satisfactory to say that all countries have the same problems, because they do not. We have problems in Canada, in terms of our geography, which cannot be overcome by a minister simply making a speech in the House of Commons.
What has been the approach of the government with regard to this matter? Sometimes, in economic terms, in terms of gathering together the elements of this nation to face a problem, the government finds itself at odds with the facts.
The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), who spoke a few moments ago, mentioned the whole problem of the decentralization of government. There isn't a person in the House of Commons who would argue that it is not a reasonable thing that elements of the federal government ought to be placed in various parts of the country. But no one in the House of Commons, surely-except, perhaps, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien)-would swallow the argument that decentralization must take place because it is going to help employment
October 24, 1977

in particular areas or because it is going to help national unity. Is our unity in this country so frail that the presence of a post office or an agency of government in a particular place is going to be the band-aid or an adhesive to hold it together? Of course not. No one honestly believes that.
This new program has been called expensive, in a period of restraint. It has been called a program of political patronage, and that is precisely what it is. We hear the argument that it is to help unemployment in those areas. What a silly argument that is. Look over the list of agencies which are being transferred. What are those agencies? Technical agencies, scientific agencies, specialized agencies. Are they going to lay-off the experts in these fields and hire others in the local areas? Of course not. They have sent 92 jobs to Cape Breton. The hon. member who represents Cape Breton called it a crumb from the table. Do they envisage that those 92 jobs will be filled down there? Of course not. Three quarters of the people are going to move down there at some personal and public expense and inconvenience. Less than 20 jobs will be taken through local employment in that area. This is the ridiculous part of the program, at a time of restraint.
What we face is a government which operates by cosmetics. Not too long ago, in the last session, I put a question on the order paper asking what studies had been undertaken with respect to the decentralization of the public service. I asked what was the cost per man-year and whether the government had done anything at all except canvas ministers to ask what agencies could be moved. Do you know what answer I received, Mr. Speaker? No studies had been carried out. It was pure politics. There had been no reviews, nothing. Yet they expect us to believe them when they say they are concerned.
In the week after the announcement was made, I had nine public services families come to my office saying, "Mr. Baker, I have a problem, my wife and I have a problem, our children have a problem. We have our aged parents settled here, and nobody told us we would have to disrupt our lives. No one ever told us we would have to sell our house and move somewhere else in Canada, however desirable that place might be. Nobody told us our children would have to interrupt their schooling and move from one province to another, with all the difficulties there are in this country with respect to disparity in educational standards. Yet we are forced to move, we are forced to go, by a government which has not learned the process of consultation."
Moreover, this is a costly process, Mr. Speaker. I believe the riding of the minister of the environment is receiving a scientific laboratory from the Department of National Health and Welfare at the cost of $7 million. The employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare have been told by officials of the department that it will cost about $7 million to move that laboratory, because they are not consulted very often. That is nonsense. They are consulted. A public servant who spoke to me about it said that right after the meeting there were five calls for information that was required immediately. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would $7 million do to
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
build a sewage treatment in that area? A lot more than those jobs; a lot more than that government building.
The government has dealt into these issues in terms of cosmetics, and then they ask us to believe they are really serious and they know how to tackle the economic problems of the day. Of course they do not. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is in the House today. The hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) is here today. All of us, it does not matter where we sit, have had problems in terms of the public service. All of us have suffered from the tales told to us of the difficulties which have come upon public servants through the actions of a government which does not care. Every one of us has dealt with human problems as a result of the implementation of bilingualism in the public service. All of us know that careers have been wrecked. All of us know that the merit system had gone out the window. "Merit" is now a dirty word.
What does the government propose? It now proposes to change the policy, so that Canadians who have not had the advantage of growing up in a province where there are two languages spoken and where two languages can be learned, will be effectively barred from the public service of Canada by 1983. We have seen how the government deals with its public servants, how deputy ministers are prepared to go along with anything to satisfy the government, prepared to ruin the career of one man whose name I mentioned yesterday in the House of Commons, Mr. Sant Singh.
How will deputy ministers deal with the positions which are now to be filled on an imperative basis by bilingual Canadians, Canadians who are bilingual at the outset? Are Canadians not going to be given the opportunity of learning the other language? Moreover, Mr. Speaker, we are going to pay bonuses to people who have learned the two official languages-at least, they were supposed to-at public expense. How can any person look at this government and say they are sincere about restraint or about the public service?
Before this House resumed after the recess I called for an independent inquiry with respect to the implementation of bilingualism in the public service. I call for it again today. If the inquiries into the merit system which are going on in the public service with respect to the cost, the problems, the results, the cost-benefits of that implementation, are carried out within the service, then it will be a case of the government examining itself; it will be like putting a weasel in charge of a henhouse. Independence is what is required with respect to this matter.
Over the weekend the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talked about the protection of freedom in this country at a meeting of the rural lawyers of Quebec. He is a personable fellow, and they enjoyed the meeting. He said that in terms of language, which is a serious problem in Canada and which has been his preoccupation, to the detriment of Canada and in many other ways, the lawyers of this country should protect freedom, and one of the things he did not like about Quebec's bill 101 was the following:
190

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. W. Baker
We are forbidding French Canadian parents from sending their children to English schools just as 20 years ago Catholic parents were forbidden from sending their children to Protestant schools.
He said, further, that clauses of the province's French language charter which eliminate freedom of choice in language were "a step backwards for freedom". He told his audience that the documents which were produced by Mr. Gordon Robertson at his famous press conference, when he announced that the attack on lack of freedom would be no attack at all, indicated that the bill was reprehensible. It has been called a blot on the legislative landscape of this country. Yet what is his approach? His approach is to do nothing, to let somebody else carry the ball. "Never mind", he says, "I am the keeper of the constitution; let somebody else carry the ball". Never mind that owing to years of delay, feelings will develop in this country that will go a long way to destroy what feelings we have left for one another, which will drive us further apart. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that a government act. I think it is important that a government take a chance and go to court. I think it is important that a government do what it asks somebody else to do.
I met Quebec Protestant Home and School Association representatives in Ottawa the other day. They told me that in view of the educational limitations of bill 101, and due to its lack of courage, the federal government seems prepared to allow 1V2 million Canadians to rot, in terms of their place in society. The Prime Minister is absolutely right: bill 101 does deny French-speaking Canadians the opportunity to learn English. It also denies English-speaking Canadians in Quebec the right to use their own language as well as French.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What about the ethnic groups?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) mentions the problems of the Inuit people. I understand an undertaking has been given that in that regard the James Bay Agreement bill would not be proclaimed. That undertaking was given in this House, and I intend to see that that undertaking-which was given to me in the House-is carried out.
There is not one member of this House who is prepared to take any step or to advocate any course which would mean the end of the French language or the French culture in Canada. I am sure there is no member who would want to advocate any course or take any step that would end the English culture in Canada or any other culture that goes to make up the Canadian mosaic. But surely the members of this House cannot sit idly by and in all good conscience approve a course of inaction in regard to the very important question of the right of Canadian parents to educate their children in the language of their choice all across this country.
I would be the first to say there have been differences of approach and timing in regard to the advancement of one province compared with another. That, of course, is wrapped up in the traditions of our country. I think it is improper, that it is really a false argument, to say that somehow British

Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan is wilfully deficient in educational terms, so far as minority languages are concerned, because their historical development has been different. But there will be no historical development at all if the government is prepared to sit back and to do nothing.
There are examples where governments have moved courageously and the country has withstood that move and has come to admire the government. But there is just no way that we can justify the stand that Quebec, or indeed any other province, shall not have special status, on the one hand, and then have a government, through a language paper, give it that special status.
The hon. member for Fort William spoke of new approaches that are required in the House in regard to financial control not just by the opposition but by the Parliament of Canada. We have a long way to go if we are to return to the House the opportunity of examining government programs and seeking information which the government relies on in advising itself. I would be the last to advocate that parliamentarians who are not members of cabinet should be privy to discussions which go on among cabinet members leading to a decision. On the other hand, I would be the first to argue that the House of Commons and the public of Canada, a pluralistic society in which we fund as well as promote interest groups, should be given information, points of view and expressions of opinion which are submitted to the government in arriving at certain decisions. 1 think we have to have that. If we do not, then parliament is going to act more and more on instinct rather than knowledge. In view of the complexity of government, this is precisely what is happening today.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) made a good speech in the House the other day, I thought, on what has happened within the bureaucracy, within the public service, and its attitude toward spending. When we examine estimates in this House, Mr. Speaker, we examine them piecemeal. We examine them in a way which actually pushes members of parliament into submitting that perhaps more should be spent on a particular program because it is a good one. But under our parliamentary system we have no opportunity today to examine estimates and government programs in a broad way. I think it is time all members of the House took a look at the machinery that it is necessary to put in place to enable us to contribute to a discussion of financial control over the expenditures of government. This has been lost to us, and should be restored to parliament. There is no machinery in parliament today which enables us to examine estimates in any way other than a piecemeal basis.
I put a proposal to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in the last session of parliament. It was not taken up and it is still there. The hope was to give us an over-all review so that over the course of an ordinary parliament, Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat and Social Credit members would have an opportunity to examine a department's programs in depth in order to see whether Canadians are getting their money's-worth, to see whether a program is good, bad, or redundant and should be done away with. We do
October 24, 1977

not know this today; such decisions are made one way or the other in the bowels of the bureaucracy.
The bureaucrats are not bad people. They are not indecent people. They are not out to scalp Canada. They are humans, a group of human beings with a particular point of view. We must examine the procedures of the House whereby members, some of whom are very talented, can get themselves into the policy-making process. I recall the immigration bill regarding which options were considered in advance. Parliamentarians travelled the country hearing evidence long before any bill or regulations were drafted. As a result of this process there was a very short debate. A report was produced which to a great extent appeared in the form of legislation.
Too often in our system decisions are made by cabinet and the bureaucracy. When legislation reaches the floor of the House, the government has already made a decision from which it cannot move. As a result, debates in this House become long and acrimonious. 1 think that problem could be solved and many matters could be dealt with if we decided to change our approach. Many things can be done to deal with this question. We owe it to ourselves and our institution to make the change.
Mr. Douglas Fisher, in a column which appeared in the current issue of The Legion magazine which 1 see the hon. member for Ottawa West has in his hands-indicated that because of the complexity of our society, our institutions have not kept up. What has happened is that the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the chairman of the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, and the chairman of the task force on national unity, have become more important than this place.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of my friends. 1 will not be too much longer. We have to look at our committee system in the House of Commons in a new way. There is one successful standing committee of this House, and that is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. It is not successful because it is examining the Auditor General's report, but because it has attached to it a staff which is independent of the ordinary bureaucracy. It has attached to it a responsibility which is independent of the government. It has attached to it a reputation of such high order that members on the government side do not choose to be partisan about the work of that committee. The important aspect is that there has been developed for that committee, quite by accident, an independent bureaucracy to assist the committee in fact-finding work. We should develop that approach in order to assist other committees. If our committee system is to function, then that must be done.
The Address-Mr. Hogan
There are a number of other requirements which I will speak about in due course. I do not intend to go further into that matter today, except to say that this institution of parliament will go further and further down in the estimation of the people of this country unless it can be given greater pre-eminence than the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or one of the joint chairmen of our national unity bureaucracy. This is a very important matter to which we must soon direct our attention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in a famous 1975 end of the year interview with Carole Taylor and Bruce Phillips of the CTV, said the following:
Some economists say all you have got to do is get back to the free market system and make this market system work. It won't, you know.
But this same Prime Minister, in his economic lecture to members of the House on Wednesday, October 19, had an altogether different line. He had become converted to return to a free market to get us out of our increasing economic difficulties. He said that our prices are too high, and of course the markets of the world set the prices. This he gave as the major reason for our incease in unemployment which, as we know, is by far the highest of any country in the western world.
The serious decline of this country in recent years has been increasingly clear to Canadians and non-Canadians. To those of us who sit in parliament, the Prime Minister is seen as playing a sort of musical chairs with key cabinet appointments. This ultimately reveals the lack of a coherent economic philosophy for the nation. The country is economically stagnating and dangerously drifting, both economically and socially, under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Unemployment, inflation and a general environment of uncertainty is seriously eroding family and business confidence in the future of this nation.
The Prime Minister seemed to come to government in 1968, not only with a special style and charisma but with some sort of serious commitment to a "just society". This attitude has turned into a short-run, sort of seat of the pants, ad hoc reaction to the serious problems facing the nation. The Prime Minister's inconsistency is shown up not only in the general lack of an over-all consistent economic philosophy; it is personified and made clear in the speech he gave us in the House last Thursday, and it is also enshrined in the mini-budget of his new Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien).
Let us briefly review that mini-budget. The tax cut announced by the minister will take the form of an increase to $300, from $200, in the minimum amount of a federal income tax credit. It must be noted that this tax benefit will apply only to the current taxation year and will affect more than 7.5 million taxpayers. It is estimated to cost the government approximately $700 million in forgone income.
I think most economists would say that this provision will only be a modest stimulus to the economy. It will bring an
80025-13V4

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Hogan
increased job-creation program which, along with the further $150 million approved for federal government works projects, will likely create between 30,000 and 40,000 temporary jobs. Given that more than 900,000 expect to be unemployed next year-and it could be easily one million-these programs promise too little.
Under the new mini-budget of the Minister of Finance, basic wage increases will be limited to 6 per cent for new wage contracts covering the coming year. If the government had not revised the wage control regulations, workers would have been entitled to claim increases of up to 8 per cent in the coming year. This cutback from the 8 per cent level to 6 per cent will, among other things, accentuate the squeeze on personal incomes and in turn that is bound to affect consumer spending and the national economy.
The Minister of Finance forecast that Canada would have an economic growth next year, in real terms, excluding inflationary pressures, of 5 per cent, compared with about 2 per cent this year. The effect on consumer spending by going from 8 per cent to 6 per cent, as announced in the budget, will make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the 5 per cent real growth rate forecast for next year. We will be very lucky if our growth rate extends to 4 per cent. Given the new entrants into the labour force, the sluggish rate of growth in the economy in the last few years, and expected higher interest rates, we can expect very little, if any, relief for the crisis unemployment situation in this country.
Personally, I am scared that the tax cut announced will not result in as much an increase in spending as the minister had hoped for. Savings deposits at the national level grew by 19.7 per cent in the first quarter of this year, and are continuing at extremely high levels. It is more likely to be recognized as a transitory tax cut and much of it which will be applied to the middle-income earner will probably be saved and not entered into the income-spending stream. If the minister hoped that this type of stimulus would result in long-term increases in demand, which would in turn act as an accelerator for investment plans by manufacturers, he will be very disappointed. As is likely, a good part of the result of the tax cut will come out of current inventories.
The minister mentioned that about $1 million will be approved for an employment credit plan for private corporations. This would be a new approach to job creation in Canada, but this type of approach has been used in other countries. Such an employment tax credit program has to be carefully scrutinized because it is likely to give unanticipated windfalls to firms already planning expansion.
The other side of the question is that there is also danger that some employers will lay off initially too many workers at the time of any given cut-backs, only to hire them back again to take advantage of the employment credit plan. I would think that marginal corporations of medium and small sizes are unlikely to expand in the face of the uncertainties of rising inventories and costs. Experience of other countries has shown

that such a plan has not been nearly as successful as it had been hoped.
I am personally pleased that despite the fact that our devalued dollar is in large part due to a mismanaged economy, it will, however, continue to float. Certainly in the last several years our exchange rate has been somewhat over-valued. The continued floating of the dollar should have the over-all result of improving markets for domestically produced goods and a better market for Canada's exports. The price of some important inflation due to the higher price of imported manufactured materials and of consumer imports should be outweighed by the benefits coming from the improved employment prospect the lower dollar carries with it for domestically produced goods, and especially for Canada's exports.
While family allowances are still not indexed, income tax deductions for children under 16 will rise by $30, and for those over 16 to $60. The elderly and those with handicaps will receive an exemption increase of $100 to a maximum of $1,500.
I regret that the government did not see fit at this time to lift wage and price controls in Canada. They are obviously not a long term stabilizing influence on the economy, and the amount of short-term relief in terms of a dampening of expectations has been over-exaggerated.
The country has paid a significant cost in terms of uncertainties and of confrontation between labour, management, and government because of these controls. This, in my opinion, would have been a good time to lift them and to do it quickly and with a minimum amount of phasing out at a time when product markets, as well as labour and financial markets, are weak, and the danger of a post-controls explosion of prices and wages which would create a new round of troubles is at a minimum.
As it stands now workers will be forced to accept the maximum of 6 per cent wage increases when the consumer price index is going to run at 8 per cent or 8.5 per cent in the new year. That is asking for trouble and more confrontation. For the final few months of the existence of the AIB I ask this government to consider exempting the low income Atlantic region from AIB control.
This budget will do little or nothing for poor and low income Canadians whether they live in the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, or any of the other provinces. There are not many people in Canada who realize that the lower paid 25 per cent of families in this country are only getting 4 per cent of our national pie, which we call the gross national product or national income, while the highest paid 25 per cent in this country are getting 42.2 per cent. How long do we have to tolerate this in a country which says it is committed to egalitarian principles and to bringing about equality with democracy? I would like to spend more time on this, but obviously, because 1 have only half an hour, I must move on.
In 1972 the then leader of the New Democratic Party, David Lewis, wrote a book which he titled "Louder Voices". In his book Mr. Lewis analyzed the tax treatment of corpora-
October 24, 1977

tions in this country in recent years, and concluded that it was grossly unfair. It was around this time that the now well known corporate rip-off concerns began to be expressed by our party. Over the post-war period the contribution of the corporate sector toward the financing of public services has considerably decreased in Canada. In 1950 personal income taxes contributed 20.3 per cent to total federal revenues, while corporate income taxes contributed 28 per cent. By 1974 personal income taxes were contributing 37.9 per cent of our federal revenues, while corporate income taxes were contributing only 15.7 per cent.
The essence of our argument, then-and it has not changed because the tax system has not changed, other than to increase corporate rip-offs-is that because of the great power and influence of large corporations, and because of the complexity of the tax system, a succession of federal governments have granted enormous concessions to big business, which have gone virtually unnoticed by ordinary people. We estimate the total annual value of these corporate incentives to be in excess of $5 billion per year, made up of roughly $4 billion because corporations are not required to pay current tax on their current incomes and $1 billion because of corporate rate reductions since 1972.
This is a serious problem for the people of Canada and for rational public policy because it means that a large segment of the government's discretionary financing decisions are not subject to regular scrutiny. Relatively few people are aware of the magnitude of hidden "tax expenditures" involved in the hidden corporate welfare system. Again, the United States- despite the many faults in its tax system-is well ahead of Canada in providing a public accounting of "tax expenditures." Every year a detailed summary of the cost of these tax concessions is presented to Congress.
In Canada no one has a clear indication of the precise cost of corporation tax concessions, apparently not even the federal Department of Finance. It is possible only to estimate the cost based on incomplete information which has been made available through official sources. In 1972 deferred income taxes amounted to $448 million in this country. In 1973 they went up to $959 million, practically a billion dollars. In 1974 they amounted to $1,468 billion. That is the last year about which we know. On that basis it is now believed by us, who have looked at the statistics and studied them, that the annual value of these corporate tax concessions is in excess of $6 billion, an amount equivalent to over 12 per cent of the 1976-77 federal budget. In other words it could be argued that the federal budget is really about 12 per cent higher than the figures which are printed in the annual public statement of the Minister of Finance.
Incidentally, the last available figures in the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act report show those corporation deferred taxes, which are in fact interest-free loans.
By way of digression, can hon. members imagine the average taxpayer, behind in the payment of his taxes to the Department of National Revenue, not being charged interest
The Address-Mr. Hogan
on his overdue current taxes? None of us could believe that, but it can happen with corporations.
1 started to say that the last available figures were for 1974. We can easily project for 1975, 1976 and 1977 that the total amount of deferred taxes for corporations operating in the Canadian economy is between $10 billion and $12 billion. When I hear the Minister of Finance say that he cannot give more income tax breaks to the poor or when I hear, as I did in the House today, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) asking the new Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) where she would get the funds for the beginning of a guaranteed annual income, the thought immediately strikes me-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the hon. member making reference to me, but I think he should get his facts straight. I never asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) a question about anything. My question was directed to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) whose responsibility it is to save money. I was taken off guard when the Minister of National Health and Welfare indicated she was prepared to look into the possibility of introducing a guaranteed annual income. As usual, the socialists really do not have their facts straight so I thought I should intervene to set the record straight.


Andrew Hogan: I suggest that is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member did not ask the minister I mentioned, he asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) where they could get it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is better.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member is obviously against a guaranteed annual income.


Andrew Hogan: The thought immediately struck me, when I heard this question, that if our corporations, who have these billions of dollars of deferred taxes, were paying a market rate of interest to the government on them, we would have substantial funds to help the poor in a more serious way. Imagine if they had just had to pay 10 per cent on the $12 billion they now owe.
From the figures that I have seen, Mr. Speaker, the years 1973 and 1974 were some of the largest years from the point of view of tax deferrals granted in Canada since corporations were required to report these things. These, of course, were the years when the Hon. John Turner was the Minister of Finance and corporations like Canadian Pacific were allowed $56 million in tax deferrals. I cannot but wonder whether there is not a connection between Mr. Turner's incentives to Canadian Pacific and the fact that he is now a director of that corporation. As minister of finance he certainly showed himself as a great give-away artist to some of the large corporations. He might be forgiven, until you remember that, in order to defer taxes, you must have made a profit to have the taxes to be deferred in the first place. One wonders why the over $1 billion

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Hogan
that was given to these corporations in the March budget, as well as all of these tax concessions that I have noted, have not ended up in increased plants and equipment and new jobs in the Canadian economy. One can only conclude that they were added to the cash flows of these companies and were probably used to buy the securities of other companies, and thus increase corporate concentration of wealth without adding much new employment for Canadian citizens.
There is nothing of specific help to the Atlantic provinces in the mini-budget despite the claims of the Prime Minister to the effect that we have received, over the years, large equalization grants, which is undeniable. Despite the effects of various federal regional bodies, from the Atlantic Development Board on through to DREE, there is not much substantial increase in earned per capita income in the Atlantic region. It is true that there was some improvement in the early years of the 1970's in per capital income which has largely been accounted for by increasing transfer payments from the federal government. We do not want more transfer payments, we want earned income. Our people want permanent jobs. They do not want to be continually saddled with high payments for unemployment insurance and welfare payouts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And tax the corporations to death so that they cannot pay anybody.


Andrew Hogan: At a Department of Regional Economic Expansion meeting on April 7 I suggested that there is an especially severe disparity in the Atlantic region when you consider that the official figures of the 1971 census showed Sydney's per capita income was only 68 per cent of the Canadian average. For Glace Bay, it was 54 per cent, and New Waterford, in my riding, 48 per cent. Since the Cape Breton development Corporation took over the coal mines from Dosco-Hawker Siddeley there have been two major mine openings and substantial improvements to another major mine, No. 26 in Glace Bay, which produces coking coal which, even without washing, has about one to 1.1 per cent sulphur only. Yet the mines are still losing money, although Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard), in his speech before the 29th Annual Convention of the Coal Association of Canada, at Edmonton, Alberta, on October 3, 1977 said:
It now appears that as a result of industry and government co-operation, and of new market and technological development, it will be possible to create an economically viable industry by the end of this decade... in Cape Breton.
Mr. Speaker, Francisco Parra, head of Petroleos de Venezuela, South America, in his speech before the Canadian Gas Association just two weeks ago said:
... in ten years the surplus oil production capacity of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) will gradually disappear as demand rises and additional supplies of oil from outside the OPEC area are not forthcoming in significant quantities ...
When this happens, international crude oil prices wilt again rise steeply, perhaps to as much as $20 a barrel in 1976 dollars.
This same theme has recently been reiterated by many experts on the oil industry, and even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) reported it recently at a meeting in Paris. I want to suggest very strongly, Mr. Speaker,

that a mine started in 1978 in Cape Breton-Glace-Bay-New Waterford area would guarantee that Nova Scotia, which is so heavily dependant on imported oil, would have an assured source of supply and this would definitely guarantee that the Devco coal mines would more than break even from an operational point of view.
If you consider that at least one million tons of coal could be sent up from Sydney through the St. Lawrence to the southern industrial plants of Quebec, this country would literally save hundreds of millions of dollars in oil costs for an $80 million expansion for two new coal mines in Cape Breton. This would give us a total production of about six million tons, add directly at least 1,000 miners to that industry, and bring about an increase of at least another 1,000 jobs as spinoff. We desperately need these jobs, Mr. Speaker.
During the first quarter of 1977 for all of Cape Breton, including my own riding, that of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir), and that of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen)-who unfortunately has been sick recently and I wish him well-the government paid out $14.8 million, in round figures, in unemployment insurance. For the second quarter it was $13.3 million, for the fourth quarter $9.7 million, with a total payout to date for 1977 of $37,905,000. The number of unemployment insurance claimants in Cape Breton was 13,751 for January, 1977, and 14,221 in March, 1977. Unemployment insurance payments can go from $50 million to $60 million. We do not want that, Mr. Speaker. We want jobs. The jobs can be put there in terms of coal that is needed not only in Cape Breton and Nova Scotia but to offset the imported oil now being used by Abitibi and by cement and other industrial plants in southern Quebec. If money were invested in Cape Breton mines it would save this country millions of dollars later.
I do not pretend to have much expertise with regard to the fishing industry but I know that with all the good that the late Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson did for this country in trying to promote co-operative federalism, he was an over-zealous internationalist, and we in the Atlantic region have paid a price for that. The result of a policy of bilateral agreements with another country was that after 15 years we allowed foreign fleets to come into our waters and to take most of the fish. Mr. Pearson was too much of an internationalist and not enough of a nationalist. It is hard to fault anyone for being too much of an internationalist, but when your basic industry is allowed to deteriorate for 15 years, as was ours in the Atlantic region, one must call a spade a spade.
We are now turning a corner. I agree with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) who is cautioning against too much development of off-shore fishing until more chance is given to different fish species to grow. It is true that he is considered in the Atlantic region to be too cautious, but I think that with proper planning the mistakes of the last 15 years can be corrected in the next 15.
October 24, 1977

What I am most concerned about is not only that our offshore fishing be assisted-because there is already a threat of a monopoly developing in Nova Scotia, a situation which I already brought to the attention of the anti-combines branch-but that inshore fishermen be assisted because they make up 90 per cent of all fishermen in Nova Scotia. We must make sure that these independent fishermen and smaller companies are protected and are given a chance to develop. The minister disagrees with me when 1 say that we need a 50 mile zone to protect our inshore fishermen, but 1 know, after talking with him, that he is reconsidering his view. I know there are difficulties between inshore and offshore fishermen on this score, but surely it will become increasingly clear, just as the minister said, that delineating a 200 mile zone across the Atlantic will not automatically result in the creation of a new offshore fishing industry. Neiiher will a 50 mile zone be a magical cure for the inshore fishermen. However, we are asking him to consider seriously whether this is not a sine qua non, a premise that must be accepted, if inshore fishing in certain areas is not to be completely wiped out, as threatens to be the case.
The only other point I would like to make in conclusion is that the Atlantic region especially, but the whole of Canada in general, needs more funding for transportation, particularly railway transportation. If we are to assume that the cost of oil will continue to increase and that gradually, in the next 30 years or so, our resources will be depleted, then it makes sense to put more money into the most labour intensive transportation industry. Railways do not use nearly as much energy as other forms of transportation.
Already the Department of Transport, the utilities in Ontario, the steel industry in Ontario, and the western premiers are getting together to consider whether or not to rebuild the whole railbed from British Columbia through Alberta to the terminal point of Thunder Bay, at an expenditure of some $2 billion in the next ten to 15 years. I suggest that the same thing should be done in the Atlantic region up to Montreal, and that over the next ten years we should put in $1.5 billion to help stabilize the rail plant in Sydney and the rail car plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia, which would have an important effect on the port of Halifax through the movement of goods to central Canada.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to commend the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Their responsibilities were attenuated since the speech as such is a summary of good intentions. What will be interesting is the forthcoming pieces of legislation.
In last Friday's issue of Le Droit, I read a comment from a journalist, Mr. Lacombe, who summarized his views more or less in the following words:
The Speech from the Throne: What Next?
To the extent that the Speech from the Throne informs us that the government's intentions are to improve the economic situation and maintain national unity, it is certainly a valuable document. To that extent, it is even a noble
The Address-Mr. C.-E. Dionne
document... Anyhow, it does not really matter and it is of little significance that the Speech from the Throne smacks of electoral opportunism, as many have said. What really matters, once again, is the work that will be done throughout the session which has just started.
Of course, that is what matters most. As other people, I have noticed that the speech often mentions the unemployment problem, and rightly so because this is the main problem Canada is faced with just now. I should like to quote a particular comment which I found most interesting:
The suffering which is currently the consequence of unemployment in Canada is seriously disquieting. It is neither fair nor admissible that so many men and women should be deprived of the dignity of gainful employment, and unable to meet their financial obligations and make plans for their future in a climate of confidence. It is not tolerable that so many people should be deprived of their rights to a useful and assured livelihood and that their families should carry the unfair burden of worries, uncertainties and deprivations. Unemployment is now, on a national scale, a very serious impediment to economic growth.
That is certainly a most beautiful way of putting it. However, I remember quite well that in its Speech from the Throne of February 27, 1974, the government stated:
Other measures will be taken to increase production and employment through providing workers with improved access to available jobs, and employers with improved access to Canada's manpower. These steps will relate employment policy, immigration policy and the activities of the Unemployment Insurance Commission.
In the throne speech delivered in 1972 which 1 have on hand, the following can be found:
Unemployment continues to be a matter of intense concern to the Government and will remain a primary focus of attention and action. Co-operation with the business and industrial communities will be extended even further to ensure a favourable business climate. As the economy continues to gain momentum, the private sector will be able increasingly to provide jobs for those Canadians.
Those years have elapsed and we are now facing conditions which I do not have to describe. Everybody is aware of it. The number of unemployed is gradually increasing and that is getting alarming. Yet our ancestors had to fear famines as a result of bad crops in some areas. They did not have the means of transportation we have. Today there is plenty, or there can be plenty provided we know how to use it. The forces of nature man has harnessed are multiplying goods while increasingly reducing his direct participation in the production process. Progress increases the number of goods while reducing the number of producers, and yet it is felt that only the producers should be entitled to the products.
It seems that since we get plenty with little work, man should have abundance while enjoying more leisure. Yet nobody has even found how to provide everybody with the necessaries. We have a long way to go. We have plenty in production but scarcity in distribution. Why? Is that a natural law? Not at all. That is not even a law, that is a convention set by men, convention which could do during centuries of labour and scarcity, but which can and must be changed to adjust the economic order to the present historical situation. That convention set up as a law by masters of money and profiteers of the system is running against the progress which it is deterring. It is inhuman because it makes man become the slave of money and keeps him in an unjustifiable state of deprivation.

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. C.-E. Dionne
It is the cause of both immense physical and spiritual sufferings. In a society which distributes its benefits to such an extent in proportion to work, the situation of the poor is both terrible and inexcusable.
In order to meet the difficulties faced by low-income people, we should first of all establish a plan which would guarantee them at least the minimum income above poverty level. No other measure is more urgent. It is unfortunate that no real guaranteed income program, no real legislation establishing the guaranteed income for everyone is put before Parliament. We have been hearing about this for 10 years or perhaps for more than this, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) sometimes suggests programs she intends to implement; this is a beginning but still far from being real guaranteed income legislation. This should exist in a country like ours which keeps pouring its wealth outside; I am not against this as I am prepared to help those who are in a difficult position, but we should be intelligent enough to organize here in Canada a system of life which would enable all citizens to look to the future with a little more confidence.
I will deal again with the unemployment problem since it was mentioned on several occasions in the Speech from the Throne. We have seen that after collating and studying various statistics on occasional, sectorial, seasonal and temporary unemployment, we now have permanent unemployment. Bill C-27 has been passed. It is a strange combination of commissioners, officials and consultants whose task seems to be a redefinition of duties and a reappraisal of the goals to get more jobs for Canadians. We wish good luck to all those who will assume administrative responsibilities in this combination. However, I am afraid this will not change the meaning of a number of provisions of the law as well as the regulations which the personnel of National Revenue, another group, use to disqualify unemployed people who experience problems with job insurability.
An employee is now required to pay back $2,500 to $3,000 benefits he has received. But the commission had found him eligible and paid him benefits.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: After he was found eligible!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Yes, and after some kind of summary inquiry they decided to refer the case to income tax officials and told him: "This is unfortunate, but your job was not insurable, so you must pay back the overpaid amount."
Let us put ourselves in the place of the unemployed who, after receiving benefits because he was unemployed, is being asked by the commission to pay back. But here is something worse still. He should at least have been told after the first month so he could try and get welfare. But at that time he was eligible and he got the benefits. This is quite normal in view of current circumstances, but after one year he is told he had no right, he must pay back all that money.
I have cases in my office. Anybody can check them, I will be quite happy to show that this is absolutely accurate. I appeared many times before the Federal Court. Fortunately I met very sensible judges, including one of our former col-

leagues here, Mr. Justice Dube, who is now a member of that court. He realized by himself that this was unbearable, these jobs were insurable. A citizen from Saint-Jean-de-Dieu, a gentleman outside my constituency who comes to see me on occasion, was refunded $3,120 one month ago. He had been forced to borrow from his caisse populaire to survive after being denied unemployment insurance benefits because his job had been found uninsurable.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: This is senseless and should be changed. What with those irrational requirements about searching for a job, the unemployed worker should go on meeting serious difficulties. The unemployed is required to stay next to his telephone in case some bureaucrat in the manpower centre calls him. He is required to phone every possible place where some employer might need his services. He is required to go outside his community, otherwise he is told he is restricting his work opportunities to his community. He has to spend part of his benefits to move 25, 30 to 50 miles around his residence looking for non-existing jobs.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Even when they know there are no jobs!


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Yes, because there are civil servants at the manpower centre, good guys. There must be good workers among them; they are paid regularly for that. Now, in my area there are two or three manpower offices. Those people are there to make inquiries, to dig up information, to find out from the employers if jobs are available. The Unemployment Insurance Commission says: you must also go to the manpower centre. And if they don't go, then they are disqualified: You should have gone. And if the fellow says he did go, he is told that that is not enough, that he should have gone to see other employers. It just does not make sense.
Here is what goes on in my area, in particular, the one I represent here in this House. I quote, with some reluctance, an editorial published in my local paper, dated August 17, 1977. It is fairly recent, I quote:



EXODUS AND UNEMPLOYMENT NO LONGER TO BE ENDURED

[Stage Direction]
He tries to make somebody budge so that people can earn their living in their own area. I quote again:
For almost a hundred years now several generations of young people in eastern Quebec have had to leave their own areas to seek elsewhere in Quebec, in Canada and even abroad, the employment from which depends their sustenance and their future.
In the last few years, in this area, in even larger numbers than ever before our educated youths have left school to find themselves in a regional labour market without any job openings. That also explains the fact that these young people must leave their homes in ever-increasing numbers to find employment.
We must stop a moment to look at the grim reality: the old saying that in our region a young man who wants employment has to leave has never been truer for our youth in eastern Quebec in 1977. Amazingly enough, such "institutionalized" emigration seems thus far to always have been accepted as an inescapable
October 24, 1977
[Stage Direction]
phenomenon. The surest way for governments to fight that exodus from economically depressed areas would be the provision of financial and technical assistance to resource development cooperatives and other community development agencies which aim at fighting economic stagnation and enabling people to make a decent living where their roots are.
The foregoing article was published on August 17, 1977, in Le Saint-Laurent.
I wish 1 had more time available to me to put it all on the record, it is so interesting. Of course, one hesitates to try and really seek ways of curbing unemployment just because our system is faulty, our financial system is both corrupt and corrupting. When one tries to do something to curb unemployment one brings back inflation. So one is faced with two evil twins-unemployment and inflation. And the government, even if it is made up of a lot of intelligent people, at least people with big degrees, does not seem to find solutions.
The fight against inflation has resulted in increased unemployment. We were told, we saw, and we are told that controls were a lot more effective in controlling the salaries of workers than consumer commodity prices. That is so true that government jugglers are not thinking about ways of making the best out of a bad situation they helped create by preparing a period of decontrol.
That is playing with words, there is no doubt about it. About Bill C-27, I would like to point out, for example, that I find the amendments contained therein are reasonably based on common sense. 1 should have said Bill C-24, the Immigration Act. It gave the department the opportunity to announce that immigration would be better supervised to avoid the situation where new immigrants would contribute to increasing the rate of unemployment in Canada. It is a somewhat late decision but it is based on common sense.
There is another very important point I would like to make in this debate, and it has to do with working relations which are still very deficient. During the session just ended we had glaring examples of what we should never be forced to do. However, we did it. I am talking about the legislation to send striking workers back to work after passing legislation giving them the right to strike. Those are examples of flagrant contradiction that should be absolutely avoided. We should still have enough foresight to develop a rational allocation system for existing resources, without resorting to strikes when thousands of unemployed want to work.
The agricultural sector should not be neglected either. We know what has happened there in these past few years. I therefore draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), so he may use all means available to him to regularize a situation which is complicated by all kinds of jurisdictions, both federal and provincial. All kinds of things are happening but in the final analysis those producers whom the government once encouraged to produce do not receive the subsidies they can rightly expect.
Agricultural legislation oriented somehow or other, not always in the right direction, which resulted in an ever decreasing number of producers. Imposing a fine upon those who produce too much is not the best way to encourage
The Address-Mr. C.-E. Dionne production, at least I do not think so. There is a problem of distribution of benefits which should be granted to dairy producers. As a result of some jurisdictional disputes, a large number of producers who would otherwise be eligible are deprived of subsidies. This issue of legal difficulties should be solved, however so that those who have listened to government authorities asking them to increase their production become eligible.
I have also noted that the Speech from the Throne deals with an issue which is of great concern at present among the Canadian people-national unity. A lot of things were said in this regard and this issue is referred to on every possible occasion.
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: What is national unity?


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Of course, I, for one, would prefer the words "national harmony" but the fact remains that the Speech from the Throne deals with national unity. I will quote in particular this excerpt:
The government dedicates itself profoundly ...
Of course, the government is taking all the steps it can.
... to the re-discovery of the spirit of unity.
Can you imagine they do not even have any spirit of unity. It is essential and it is time to discover it.
It wishes to learn from all who are interested in Canada and who have thoughts on how it can be made a better place in which to live.
First, I would advise those who are looking for a spirit of unity to direct their research work to introducing legislation to allow the present generation of Canadians, who inherited from those who have colonized Canada and have given them the country they are living in at present, legislation that would allow them to live as heirs and not in debt as they are at present.
Following the political events of November 1976, the debates have too often concentrated on national unity. One should not forget problems like unemployment, inflation, even though I think this word has been coined to try and offer an easy explanation to financial difficulties. One should not forget all the other problems we face and engage in a debate with a government leader because of the elections of last fall, about which too many people have been uselessly seething with excitement. Let us establish a suitable legislation for Canada, and this problem of unity, of harmony will be automatically settled. When people are happy, there is obviously no trouble, but we must start our job so that Canadians can be happy in their country.
I think it would be wiser to pass legislation which would allow Canadians of each province to live like genuine heirs, as I said before, and I say it again, as genuine heirs instead of being constantly in debt, by the establishment of a fair sharing of the resources with which Canada is so generously endowed. History decided that we would live together on this territory. It is inconceivable that Canada, which is the product of a long lasting collective work, could go suddenly all to pieces. We can foresee occasional events which will prevent such a catas-
198

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. C.-E. Dionne trophe. The province of Quebec belongs to the whole of Canada, and Canada belongs to Quebecers as well as to the citizens of the other provinces of the confederation. Canada needs Quebec to keep its identity, and Quebec needs the rest of Canada to keep its own.
I shall close my comments with a brief passage from an article by Jean-Marc Poliquin published in the newspaper Le Quotidien of May 14, 1977, in which the author reported words spoken by Mr. Gordon Robertson during a speech before graduates of Dalhousie University in New Brunswick.
French Canadians will perhaps risk poverty to recover their dignity. A proud people cannot be bought-
I believe I still have time to express my convictions in these circumstances. I have followed as much as possible and as closely as possible the debates of federal-provincial conferences where people have always talked about the allocation of taxation powers. Finally, this is nearly always the subject that is discussed during those conferences.
I have here the text of the federal-provincial conference of January 14, 1941, I repeat, 1941! At that time, the British Columbia Premier, Mr. Pattullo, and I could mention premiers from other provinces, said the following:
Money, of course, is at the root of this whole question. While monetary measures should be based upon the productive capacity of our people, the productive capacity of our people can be amplified by wise monetary measures and other considerations.
Those were the words of the premier of British Columbia at the time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Was he a Liberal, a Conservative or what?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I think he was a Liberal.
I shall come back to a Social Credit premier of the time, because we must not forget that this premier, whose speech at the federal-provincial conference has already been quoted, Mr. William Aberhart, became premier of Alberta in 1935, in the middle of an economic crisis, at a time when a certain party made up the governments of all the provinces and of Canada. At that time they had no answer to give to those who wanted advice on various means which would help create new activities for Canadians. But the answer was always the same: not enough money. That had always been their regular response, their classical answer. The premier of the Province of Alberta used to say, back in 1941, talking about the British North America Act, as I stated before, that problems of unity, of harmony and diversity would quickly be solved if all Canadians could rest assured that they could live and shape their future according to their desires.
I will now quote you the remarks made by the premier of Alberta:
I do not believe that the British North America Act, or confederation, or whatever you like to call it, has been responsible since that time for the three D's which have marked the industrial history of some of our provinces-I mean, [Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).J
decadence, debilitation, and death. I do not believe that confederation was the cause of these things, but I avow-
And at this moment he was addressing himself to the man who has always been the president of such conferences, namely the Prime Minister of Canada.
... sir, that something has been responsible for the awful plight that has settled upon the provinces. I notice sadly that the Ethiopian is still at large; the blight continues.
And he said further, and I quote:
Now, what is the job of each of us at this moment?
And at this point, I remind you that all the premiers of the provinces were together with the Prime Minister of Canada.
Is this conference a ration line, where we are to receive our dole, or is it a place in which each must grab all that he can to carry away with him? Is it not rather a conference to which we are privileged to bring, for the benefit of the Canadian nation, the combined gifts of thoughtfulness, wisdom, foresight, vision, tolerance and understanding with which we Canadians may be endowed?
Is this not our golden opportunity to lay the foundations for the never-before realized gifts of fraternity, freedom, equality of opportunity, and, what is also important, financial security? We are here, honourable chairman and gentlemen, I take it, to make it possible at some near future date to formulate for Canadians a series of decisions which will give them security in old age and the right to enjoy, according to their needs, the abundance of food and clothing and the comforts of adequate and sanitary shelter which the limitless resources of this great dominion can provide. We are here, I assert, to establish a heritage of education for those who seek to learn; of health for those who suffer pain or disease; of security and deliverance from debt for those who have built homes in their prime of life and who may face eviction and the loss of their sacred firesides when the lean years descend.
I conclude that quotation from the Social Credit premier-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Continue!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Eugène Dionne: I thank my colleagues for that courtesy. I have almost finished my remarks. What I have to say is very important. It reminds me of historical facts and we are presently discussing the problems arising from confederation, adopted regulations, discussions that first ministers had at various stages of our history. I quote the premier from a province which succeeded in repaying its debts, the only province which repaid its public debt under the scheme of things we have presently. I quote the remarks of that premier and I conclude that quotation by saying:
We are here, I believe to draft a scheme of things for the Canada of the future, a scheme of things which will bring to that Canada a standard of justice which shall place human values above dollar values, a scheme of things that will provide for our fighting heroes when they return a standard of national viewpoint which shall not only recognize, as you have publicly stated ...
-desirable and financially possible.
... which shall further decree that that which is physically desirable is financially possible...

If the people who were present at that conference, from the Prime Minister of Canada on, had directed legislation we could have reorganized the wrong financial system in which we are struggling. We are asked to make suggestions, to help rediscover unity. As Mr. Aberhart pointed out at that time, the only way to foster real unity and national harmony is to provide every Canadian with the opportunity to make a decent living. That is the only way we will find our way back to unity. The Canada Gazette lists all bankruptcies between April 1 and May 30, 1977. There are hundreds, thousands of them and they are caused by an inadequate financial system which we are suggesting should be changed.


Mr. Lefebvre:: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate. First, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I believe they have both delivered excellent speeches. They are very representative of their constituents and of this great country, Canada.

Although I could have spent the time allocated to me on broad national subjects, I have chosen instead to bring to the attention of this House, once again, the major concerns of my constituents on a local basis.

The issues of most concern to the citizens of this large constituency which includes about 50 municipalities from three provincial counties, Pontiac, Gatineau and Labelle, are related to the economy, and wherever they live, most of them are more interested in the possibility of job creation than in anything else. Certainly, they are concerned about the future of our province and of our country, but I am under the impression that the majority feels there are many things to be done in order to improve the living conditions. I should like, Mr. Speaker, to draw the ministers' and the members' attention to several questions of concern to this population.

The main concern over a large part of Pontiac in the last few years has been the future of Hilton Mines and its employees. This mine, which employed 350 persons at full
The Address-Mr. Lefebvre
production, has closed down its operations since this spring. Valiant efforts were made by a lot of people to find solutions in trying to keep the mine and mill in operation.
On March 27, 1974, when rumours of its closing became more and more numerous, I called a meeting to initiate discussion on the future of the mine and its 350 employees. This meeting was held in the county building in Campbell's Bay, and interested persons from the union, company, municipalities and the federal and provincial governments discussed the problem in depth. As a result two committees were set up: one to study industrial questions, and the other for manpower questions. Both these committees accomplished a great deal in bringing to both levels of government the facts and the seriousness of the situation. However, due to market conditions and cost of production, and in spite of many efforts made to find ways of continuing its operations, the mine finally had to close down completely.
All of us involved in the discussions which took place are of the opinion that the site on which the mine and the pellet mill are located would make an ideal site for an industrial park. The SAO, or Western Quebec Development Corporation, is preparing a report on this possibility. Being within an hour's drive from the Hull-Ottawa area, there is hope that new industries could be located there, helping to rebuild the economic base by providing job opportunities.
Modern highways and access roads for development of forest resources, tourism and other industries are of continuing interest. The citizens of the area are still waiting for the provincial government to decide finally to build a connecting road to link Pontiac County and Temiscamingue County. Many times in past years 1 have had opportunities to bring this to the attention of federal officials, including the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard). His department is ready to study a proposal from the Quebec government if it is presented under a federal-provincial program. I am sure it will be received in Ottawa with a great deal of interest. As everyone knows, the Canadian government could pay up to 60 per cent of the cost, if such a road project is put forward by the Quebec government on a cost-sharing basis.

The possibility of opening the Ottawa river to pleasure boats from Montreal to Temiscamingue is another project in which 1 earnestly believe, since a study requested by the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins) and myself has shown that such a project, once carried out, will have a tremendous economic impact in that region through direct job creation in the tourist industry and related services. People in that area have shown their support of and their interest in that project at three public meetings, and all municipalities, through resolutions, have supported my colleague and myself. I will pursue my efforts in that direction in the hope that the new Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Faulkner) will also endorse such a project and that the specifications to circumvent the major obstacle between Lake
80025 - 14^2

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Lefebvre
Deschenes and Chats Lake will be drawn up soon because it is the key to this whole tremendous project which, if carried out, would open a vast historical river to thousands of tourists who would like to explore it and holiday on its shores.
Mr. Speaker, the expectations of the people in the northern areas of Gatineau and Labelle were partly met when it was announced that the federal and provincial governments had signed agreements to improve the system of roads. There is no doubt that a modern highway from Sainte-Agathe to Abitibi, through the northern areas of Labelle and Gatineau, will have major economic effects, and this announcement might in turn generate a series of investments to create still more jobs. The announcement that an access road would be built between Temiscamingue and Maniwaki by the Ottawa and Quebec City governments, under a shared-cost program, has caused much enthusiasm, for this road will make resources more accessible and attract a greater number of tourists to a large area which is already famous for its lakes and forests. 1 suggest, however, that this road is but a link in the chain of similar roads which are most needed between the counties of Pontiac, Temiscamingue and Gatineau, which I have indicated to the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion. We are counting on similar announcements within the next few years, so that the rural area on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River may finally be endowed with the installations which are necessary for its economic development; this area is rich in natural resources, and the projects which have been announced are the first of several for which the people had been asking for a long time.
In order to bring new jobs in that area, a lot of people are interested in the establishment of a federal penitentiary, and applications by Maniwaki, Grand-Remous and Mont-Laurier are now being considered by the Department of the Solicitor General of Canada. As you know, Mr. Speaker, 1 have taken personal interest in this matter for a long time and I agree with the fact that the establishment of such a penitentiary, with the permanent jobs it would create, would be very profitable to this area; if built, it would serve the whole Outaouais district, Abitibi and northern Laurentians.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Pacific made an announcement in May saying that they intended to ask the Canadian Transport Commission permission to abandon its railway service between Hull and Maniwaki and, a short time ago, the section between Sainte-Agathe and Mont-Laurier.
I immediately spoke against this and I am very pleased to see that the citizens in my area reacted at once through their mayors, aldermen, chambers of commerce, etc. I think that a lot of people will attend the public hearings in which the demands of the Canadian Pacific will be examined and that valid reasons will be put forward to prevent the abandonment of these lines. Instead of discontinuing its service, the Canadian Pacific should examine and find means to improve it. The citizens of this area feel that the Canadian Pacific has done nothing for years to maintain, improve or modernize its equipment and that this is why users become increasingly scarce. So we begin to have a vicious circle: less service, fewer users and

fewer customers, still less service until complete discontinuation.
The Canadian Pacific could also restore its passenger service in the area for people residing in the rural part of the Ottawa area and who go every day to Hull or Ottawa to work, with a service in the morning and in the evening and further trains on weekends for skiers and other sportsmen and for the numerous visitors.
This is not the right time for the Canadian Pacific to think of discontinuing its service but rather to think of offering an ever more efficient service to the people of this area, a service which meets the needs of modern life. These lines are very important. If they are abandoned, this will have very adverse effect at the very moment when economic development attracts more and more interests.

The need for more industry in this vast constituency is apparent, and I am happy that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has always studied with care the applications submitted by interested persons for grants. The area eligible for grants was enlarged during the past year, and new efforts are being made to enlarge it once again. DREE has played in the past and will in the future continue to play an important role in the expansion of job opportunities in this area.
Agriculture continues to occupy an important place in the economy of the region. More and more beef production is taking place, and there is a well established dairy industry supplying both industrial and fluid milk. 1 sincerely hope that the quarrels between Ottawa and Quebec on the hold-back of subsidies is solved soon. I do not believe the producer should bear the financial burden of seeing his payments lowered and millions of dollars being held in trust by the Quebec Federation of Milk Producers until the quarrel is settled. This is a constitutional question, and a way must be found to pay the producer the fullest amount possible until a solution to the question of jurisdiction is found.
Discussions are also taking place in various areas of the constituency as to the feasibility of establishing a slaughter house and sale barn so that local beef producers could have an outlet in their own district operated by themselves on a co-operative basis. I congratulate these people and, if plans do go ahead, I am sure officials of Agriculture Canada and DREE will listen carefully to any requests for aid.
There is great potential in the constituency of Pontiac for development in the fields of agriculture, tourism, forestry and industry. I will continue to support valid propositions to help expand the employment base in every section of Pontiac.
Earlier in this speech I mentioned the need for modern highways and access roads because they are very important to the future of my area. Hon. members will recall that in 1972 the NCC and the provincial government signed an agreement to upgrade all the highways in Quebec within the national capital region. Great strides were made in extending a modern highway 148 from Wyman to Hull and a new one from Hull
October 24, 1977

toward Wakefield on a shared cost program between the two levels of government. However, the new provincial government has blocked further construction of these two highways. I believe this is a backward step; everyone knows how badly they are needed. Over the years I have brought this need to the attention of the NCC officials many times, and no one applauded more than I did when the 1972 agreement was announced. I trust that the government of Quebec will reconsider this decision and that construction will start again soon on both of these important highway links.
Another program which has had great success in the area, Mr. Speaker, is rural RRAP, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, to upgrade the homes of residents of Canada's rural areas. This program, financed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation through loans and grants, has permitted the upgrading of many homes in the designated municipalities occupied by low and middle income families.
Not only are the homes made more comfortable and habitable, but jobs are created in the homes being repaired as well as in the manufacturing of building materials and sales outlets.
I trust that the government will continue this program until all the municipalities become eligible and have an opportunity to benefit from it.

Over the long term, Mr. Speaker, there are a whole series of projects that can help create jobs in that area. Over the short term, Canada Works Program, the LIP program, has had considerable success in the past and should again this year thanks to many projects from one end of the riding to the other. The millions of dollars recently spent have created hundreds of jobs while helping with the building of many community, municipal and other centres, and offering numerous services previously non-existent in those areas.
To hon. members who do not believe in those programs and who think that people are less interested in them, I should like to say that the second phase of the Canada Works Program has attracted this year more applications than ever before; at the present time, there are 151 applications for a total amount of $6.7 million though the budget for the riding has been set at $2.5 million only. Inevitably, many good projects will have to be turned down or cut down for lack of funds, despite the fact that the budget was increased this year to $2.5 million. Fortunately, there is a third stage and those who wish to make an application can do so until January 27, 1978.
These programs have a considerable effect in a rural environment and I congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and the government for introducing them. I shall continue to support and defend them and I will do my best to make the minister more aware of the needs of the people of this riding.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the topics I have referred to in this speech demonstrate clearly that local people are concerned with a lot of projects. They are also concerned with the future
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
of their province and its position within Canada, but when one is looking for employment, one has understandably less time to think about the constitutional issue. Most are federalists and quite willing to settle the constitutional issue as soon as possible for it is obvious that the atmosphere created by the Parti Quebecois does not contribute to the discussions of industrial expansion or other matters.
I am not among those who think that separatists could disappear forever in a full employment situation, but the unemployed can wonder about their future in this country, Canada, and whether federalism is contributing to unemployments or if it helps in this regard. I am quite sure most of them feel it is helping a lot.

National unity, Mr. Speaker, is everyone's business and I encourage and applaud all those persons in my constituency who are participating in movements to promote it. I am sure we shall beat back the separatists, but vigilance is the password and every citizen must participate fully in the debates ahead.
Canada was founded by our forefathers with belief and trust; we must not let it fall by disbelief and mistrust. [Translation]
If Canada ever needed willing people who have confidence in their future, it is today. I am convinced that most Quebecers have such confidence and will do their duty for the sake of the future of a united country.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to add my name to those who have congratulated the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) on the capable manner in which they moved and seconded the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
I should also like at this time to express my own appreciation, and I am certain I speak on behalf of my constituents as well, for the honour that Her Majesty bestowed on Canadians in general, and parliament in particular, by gracing us with her presence in our nation's capital during her Silver Jubilee Year and by so eloquently reading the government's Speech from the Throne.
Although the pageantry surrounding the Speech from the Throne is always exciting and most impressive, particularly with the presence of Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, the intent and promise of the words cannot be taken seriously if based on former speeches under the jurisdiction of this administration. There is a sense that one has heard it all before. Indeed, when I witnessed the Speech from the Throne as a new member of parliament some five years ago, I was impressed and excited with the multitude of promises made and the many words exulting success and hope for Canada and Canadians in every field and every walk of life.

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
Unfortunately, my naive glimmer of expectation at that time was short lived and my hopes shattered as I quickly realized that what this administration outlined in the Speech from the Throne was merely a series of hollow words outlining false expectations of which very few, if any, were to materialize.
That Speech from the Throne five years ago was not an isolated incident. One can simply look at the record of subsequent Speeches from the Throne and budgets, as well as Liberal campaign promises, and conclude that time after time the present government has not lived up to its promises. It continues to make promises and continues to break them to the point of misleading the public. We do not have to go back five years in order to prove that.
I am sure all hon. members remember the last election campaign with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) swearing up and down that income and price controls were not an effective way to battle inflation, and saying that it was very wrong indeed of the official opposition to advocate a 90-day price control program. It should be remembered that it was a 90-day program we were proposing. After the Prime Minister received his mandate, overnight he saddled Canadians with the most stringent and incomprehensible wage and price controls program imaginable. In fact the government was so unorganized that it has taken over two years for it even to consider decontrols. Even today an aura of uncertainty exists in this regard. There are dozens, in fact hundreds of examples of unkept promises and examples of deceit by the Prime Minister and his government. Some of them, like controls, are premeditated indeed but, in fairness, I must also add that some are made, I am sure, inadvertently.
Members will recall the memorable occasion less than two years ago when the Prime Minister, on national television, told the nation in all seriousness, and I assume in good faith, that one of the main causes of domestic inflation was excessive government spending. He went on to outline a strict program of reduced expenditures by his government. People were happy to hear the Prime Minister taking government spending so seriously. Indeed, members on both sides of the House were pleased with the promises the Prime Minister made to the public at that time.
Unfortunately, once again this did not come out the way the Prime Minister promised. The government's budgetary deficit in the fiscal year 1976-1977 alone totalled $6.3 billion, a growth rate of more than 50 per cent over the previous year, hardly a figure reflecting the government's promise of restraint. Today the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) himself is unable to forecast an improvement in this regard, although the throne speech in a number of places makes reference to government restraint. A predicted deficit of $9 billion this year and $12 billion next year, a prediction that is made by the government itself, is not much restraint.
One can also recall the Prime Minister's famous phrase which has been repeated quite often but which I want to quote

again. This is what we are still talking about today. The Prime Minister said, "We will wrestle inflation to the ground". Not only has this not been accomplished, but indeed today our inflation rate is somewhere around 8,4 per cent and rising, far from the projected 6 per cent figure, which makes a sad commentary on the Prime Minister's famous quote. Now the Prime Minister has reversed his position and is blaming everyone but himself and his cabinet for the growing inflation.
The Prime Minister of any country must be trusted and respected when he comes out with statements, and the ones I have quoted are but a few of the kinds which our Prime Minister has been making. Limitation in time will not permit me to refer to all the unkept promises he and the Liberal administration have made over the past years, but it is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians to trust and respect this Prime Minister after observing the record of his leadership. How can we respect him when recently, in reply to students in Toronto concerned about future employment possibilities in Canada, in a question and answer period-I am sure hon. members recall this-the Prime Minister said "If you don't like it here, you can leave the country and go elsewhere"? This country can no longer afford to have a leader of that calibre.
Let me sum up my feelings in this regard by quoting a recent editorial in one of Toronto's daily newspapers which concluded with the following paragraph. It is from an issue just last month. The paragraph reads:
The whole mess contributes to the conviction that Trudeau is the worst Prime Minister in our history and the person, more than any other, who is destroying Canada. He has to go-for the sake of our country ...


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: Name the newspaper.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Davenport Times. You remember that.


Otto John Jelinek: I see I have woken up the members opposite. They do not like to hear the truth.
I will talk about the Prime Minister a bit longer and upset hon. members opposite a little more when I try to tell them a few more things which they are trying to forget. The economic situation in which Canada finds itself, as well as the situation with regard to national unity and our whole way of life, cannot make the Canadian public forget what this Prime Minister has been doing to this country and where he has been leading it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Before I leave the subject of the Prime Minister for more pleasant subjects I would like to place on the record, if I may, some background documentation which is not new. It has been printed in the past. It was researched by former RCMP undercover agent Patrick Walsh and printed in the Canadian Intelligence Service publication, prior to his becoming the Prime Minister of Canada in 1968.


An hon. Member:: Not again!
October 24, 1977


Otto John Jelinek: I will attempt to be brief and outline in point form some of the background of the individual who has probably become the most powerful leader and Prime Minister in our nation's history.


An hon. Member:: Say this outside the Chamber.


Otto John Jelinek: 1 will say it both inside and outside the Elouse, if the hon. member wants me to.
I will quote from this document some of the background of the right hon. gentleman who is now our Prime Minister. It reads:
1940: booted out of the Canadian Officer Training Corps (COTC) during the war for lack of discipline.
1941: associated with anti-war and red supported Bloc Populaire in undermining war effort.


Mr. Boulanger:: Aren't you ashamed of yourself? This is small time politics.


Otto John Jelinek: The document goes on to read:
1945: enrolled at Harvard, spawning ground of leftist intellectuals-
At that time.


An hon. Member:: Oh, God!


Otto John Jelinek: It goes on:
1950: was in Shanghai when the communists took over, and became a rabid admirer of Mao Tse Tung and his red regime.
1951: back in Montreal, he launched the leftists publication Cite Libre. Among the well known reds who collaborated, professor Raymond Boyer (convicted of Soviet espionage in the Gouzenko case); Stanley B. Ryerson, leading theoretician of the Communist Party and editor of Marxist Review, Pierre Gelinas, Quebec director of agitation and propaganda of the Communist Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Prosper Boulanger: This will get you nowhere.


Otto John Jelinek: I will continue to read this very interesting document. It goes on:
1952: led delegation of Communists to the Moscow Economic Conference.


Mrs. Sauve:: 1 went to China in 1973. Am I a Communist?


Otto John Jelinek: It goes on to read:
1953: barred entry into the United States as an "inadmissible" person.
1955: launched "Le Rassemblement", a leftist "united front" rally in Quebec, but the CCF refused to join because it was too leftist.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: It goes on to read:
I960: led a Communist delegation to Peking for red victory celebration.
1961: "Social Purpose for Canada", the socialist handbook written by Marxist and NDP leaders, was published containing a chapter by Mr. Trudeau in which he lauds Mao Tse Tung, urges socialists not to "water down" their socialism but to make its approach "more flexible", and to welcome federalism "as a valuable tool which permits dynamic parties to plant socialist governments in certain provinces, from which the seed of racialism can slowly spread".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Shame on you!
The Address-Mr. Jelinek


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Those seeking to be recognized should stand in their places and the Chair will recognize them, but at present the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) has the floor.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. members across have any complaints and want to support or deny some of the things I have been saying, let them stand up. We now move on to 1962.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on, Joe, sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) is rising on a question of privilege?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member said that if anyone disagreed with him, he should stand up and say so. I disagree totally with all the things the hon. gentleman was saying because they are nonsensical.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That is not a point of order.


Otto John Jelinek: I do not want to state publicly whether I agree with the hon. member, but most of what he says in the House of Commons should be ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: We now move on to 1962.


Robert Knight Andras: That is absolute McCarthyism.


Otto John Jelinek: The document goes on to read:
1962: Amidst protests, this millionnaire leftist succeeded in gaining appointment as a professor at the University of Montreal, which became a pro-Castro stronghold.
No wonder that he shouts "viva Fidel, viva Cuba". I would rather he shouted "viva united Canada".


Jeanne Sauvé: He speaks a few languages, which is more than you can do.


Otto John Jelinek: In 1963 he campaigned with the NDP against the Liberals whom he called idiots because they had decided to accept nuclear defence weapons. By 1965, having decided to use the Liberal party as an instrument to propel himself to political power, he was elected to parliament for the first time. With that background of our present Prime Minister and the Liberal record under his leadership, I need not say more on that matter.
The fact is that even in this country with its abundance of natural resources, its wealth of technology and know-how, its strong character and diversity of its many cultures and peoples, we nevertheless unfortunately find ourselves at a crossroads of the future of our country. Be it in the changing aspects of our society, national unity, or the economy itself,

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
future generations will have to depend on whatever course we happen to take within the next few years or perhaps even months.
National unity is, of course, a major factor. By way of numerous regional and national polls, it is evident that the majority of Canadians want our country to remain united despite some of the differences that are being magnified by some. These differences should unite, not divide. All provinces should be treated equally, instead of giving special status to any one province. It is therefore unbelievable that the government continues to push bilingualism in nine provinces, with some success and I am happy for that, while at the same time allowing Quebec to become the only unilingual province in Canada.


Mr. Olivier:: That is not true.


Otto John Jelinek: The hon. member says that is not true. It is the only province in Canada where people do not have a choice of what school to attend. They have a choice in Toronto of what school to attend, whether French or English. They do not have that choice in Quebec City.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: They do not have a French school in Toronto.


Otto John Jelinek: They have one in Toronto as well as in Etobicoke, Oakville, Hamilton, Guelph, and right across the country.
I repeat, national unity is an important factor. However, it is the economy that is the major issue that parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians, should be concerned about today. I was pleased that the result of a recent questionnaire which I sent to my constituents confirmed this feeling. In fact 76 per cent of my constituents who replied to my questionnaire indicated that the economy, and not national unity, was the most important general issue facing Canadians today. This is what we in the Progressive Conservative party have been saying for quite some time, none more emphatically than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) who continues to outline specific remedies and recommendations in this regard. Just last week in this Chamber my leader outlined a number of positive proposals which would help stimulate the economy and reduce inflation.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Otto John Jelinek: We only have one leader, and he is on his way up while yours is on the way down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: The Leader of the Opposition does not whine, moan and blame the state of our economy on international forces or the lazy and lackadaisical attitudes of Canadians the way the Prime Minister does, putting the blame on everyone except himself and his cabinet. He, instead, continues to introduce realistic and positive programs which, if instituted, would reverse the negative trend that we have been living with in the past years.

This party has outlined its policies in all general areas, not only during this debate but over the past six to 12 months. Therefore, instead of repeating some of the policies that have already been dealt with by other party spokesmen-


An hon. Member:: When?


Otto John Jelinek: If the hon. member opposite wants to find out what they were, he can read Hansard over the last week. He will find the policies in Hansard, especially those that deal with the economy.
Instead of repeating some of the policies that have already been dealt with by other party spokesmen, I should like to dwell briefly on a subject matter that 1 personally am responsible for on behalf of my party, namely, small business.
By the government's own admission, small business is responsible for 60 per cent of the labour force in Canada today. This obviously constitutes the largest potential employment sector by far, and therefore it is twice as incredible that no mention of this sector was made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) last Thursday in the so-called mini-budget, and only three words, Mr. Speaker, were dedicated to small business in the throne speech itself. That is a shame. It is a disgrace. It is an unfortunate situation as far as small business, which forms the backbone of our economy, is concerned.
With roughly one million Canadians unemployed, and with all indications pointing to an increase in this figure in the coming months, it is incredible that the government continues to ignore this vital sector which undoubtedly forms the backbone of our economic way of life. It is true that the Minister of State (Small Business) (Mr. Abbott) inherited a ten point program from his predecessor which, after years of studies and consultations, generally concludes that the government should further study some of the problems related to small business.
I must give some credit, however, because this is the first time the government has ever given any indication that it knows small business even exists. However, further studies with no specific program is no help today. Studies and consultations have been made. The time has come for some positive and realistic incentive oriented programs.
Let me go to the ten point program that committed the government to continue to study, examine, and analyse specific aspects of small business. The points refer to existing programs, namely, Enterprise '77 and FBDB, and the tenth point which reads in part "efforts will be increased in order to make useful statistical information available" only adds to the already heavy paperwork burden imposed on small business by all levels of government-in short, Mr. Speaker, not one new point, not one new program; not one specific recommendation which would in any way, shape or form assist the already ailing small business community in Canada.
After studying that aspect for one and a half years, since the former minister was appointed to that position, even the government's own definition is vague and impractical. On the other hand we, in this party, after much consultation with small business representatives in every region of Canada, as
October 24, 1977

well as small business officials in other industrialized natfons such as the United States, Japan and West Germany, have time after time made specific and detailed incentive oriented recommendations in this House and elsewhere which, if implemented, would undoubtedly benefit the small businessman and therefore the economy as a whole.
I have given before, but allow me to put on record again and this time in point form only, some of the recommendations that we in the official opposition have been making for some time. I would like the new Minister of State (Small Business) to look at them and seriously consider their implementation in the very near future.
First, the definition is an important one. After studying small business administration around the world, we felt that the most workable general definition is that of the United States Small Business Administration which defines small business as an "owner-managed enterprise not dominant in its field". Further specific definitions can easily be outlined according to individual programs such as net worth, sales, number of employees and so on. We cannot have a general definition by number of employees like the government has recommended. What about foreign subsidiaries? What about small subsidiaries of large multinational corporations? They would fall within the small business definition. It cannot be.
Second, we would establish a small business secretariat which would function independently of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The secretariat's primary function would be to help small business cope with government and compete with big business. This the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce does not and cannot do. It is too big a department to oversee this very important segment of our economy. The secretariat would also put forward the interests of small business to other government departments and agencies, would assist small business with existing as well as new programs and cut through the existing maze of bureaucracy.
Thirdly, we would develop a small business act, a sort of unbrella act which would encompass all federal government matters dealing with small business and provide much needed incentive in the form of specific programs and/or commitments, such as some of the following. I realize I am repeating these, but some hon. members did want to know. Perhaps they do not read Hansard so I will give them the information at this time.
The first commitment would be (a) to change government tendering practices so that small business supplies a portion of government purchased goods and services. This is better known as the "set aside programs".
(b)	We would reduce considerably obsolete and/or duplicate form filling regulations, known as the "paper work burden". True, the government has taken some steps in this area, but not nearly enough. Small businesses are swamped with bureaucratic paperwork and regulations, and it is very possible to reduce, by at least 10 per cent for starters, excessive paperwork.
The Address-Mr. Jelinek
(c)	We would provide small business investment tax credits by giving a tax credit of up to $5,000 for capital investment in Canadian-owned small businesses.
(d)	We would provide assistance in the formation of small business export consortia-for obvious reasons.
(e)	We would remove the capital gains tax on transfers of a business from one family member to another.
(f)	We would encourage secondary manufacturing by way of tax and/or research and development incentive.
Secondary manufacturing in this country is far below its potential. It is an area where job creation possibilities are unlimited. It is an area in which we, as Canadians, have not even scratched the surface. It is a very important area.
We have also stated, Mr. Speaker, that we support in principle an employment tax credit, which in fairness I was pleased to hear the Minister of Finance touch upon in his speech last week. It is unfortunate, however, that even upon questioning he was unable to explain the government's proposal in this regard in more detail. One must only conclude that even the minister is not quite certain how this recommendation should be implemented. We certainly look to some form of legislation dealing with employment tax credit to assist in alleviating the unemployment crisis in Canada on a long-term basis, rather than continued handouts and give-aways which only create jobs for a temporary period of time.
Finally on small business, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that last summer this House amended the Small Businesses Loans Act to increase the dollar value of loans as well as the aggregate amounts in the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. My seatmate brought this matter up with the Minister of Finance last week, who was not aware of the fact that we were promised at the time by the then minister of state (small business) that the new interest rates would be established, again by order in council, of course-what else is new with this government-within a short period of time, rates which would be pegged somewhere between 1 and 2 per cent above prime.
This is another unfortunate example of an unkept promise. Interest rates have not been established. The Small Businesses Loans Act, as a result, is in limbo and not being properly used across Canada by our chartered banks. We can no longer afford to wait. I repeat that realistic incentive oriented options must be made available immediately before it is too late. We are witnessing today more bankruptcies than ever before in the small business sector. The lack of specific government programs in this area is helping to create record levels of unemployment. Unless we act at once, I feel we could be witnessing the beginning of the demise of small business, and therefore of free enterprise as we know it.
This would probably not bother or disturb the Prime Minister too much, Sir, because you will recall that some one and a half years ago he indicated quite clearly in interviews that the free market system will not work. This demise is not because the free market system will not work, as the Prime Minister

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Railton
tries to suggest; it is because he and his government will not allow that free market system the freedom to operate properly.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. Although I heard the hon. member say he was concluding, I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow him to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1 did.


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I was not too sure that I was listening to a member of the House of Commons when the previous speaker began his venomous and virulent attack on the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but I think probably the less said about it, the better. We should forget it.
It is gratifying to speak in this debate for a sentimental reason, namely, the fact that Her Majesty, as one of her Silver Jubilee official duties, graciously read the Address in the other place. Most Canadians are accepting the monarchy as a symbol of unity in this country and as a rallying point for our diverse Commonwealth. The force for good it maintains is largely because of the courage and concern our Queen displays.
I join, Mr. Speaker, with all members of this House in giving hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) on their eloquent and original orations in moving and seconding the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne.
As usual, Mr. Speaker, my contribution is a chance for me to give my own opinions on both constituency and national matters. Tonight I remind the House and Canada of their good fortune in having a Prime Minister who exhibits so much good judgment and clear thinking in handling the very difficult happenings in our nation at this time of crisis. His handling of our affairs is honest and courageous. Often at a cost in popularity he demands fair and just solutions to our economic and social needs, and he continually presses for true national unity. In his speech to the lawyers of Quebec he showed that Parti Quebecois policy is infringing not only on Quebec's English citizens' language rights, but also on the freedom of Canadians to live equally in, and to take part in deliberations in any part of, Canada. Thus the Parti Quebecois are restricting rights of Canadian citizens, in my opinion, unlawfully.
The new Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) has gained stature by his strong and skillful defence of his "stand pat mini-budget". Mr. W. A. Wilson of the Ottawa Journal is
[Mr. Jelinek.l
rather chary of compliments, but he implied last weekend that the minister's speech was wise and statesmanlike. In these times when Canada has so much at stake, surely we deserve sane press writers and TV commentators like Wilson, people who will report all facets of news, good and bad, but mainly factual; people who will stop trying to make scare headlines and stop gloomy reporting. Most of us can do without their dubious help. We can work to turn petty catastrophies into triumph as our forefathers have always done. If the media are good citizens, they will turn their talents to positive thinking, as will our opposition in this House.
On that point, the official opposition seems to be satisfied to denigrate every good government effort. The NDP have been giving us superficial but so-called serious advice; however, Canadians know that we cannot spend our way out of unemployment. We know that to gain our rightful position we will have to work harder than ever before.
At this point I would turn from generalities to troubles we are experiencing in my own riding of Welland. Some of these exemplify social and economic trends in a wider context. To begin with, the electoral boundary commission mutilated the Welland riding and others to obtain one more needed seat in the Niagara peninsula, which now has five in all. Let me welcome these new electors right now to our new Welland riding. I am sure they will adjust and work for the good of their new constituency and the country. The commission could have found an almost painless solution to the problem but were completely deaf to the good suggestions from local interventions during hearings. To me there is something archaic about the idea of reviving three Commissioners every ten years just to have them impose completely autocratic decisions on the public. Surely, a local vote on alternatives would be a better way.
A happy conclusion to the abandoned canal crossing problem was achieved by the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Buchanan), and I thank him for it. Five million dollars was acknowledged to be a fair and just settlement.
The third bridge in Port Colborne is just a matter of time. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) accepts its need fully. He is negotiating with his counterpart in Ontario, but this should be completed soon. People will no doubt realize that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority's policy is to abolish all overhead, bascule and lift bridges throughout the canal. This is the reason why the Port Robinson bridge was not replaced. A tunnel will be constructed eventually about half way between that community and Allanburg. There is some sense to the minister's asking that the federal contribution to the third bridge at Port Colborne be subtracted from the federal contribution to the tunnel in that city which will be built at a much later date.
Increase in Seaway tolls is the biggest controversial issue in my riding just now. The Chamber of Commerce, the mayors of St. Catharines, Welland, and Port Colborne, and the regional municipality of Niagara have taken a strong stand against the
October 24, 1977

move. They claim that the increases will be mainly on the Welland canal and will deter use of the canal. They claim that reduction in canal traffic is bound to occur with resulting depression to the Niagara area. The figures prepared by the Chamber are inaccurate and predicated on the prophesied drop in canal traffic. This drop will not occur.
Ships are now moving through the canal even when loaded at the ridiculously small fee of $100 per lock. These fees bring in $5 million a year and the operating costs are $20 million. The statement that the tolls could jump to $12,000 a ship is untrue. The very greatest would be approximately $6,000- and that by charging another one cent per bushel of wheat or another 47 cents on a ton of coal or ore. Freight costs for going through the canal would still be much cheaper than by road, rail, or via Atlantic or Pacific seaports. The United States government has been consulted and its studies are in agreement with ours. They see no reason to build a rival canal at a cost of two to three billion dollars. They intend to levy similar tolls soon on their own inland waterways.
On top of all this, people who complain that the government subsidizes other modes of transport should remember the following: rail gets a subsidy of five cents per mile, air receives two cents per mile. The government will now subsidize the Seaway by writing off the $625 million capital debt and the $225 million of back interest, not a bad subsidy! All the Welland canal portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority wants is to be paid its operating costs.
In the Welland riding, Mr. Speaker, unemployment has become a much bigger worry than last spring. Algoma Steel has closed its Port Colborne plant, and thus put 200 men out of work. Chances of reopening are not bright because of the softness of the steel markets in the world. This last week's huge INCO general lay-off was preceded in Port Colborne a month ago by the lay-off of 375 out of a work force of 1,300. My constituents feel that a great Canadian firm has become multinational and that its decision has been made outside Canada. They feel this firm has a responsibility not only to its shareholders but to the country whose natural resources and benevolent government assistance made its growth and developing success possible. We worry that this once Canadian company may gradually develop its foreign mines and plants and make the Canadian mines and plants completely unnecessary.
How can multinational companies be good corporate citizens? That is a question, with which INCO, the unions, and the federal and provincial governments are now wrestling. In spite of this concern, the idea advanced by the NDP to nationalize the nickel industry, would open the doors to many firms which are also struggling to keep their heads above water financially and encourage them to ask for the same treatment.
In the same vein, Atlas Steels of Welland has complained to the government, through me, that a stainless steel plant in Cuba is being built with Canadian government assistance and money as help to an emerging nation. If that is so, Atlas Steels rightly asks how we can build a plant which will be exporting
The Address-Mr. Railton
40,000 to 50,000 tons of stainless steel annually when it will be in direct competition with our own plant in Welland, especially when there is such a discrepancy in standards of living? Doesn't charity begin at home? I believe there is some gap in trade policy. I think we should look into the whole policy of funding low employment areas of Canada.
The three main concerns to which the Prime Minister addressed himself were unemployment, inflation, and national unity. Though the third affects the first two they naturally must, as a preliminary, be taken together. Without trying to be pedantic or authoritative still a few main points must be evident to us all.
Commodity demand has gone down and all markets are soft. Job creation at over 200,000 cannot keep up with the growth of our labour force which is the highest in the world, and which is due to the baby boom and ever-increasing female job participation. The rates in the Atlantic provinces and parts of Quebec are chronically very high. Ontario's rate is high; the west's is just barely acceptable.
Most people except unions and big business agree on the removal of AIB controls April 1, 1978. However, decontrols will be difficult and will require monitoring. They also require union and corporation co-operation with government. In my opinion these powerful bodies are not acting as good Canadian citizens, and public opinion should be directed at gaining their co-operation with government. However, our national unemployment figure may not go up much over 8 per cent, and inflation will stay near 7 per cent this year and should reduce by 2 per cent next year.
Last spring and winter, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Scarborough East Mr. (O'Connell) chaired a caucus committee on industrial policy of which I was a member and which I enjoyed tremendously. Among the speakers brought before us was a Dr. Smith, a vice-president of Toronto Dominion Bank, who foresees a continual annual growth of Canada's gross national product at 3.5 per cent. In the next 15 years he believes it will double, or increase even more. This means our foreign borrowing can be carried easily and still leave enough Canadian capital to develop our pipelines and energy strategy. With the exhibition of patience, we shall see this pipeline start in about a year's time. It needs to have political agreements signed, detailed planning and pre-start stockpiling.
The committee realizes that the old post-war easy prosperity is over for us and the whole group of western industrial nations. One of our industrial strategies should be for our branch plants to compete export-wise with their United States head office plants. Also, these Canadian branch plants must do their own research and development in Canada. Only by pushing our indigenous technology and know-how can we rebuild our export trade.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) stated last Friday that only half our citizens are willing to admit that an energy crisis is at hand and building up at a whirlwind rate. He clearly pointed out that the drain on world

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Railton
oil supplies by western nations is increasing Third World tensions, which in turn places western democracy's future survival at stake. In Canada he calls for reduced energy use, conservation of energy, close supervision of all energy resources, more federal-provincial co-operation, and regulation of nuclear fuel. His department is spending large sums on solar and other renewable energy development. By 1990 he expects we will have spent $180 billion on energy programs.
The Prime Minister is criticized for calling on us to stop wringing our hands and to tighten our belts. It should be clear to all of us now that he foresaw the inevitable reduction in living standards and personal expectations, that we are trying to get more out of the economy than it can provide. We have concentrated on material possessions as a way to acquire happiness. More are now perceiving the old true values. People gain materially and become poor spiritually. The belt tightening experience will do us no harm. It will make us more conscious of our needy neighbours, our human brothers and sisters.
At this trying but challenging time in our history, Canadian unity is one of our greatest concerns. It seems strange that national sovereignty for the province of Quebec is being sought through separation, at a time when nationalism as a goal is recognized to be an ever-narrowing and unsatisfying pursuit.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack).


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) permit a question?


Samuel Victor Railton: I would rather carry on than answer a question at this time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Remember this is all on television.


Samuel Victor Railton: In spite of our difficulties, Canada has been doing very creditably in bringing social benefits and equal living standards to all parts of the country, in spite of their unequal resources, opportunities and haphazard development. Surely we all realize our country suffers from its northerly position, its huge size and its sparse population.
Quebec has received generous treatment from Ottawa. It is said that there are people in Quebec who harbour feelings of inferiority and hostility which really have no foundation in reality. Granted there are bigots in the rest of Canada who, just as senselessly, would let Quebec depart just to "serve them right". The three ideas consisting of total separation, sovereignty with economic association, or remaining in and participating in Confederation, if viewed logically, force us to admit that anything but full Confederation would lead to economic and political disaster, not only for Quebec, but also for all Canada.
The Parti Quebecois' unnatural hostility to the rest of Canada is even more regrettable when we see that the great multicultural group in Canada, which will soon be almost half our population, feels the need for Quebec's presence with us, just as much as do the greatest number of Anglophones.

Senator Maurice Lamontagne, in a speech at the University of Montreal on April 6, 1977, demonstrated that Quebec has at every turn since the settlement of 1763 been given greater assistance from the central government than her citizens received from successive provincial governments. He made a big point that French Canada was of so little interest to France after the battle of Quebec, that she chose Guadeloupe as a colony for its sugar, rather than accepting Quebec and fighting for the fur trade in Canada. He estimated that the French could very well have won this battle. Another big point he made was that by being an integral part of Canada, Quebec was saved from sliding helplessly into the American republic where its culture and language would have been lost completely.
There has been a fortuitous economic development in Canada up until now. Only by chance did Ontario develop steel and did Quebec go for textiles and shoes.
In spite of official Parti Quebecois dissent, most of us realize that Confederation has saved both Quebec and Canada. Both entities will continue to exist only through Confederation's continuance, albeit a confederation treated to constitutional reform.
Most Canadians-and this includes most Quebec Canadians-believe in a united Canada. They feel our country is unique and has something to contribute to world peace and understanding, simply by its continued existence after so much heart-searching dialogue. At this time we are encouraged by the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. They can promise this country not only a modicum of prosperity but also even a bright future. This will happen only if we relinquish our individual selfish patterns of action. In one or two years we shall turn that difficult corner in our history, but only if we are willing to work together as hard as our forefathers did to achieve Confederation 110 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) is requesting permission to ask a question of the hon member who had the floor. Does the hon. member accept the question?


Samuel Victor Railton: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) complains in his speech that softness in the steel market results in large lay-offs at Port Colborne. This being the case, why does the hon. member for Welland in his speech acquiesce in the increase in St. Lawrence Seaway tolls, since iron ore, the mother of steel, is the product with the largest tonnage to pay these increasing tolls on the Seaway?


Samuel Victor Railton: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question in my speech, but I can answer it once again. The 47 cents toll increase on a $30 or a $40 ton of ore or on a $200 ton of steel has absolutely no effect percentage-wise on the cost of that commodity. Therefore it will have no effect on competitiveness in the export market.



October 24, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very sad summer for Canada, and indeed it is going to be a very frightening and disastrous winter. There is no doubt about the fact that we are entering into a period in our economy when-


An hon. Member:: That has already been said.


Arnold John Malone: That has been said? I dare the government members to call an election. Anytime they want to call it, we are ready. They are not fooling the Canadian people for a single moment with the record they have put forward. By gosh, they do not even know how smart Canada is. Canada is ready for this election anytime they dare pull the plug, and so are we.
The last five years of the Trudeau regime have been disastrous. If you take an overlay of the record from indicators of the economy on unemployment, inflation, the devaluation of the dollar, the gross increase in taxation, and the government's take of the gross national product, and place it on to the period of time from 1962 to 1967 in Great Britain, you would have almost the identical pattern. The pattern shows that this country is on the same path Great Britain has been on, and look where we are today.
Hon. members opposite are scarcely worried that the government is about to go bankrupt. There are people in this nation who are full of imagination. We have people who are full of educated talent, but we have a government which will not give them encouragement to build a nation the way it ought to be built.
Our competitive advantage today is equal to the competitive advantage we had in 1969. We have to conclude that we have had a decade of waste. During the period from 1970 to 1976 unit labour costs in the manufacturing sector increased 49 per cent. In the United States they increased 28 per cent. We hear hon. members opposite regurgitating and uttering the excuse that all the nations of the world are having economic problems, that the United States dollar is being devalued and that U.S. unit labour costs are going up, but what hon. members opposite fail to recognize is that we are outstripping in a negative sense all our trading partners in the world. Relative to the United States, Japan or West Germany, we find that we are heading for economic chaos.
I remember as a child going to school being proud that our country, with only 20 million people and being the second largest nation in the world, had the second highest per capita income in the whole world. Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came to power we are not even in the top ten. We have dropped from being something we could be proud of to the point where we do not even rank because of the economic policy of the government, which is not to care and the government will show people how to do things. As a result Canadians have lost incentive.
In 1969, the year after the Prime Minister took power, the Canadian hourly wage 65 cents lower than that in the United
The Address-Mr. Malone
States. Now, seven years later, our hourly wage is 64 cents higher than that in the United States. It is not a matter of right or wrong, because the rightness or wrongness of how much we are paid has to be relative to productivity. If we in Canada were producing more than our counterparts, we ought to be paid more. But the Prime Minister came into the House after the throne speech and admitted that it is a well documented fact that Canadian productivity is far below that of the United States. How in the world can we sell anything abroad if we charge more for our labour and, by the admission of the Prime Minister, produce less?
If the United States cannot afford to buy our products, who in the world can? We are in such a disadvantaged position on the international market that the government is looking for every avenue it can to hide itself from this economic malaise. To a large extent the whole question of national unity has been a government manufactured issue in order to hide its own faults with regard to mismanaging our economy in terms of the dollar, international trade and competitive advantage with other nations. To a large extent national unity would become a resolved issue if we did not have a million people in this country hunting for a way in which to earn their bread and butter.


An hon. Member:: You sound like someone else.


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member opposite says I sound like someone else. How can hon. members opposite be so callous as to sit there and not recognize the fact that a million people in this country are out of work?


Mr. Paproski:: Resign.


Arnold John Malone: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) says that if hon. members opposite do not know how badly this country is being run, they should resign because, if they do not know how badly off we are economically, they do not deserve to sit in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: In the six years from 1970 to 1976 unit labour costs in this country increased some 49 per cent, and in the United States they increased 28 per cent. That should destroy any argument used by hon. members opposite that we should not worry about what is happening because it is happening all over the world. Granted, the trend is there, but it is not nearly as steep on the graph as it is in Canada.
The stage set for Canada is so frightening that the government cowers at the thought of introducing a budget which would give some incentive to Canadians. Instead it shrouds its budget in a throne speech. What a cowardly way to put forward a budget! The government is afraid to admit that the course it plotted last March 31 has not worked. It is afraid to face a budget debate in this House. It is afraid to face what obviously would come about, a vote of non-confidence.
Afraid to bring in a budget, the government brought one in the back door by way of a throne speech. Can you imagine a

October 24, 1977
The Address-Mr. Malone
government in a country with economic conditions like those which exist in Canada not even daring to introduce a budget? I think that is recognition of the fact that there is no leadership in the government. In the last election campaign the issue was leadership.
Recent Liberal budgets have been like a scavenger hunt. There have been no long-term policies and no indications of long term direction for the nation. The government has prostituted its citizens. I suggest that because it over-spends. The Prime Minister tells the people to practise restraint, but there has been tremendous growth in government expenditure and tremendous growth in the civil service. What a callous attitude this government has! The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) tells Canadians to spend more; the Prime Minister tells us to spend less; the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) tells us we have the strongest of all the economies in the western world. Whom in the Privy Council are we to believe?
When the Prime Minister took office in 1968, personal income tax represented 34 per cent of federal revenues. Today, 53 per cent of federal revenues come from personal income taxes. If the government is to be run on the backs of the people, the Prime Minister has no business telling Canadian citizens that they are the ones who ought to practise restraint, because that simply is not where the restraint is needed.
Everywhere we look there is waste without principle. The government decentralizes for the purpose of buying power, not for the purpose of helping the nation. The government sets up committees to study committees and to back away from the responsibility for its actions. There is no better example of that than the recent Hall Report. How tremendously discouraged Mr. Justice Emmett Hall must be at this time! He was asked to do a $1 million study, and then he found that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) set up another committee to study his principal recommendation. The Hall Report would not have been required if action had been taken after the Western Economic Opportunities Conference in Calgary in 1973. However, the Hall study was set up because the government would not go along with the recommendations of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. So we had the Hall Report. Following that there was another committee to study it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member. It being 9.30 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38(4), to interrupt these proceedings at this moment and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House.
Accordingly, the question is on the amendment (Mr. Clark). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


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


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock in the morning, pursuant to Standing Order 2, subsection (2).
At 10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 25, 1977