1977-05-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning apparent impropriety, misuse and mismanagement of public funds by the National Capital Commission at 12-18 York Street in the City of Ottawa. 1 would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That an immediate investigation be made by the Public Accounts Committee with particular reference to expenditures unauthorized by Treasury Board, a $4V6 million law suit against the government by York Development Limited, certain payments to architect Anthony Kemp for services unperformed and, finally, the spending of $50,000 of public money for the purchase of imported French wines, and numerous other scandalous items outlined today on the order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 such a motion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


PROPOSAL THAT DEAF BE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, even if some insensitive Liberal says no to this motion, I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Finance, the Postmaster General, the Minister of Labour and perhaps others will take note of it.
I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls on the government to respond favourably to the requests of the Canadian Coordinating Council on Deafness, it being widely recognized that hearing impairment, though invisible, is a severe handicap and that those who suffer from it deserve special consideration in line with the consideration accorded to other handicapped persons.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Some hon. Members:: No!


INDUSTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43,1 seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that 21 footwear factories have closed their doors over the past 12 months, thereby causing the loss of some 2,500 jobs, while Canada is now faced with the highest unemployment rate in 37 years; and considering that the Canadian industry's share of the market is only 44 per cent, since imports have taken over 56 per cent of it, which causes a serious and damaging prejudice to the Canadian industry, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford:
That the House urge the government to take immediate action to remedy the current situation by imposing quotas on imports, because of the serious crisis the Canadian industry is now facing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. My motion is prompted by the fact that moving through the Strait of Juan de Fuca in the coming weeks will be a new and potential ecological disaster, namely, deliveries of Alaskan oil to Cherry Point. In view of the fact that no agreement on compensation has yet been made with the

May 19, 1977
Idi Amin
United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House direct the government to bring in an interim compensation scheme to protect the interest of those who live and work in the potentially affected area until an agreement is reached.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON DIVERTING TANKER TRAFFIC FROM CHERRY POINT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43 to request unanimous consent of the House to my motion. In view of the imminent threat of heavy tanker traffic moving through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, either to Port Angeles or Cherry Point, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That this House directs the Secretary of State for External Affairs to enter into immediate negotiations with the government of the United States with a view to diverting this traffic to less environmentally sensitive locations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UGANDA-SUGGESTED ACTION AGAINST PRESIDENT AMIN IN VIEW OF ALLEGED ATROCITIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the 170 page report of the International Commission of Jurists submitted to the United Nations yesterday stating that more than 100,000 people may have been killed by security forces in Uganda in the years since Idi Amin took power and the fact that arbitrary killings, tortures, disappearances and other gross violations are still occurring in Uganda, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Canadian government change its policy of quiet protests to one of public leadership and express Canadian outrage in a clear message to the international community by stating (1) That Idi Amin should be excluded from the Commonwealth Conference in London, and (2) That Idi Amin will be excluded from the guest list of foreign dignitaries invited to the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton in 1978.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MANPOWER
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent Statistics Canada report on manpower supply trends for the Canadian labour force which predicts that employment prospects for many new labour force entrants with post-secondary education will not be good in the next 10 to 15 years, and since the trend is a national one, and in view of the fact that the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) expressed shock at this finding since he had told us in the House that the present new Canada Works and Young Canada Works programs for job creation are based upon an assumption that there will be general labour force shortages by 1980, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration immediately set up a study by reputable labour economists to do a thorough analysis of the Canadian labour market on a continuing basis over the next year and a half, so that all high schools, colleges, technical institutes and universities, vocational and guidance directors and counsellors in Canada, will have some realistic ideas of the sectors in which employment prospects are going to be best for our young Canadian adults in the next decade.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR DARTMOUTH-HALIFAX EAST UPON OCCASION OF HIS MARRIAGE-MOTION UNDER S.O.
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I may be stretching your patience on this 43, but I rise under the Standing Order on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Due to the fact that the ceremony of holy matrimony within the House of Commons is a rare and, indeed, happy occasion, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave):
That this House congratulate in the appropriate manner that long standing member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) on the occasion of his marriage in the Commonwealth Room of the House of Commons last evening at 5.30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) will take the warmth of that applause as being the very strongest possible indication of the good wishes which go from this chamber to him for
May 19, 1977

Oral Questions


ATOMIC ENERGY OF CANADA LIMITED
[Stage Direction]
great success and many years of happiness in his marriage which he celebrated last evening.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I understand the office of the Prime Minister, as well as several of the Acting Prime Minister's ministerial colleagues' attention has been drawn to a front page story from Buenos Aires in this week's Financial Post, indicating not only the amounts paid, not only the dates payments were made, but the name of the actual recipient of $4 million of $5 million worth of Canadian taxpayers' money in respect of the CANDU reactor sale to Argentina. Most of this information, of course, was disclosed in an Argentinian civil magistrate's investigation which was certainly available to Canadian governmental authorities.
My question to the Acting Prime Minister is this: has this information come to the attention of the government? 1 find it difficult to believe the indifference could go so far that it has not come to the attention of the government. If so, why has this House and the Public Accounts Committee not been made aware of this disclosure before this date?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been made aware of this information. I will certainly check into it immediately.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary relates to that very indifference which we have just seen exemplified by the Acting Prime Minister's answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister is: why is it a Canadian journalist based in Switzerland, of all places, can go to Argentina and produce this type of very relevant information when, in spite of public declaration by some of his ministers sitting in the front row with him, we are met by indifference, stonewalling, absolute evasion and no information from government sources?


Mr. Paproski:: Stonewallers!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUGGESTED SEVERANCE OF RELATIONSHIP WITH ITALIMPIANTI IN VIEW OF ALLEGATION OF CORRUPTION
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The report mentioned by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham refers to the fact that there are legal proceedings in Argentina directly involving Lucien Secouri, the Canadian government's business partner in Argentina, in corruption charges relating to the Alvar Aluminium Company in that country. In light of Italimpianti's obviously corruptive activities, I would like to ask the minister if he can tell the House whether he will now take steps immediately to sever AECL's business relationship with Ita-limpianti starting with the Rio Tercero project?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to look into the same allegations to which the hon. member has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: You know what is going on.


PAYMENTS TO AGENTS-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON INVESTIGATION BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is engaged in this investigative work, I wonder if he would also look into the question of the disposal of the $1 million to the Luxembourg branch of the Belgian Banque Lambert. In view of the close ties between Gelbard, this bank and David Gravier, who has also been involved in a number of spectacular financial collapses, can the minister indicate whether the RCMP has to date unearthed any evidence as to where this money finally ended up, and specifically whether Gravier was involved in any way, shape or form with the $2'A million payoff?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the RCMP have unearthed anything on this particular matter, they have not reported that to me. I am in no position to comment on the allegation concerning some gentleman by the name of Gravier who may have been connected. Quite frankly, I am not familiar with the details at all.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You do not want to know.


POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING RATE OF INCREASE TO TWO PER CENT
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources as well. Recently the minister said the United

May 19, 1977
Oral Questions
States was following Canada's example in energy conservation. In view of the fact President Carter has committed the United States to an increase in energy consumption of less than 2 per cent per year, whereas the minister's report and the energy strategy report he has referred to commits Canada to a 3.5 per cent increase in growth, would the minister explain to the House how that shows any Canadian leadership in this field whatsoever? Would the minister advise whether he has a report in his own office which says that Canada can have a 2 per cent increase rate and only a 2 per cent increase rate? If he has that report, will he explain why he has not released it, or if he agrees with it?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read again "An Energy Strategy for Canada, policies for self-reliance," which was issued one year ago, he would see that the target we set was to reduce the growth in energy consumption to 3.5 per cent or less. We made it clear in that report that we hoped to bring the figure down to an average of 2 per cent per year by 1990.
The report to which the hon. member referred, which is the basis of that statement contained in our energy strategy document, should be in my hands shortly. I have not yet seen it but have reason to believe, and have so stated many times, that with strict conservation methods, including many of those already announced, we should be able to reduce our growth in energy consumption to 2 per cent between the years 1985 and 1990.


MINISTER'S PREFERENCE FOR TAR SANDS PROJECT OR HOME INSULATION PROGRAM
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Our figure is well below U.S. targets. Last Thursday I asked the minister about his two projects now under consideration before Treasury Board; one is to bring on stream another tar sands plant; the other involves a home insulation program. According to my information, the government is unwilling to fund those plans, and Treasury Board resists their funding. Will the minister say which of the two plans he prefers? Does he prefer the home insulation plan so desperately needed to the tar sands project?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I have made clear in the past, I do not see this as an either/or situation. I think that Canadians, clearly, must adopt much stricter conservation practices. I have indicated that, to the extent we can financially, expanding the home insulation program we have already introduced in the maritime provinces to the rest of Canada. I also made it clear that we shall depend on new supplies and a new Athabasca tar sands plant would be an important additional source of supply for Canadians.
(Mr. Leggatt.]


REASON FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT HOME INSULATION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question? I return to the question of the national insulation program. As a result of the energy ministers meeting of May 11 I understand some provinces are now willing to implement immediately an insulation program similar to that in place in Nova Scotia. I ask, why does the federal government not implement such a national insulation program immediately on terms similar to those available in Nova Scotia with the other provinces of this country which are willing to undertake and participate financially in the program, in order that we may conserve energy in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have made it clear that the problem with respect to a home insulation program is one of finances. I am therefore pleased to hear the hon. member say that other provinces are prepared, according to him, to involve themselves, participate and contribute financially to a home insulation program. I would be pleased to receive some evidence of the correctness of that statement from him.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISCUSSION ON TELEVISING WORLD HOCKEY LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The minister is obviously aware that the two best professional teams in the world, after the Montreal Canadiens, are now playing the final series in major hockey. As the House was asked on several occasions whether the federal government would be in a position to urge the CBC to put an end to the discrimination towards the World Hockey Association, and as this series between the Quebec City Nordiques and the Winnipeg Jets would interest people across Canada, particularly in the Quebec City and Winnipeg areas, could the minister tell the House where we are in the discussions on the possibility of televising the last games in this series?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question was addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but perhaps it falls more appropriately within the confines of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State-


An hon. Member:: What about Iona?


John (Moody) Roberts: 
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Epp:: Not a bad idea once in a while.


John (Moody) Roberts: However, 1 have brought to the attention of the CBC the many expressions of opinion which I have received from hon. members from all parts of the House as to the importance they attach to this series.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Perhaps he could skate on this better than the Secretary of State. Would he be aware of the fact that last winter one of the two teams which are playing now has beaten the Russians 6 to 1 and that the federal government seems to have made particular arrangements with a Mr. Eagleson who is apparently leading the minister by the nose, to put us to shame on European skating rinks. This is where discrimination lies. As two Canadian teams are now trying to win a trophy which can become as important as the Stanley Cup, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell the House whether Mr. Eagleson prevents him from putting the pressure which is necessary to put an end to discrimination towards the World Hockey Association?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY WHETHER WORLD HOCKEY LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIPS AS IMPORTANT AS CANADIAN FOOTBALL LEAGUE
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare with regard to this series. Previously I placed a motion under Standing Order 43 before the House, but my motion was not given unanimous consent. In view of the fact that this is an all-Canadian title, the first time in ten years in professional hockey, would the minister give the same concern to this event of importance to Canada as he did when he tried to protect the Canadian Football League?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to realize that we have a Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) who is doing an outstanding job in this field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: The hon. lady is performing her work in an outstanding way, and I would be very happy to have her answer the question of the hon. member.


POSSIBILITY OF TELEVISING WORLD HOCKEY LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I will direct that question to the minister mentioned. Have final plans been made whereby this event of importance to Canadi-
Oral Questions
ans will be televised on the same basis as this government has seen fit to do it through the CBC for the NHL?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I will be intervening with my colleague the Secretary of State in this matter. However, in response to the previous question, I find it quite offensive that any hon. member of this House would seek to indicate that Mr. Eagleson is leading the government by the nose. It seems inappropriate that this should be indicated in this chamber because hon. members should at least accept the fact that there would be no international contests without this person's intervention, and credit should at least be given.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State who is responsible for the CBC. As the CBC is subsidized by Canadian taxpayers to the tune of over $500 million a year, and as there have been strong recommendations from the people of the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba that at least the fifth and sixth games be televised, will the minister please use his influence with the CBC and request that the CBC televise those games?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.

[DOT] (U30)


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Since the government has known for five years that tankers would be travelling within a few miles of the international boundary and since even after five years it has not arrived at a suitable arrangement with the United States on compensation and liability conditions for Canadian citizens in the event of a trans-boundary oil spill, will the government amend the Canada Shipping Act to provide compensation for Canadian victims of oil pollution from the TAPS tankers until the United States institutes mutually satisfactory legislation on the trans-boundary oil pollution question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the government will take note of the hon. member's representations on this important point.

May 19, 1977
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION FOR OIL SPILLS FROM TANKERS EN ROUTE TO CHERRY POINT
Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government has yet to conclude satisfactory negotiations on the provisions of compensation to Canadian victims of American oil pollution, will the government send a diplomatic note urging a swift and satisfactory conclusion to negotiations on the comprehensive oil pollution liability and compensation bill and passage through the Congressional-Senate committee system before regular deliveries begin in July to Cherry Point?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows there are certain limitations within this particular situation. The government of Canada has had consultations over a long period with respect to possible pollution in this area. As I recollect it, in certain areas we have made advances in order to minimize the dangers of pollution. On the question of compensation, I will be happy to make a further check and advise the hon. member whether further negotiations or representations to the United States are likely to advance the cause which we both believe in.


SUGGESTION CANADIANS HAVE ACCESS TO UNITED STATES FUND FOR COMPENSATION FOR OIL POLLUTION
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. In view of the consultations which have just been mentioned by the Acting Prime Minister could he tell the House whether the government is now in a position to assure potential Canadian victims that they will have equal access and rights to the so-called super fund which is in the draft comprehensive oil pollution liability and compensation bill before the United States Senate, in the same manner as their American neighbours? Has the government demanded or made representation to have these rights and if not, why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will check into that point.


Donald W. Munro: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Failing that, could the Acting Prime Minister tell us whether the government is contemplating specific legislation parallel to that which is before the United States Congress in order to give assurances to Canadian citizens that their interests will be fully protected in the case of an oil spill in this very delicate area?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not at present, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the government aware of possible serious improprieties, misuse and mismanagement of public funds by the National Capital Commission at 12 to 18 York Street, Ottawa, and if so, is he agreeable to having an investigation by the Public Accounts Committee into why this project, originally estimated at $700,000, has suddenly skyrocketed to over $5 million?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the Public Accounts Committee has the authority to examine these accounts and can do so in its regular operations.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary question. With all due respect to the minister, he is correct but I also believe the government could recommend that this be done. Would the minister be agreeable to asking the Public Accounts Committee to investigate why a fee of approximately $4,000 a month was paid for over two years to By-York Development Limited who reportedly only provided the service of travelling to England at public expense to purchase $100,000 worth of antiques, including suits of armour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely that information ought to be obtained by questions on the order paper.


REQUEST FOR REJECTION OF ANY APPLICATION FOR PLANT TO REPROCESS PLUTONIUM
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and relates to statements attributed to officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited that Canada needs to at least develop and probably use plutonium recycled from spent nuclear fuel rods for a thorium fuel cycle. Despite efforts by officials of AECL to pressure the government into moving in this direction will the minister assure the House that in view of the abnormally high risks involved in what could be another step along the road to nuclear tragedy, that the government will reject any application by AECL to establish such reprocessing facilities in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that kind of assurance at this time but I can assure the hon. lady that we will examine the question very carefully. The quotation she was referring to was merely an opinion of scientists within AECL who recognize the enormous value of spent fuel rods and the potential of the CANDU system to use that spent fuel in their cycle. As I
May 19, 1977

understand it, there are other ways of using spent fuel without going through the plutonium cycle itself. This is the sort of question we will be examining.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question. Given the curtailment of reprocessing facilities recently introduced by President Carter in the United States, the concerns expressed at the recent summit meeting in London about the dangers inherent in reprocessing nuclear wastes and by officials of the Atomic Energy Control Board this morning about this course of action, will the minister at least give the assurance that no decision will be taken to pursue this course of action prior to a wide ranging public debate on this whole issue?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. lady the assurance that no decision will be taken on this by the government without a good deal of discussion. Whether that fits into her definition of a wide ranging debate, I cannot say. I also want to make it quite clear that the Canadian government will be co-ordinating its views closely with the United States government in respect of reprocessing. If any assurance is needed I think the hon. member should gain some from the fact that the Canadian government has taken the lead with respect to this whole question of nuclear safeguards.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In considering the question of reprocessing plutonium in this country will the minister give equal weight to the views expressed by the Atomic Energy Control Board as he does to officials of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited?


Alastair William Gillespie: Of course, Mr. Speaker.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question could be considered supplementary to those already addressed this afternoon to the Secretary of State. It concerns the activities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the inquiry being conducted by the CRTC president, Mr. Harry Boyle, who is scheduled to produce the final report before July 1 of this year. Is the Secretary of State prepared to recognize the many and varied criticisms of the CBC by members of parliament and the public by giving his assurance to this House that the report of the CRTC will be referred by the government to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for detailed study and report back to the House? If he does not agree to this approach, would the minister be favourably disposed toward a reference to that committee that would permit, in the next session of this House, a review of CBC activities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Until both those events occur I really have to classify that question as hypothetical.
Oral Questions MANPOWER


CANADA WORKS PROGRAM-REASON FOR RETAINING UNUSED PHASE I FUNDS IN CONSTITUENCY FOR USE IN PHASE II
Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In a letter sent to my office this week the minister indicated that any funds allocated to a constituency under Phase I of the Canada Works Program which were not utilized would remain in that constituency to be utilized in Phase II. I should like to ask the minister how he can justify sitting on these funds which will only be used to benefit areas with already low unemployment when other areas in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec currently are receiving as little as one dollar's worth of funding for every five dollars' worth of acceptable applications under Phase I?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it seemed appropriate in certain circumstances to listen to members of parliament from both sides of the House. I received strong representations from members who are supposed to know the conditions in their own constituencies. The fact that we had started a new program and they felt they needed more time to come up with better projects made eminent good sense to do so.


Andrew Hogan: The answer that the minister just gave me goes against his stated policy and that of his government that there would be a special effort through Canada Works to improve the situation in areas of desperately high unemployment in this country and not to be helping other areas. This is not being done. It was done under LIP because the funds were poured back.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the analogy to LIP is correct. In this particular instance, we have a second phase of a particular program that we know is going ahead. The representations I have had from members are to the effect that they can make better use of it because they will have more time. Very heavy weight has been given to pouring the money into areas of high unemployment, so it is not fair to say it is not being used in the proper areas.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the acting Minister of National Defence. Further to the question addressed to the acting minister yesterday by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants of which he took notice. Can the acting minister today advise if it is permissible for members of the armed forces to approach members of parliament for advice or assistance and whether any charges

May 19, 1977
Oral Questions
have been laid or are about to be laid against Private J. P. Smith of Canadian Forces Base Gagetown for approaching a member of parliament?


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as a follow up to the question asked yesterday, I wish to inform the hon. member that no charges have been laid against Private Smith and we do not contemplate laying charges against him for contacting his member of parliament. It has been stated in this House by my minister and his predecessor that members of the Canadian Armed Forces, just as any other Canadian, have every right to contact their members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SALE OF CANDU REACTOR TO KOREA-EVIDENCE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY MR. EISENBERG
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources relating to the AECL matter in Korea. Since most of the information contained in the April 5 letter from our embassy in Seoul appeared to rely only on the evidence of Mr. Min Choong Shik, the former president of the Korean Electrical Company about any services actually performed, does the minister now have any further information on any tangible or visible services performed by Mr. Eisenberg or his company in Korea? Is there anything to substantiate this third hand information received from the Department of External Affairs which is now being contradicted by other knowledgeable people in Korea?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that clearly is the opinion of the hon. member. If he were to examine the situation, he would have to acknowledge that the former president, the person who was there at the time, is more likely to be informed on these matters than people who were not there at the time.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Is the minister saying unequivocally that these people were not there? He also conveniently forgets, as he did in his answer to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, this information was based not only on the information of the Korean Electrical Company vice-president, but also information from the vice-president (Power Reactor Engineering) of the Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute and the Commissioner of the Republic of Korea Atomic Energy Commission. In view of his strange nonchalance on the subject, particularly contrasted with countries like United States and Great Britain which appear to take some interest in this sort of thing when it affects their national image, is the minister prepared to go to Korea himself or send someone to do what these enterprising newsmen have done?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been made very clear in the past that the government has done everything it could.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: This matter was referred to the Public Accounts Committee. If the hon. member would reflect for a moment upon the requests that were put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs by the Public Accounts Committee and the answers provided by his department using the resources of the department as well as the answers of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this House, he would see that we have used our foreign representatives to try to provide the answers that the Public Accounts Committee were seeking.


TOURISM
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Prime Minister, I will direct my question to the acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the recent decision by the United States Senate not to allow special tax deductions for Americans attending conventions in Canada, a policy that has already cost the Canadian hotel industry at least $16 million to $20 million, what action if any has the government taken to protect the Canadian interests, particularly in view of the fact that the ways and means committee of the House of Representatives will be looking into this matter in July?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, representations have already been made to U.S. authorities both by the Prime Minister during his visit and by various ministers since. That, again, has been explained to the House. I myself will have in the near future the opportunity to talk about that with my U.S. counterpart.


POSSIBILITY OF REINSTATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR UNITED STATES CITIZENS ATTENDING CONVENTIONS IF PARTS OF BILL C-58 WITHDRAWN
Henry Perrin Beatty: In view of the fact that a number of senators, including Senators Kennedy and Magnuson, explained their decision not to support these tax benefits for conventions in Canada on the basis that they objected strenuously to the effects of Bill C-58 on American broadcasters, does the government consider the objectionable parts of Bill C-58 to be negotiable in exchange
May 19, 1977


AGRICULTURE
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. I am aware that the government has been engaged for some time in discussions and negotiations with British Columbia on programs for the further development of resources of the province, particularly in the industrial and agricultural sectors. Regarding the latter, we are all concerned that the original ARDA agreement is running down with the consequent need for new joint programs. I expect that the Department of Agriculture is involved in examining the possibilities and I would ask the minister to provide assurances that he and his department will indeed support actively and join with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in introducing new initiatives for assistance to agriculture in British Columbia.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, discussions are taking place. I do not think I have to apologize for wanting to be involved in any programs that are in effect in British Columbia because of the great things we have done for British Columbia since I have been Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Recognizing the fact that the agricultural problems of British Columbia are rather unique in geographic terms, is the minister prepared to accept the fact that the program under ARDA that is sought by the province of British Columbia is in some ways uniquely different from those the minister has for other points in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the agreements that are signed are not all the same between provinces. I recognize that it is somewhat different in British Columbia.
Oral Questions


FISHERIES
[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL AID TO HERRING FISHERMEN OF tLES-DE-LA-MADELEINE
Mr.   Albert@: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister.
Considering that herring fishing is a disaster for the third consecutive year, which means a complete lack of revenue for the Iles-de-la-Madeleine on top of an unacceptable deficit, could the minister tell the House whether his department is prepared to give a favourable answer to the Magdalen Islands herring fishermen who ask for assistance to offset their lack of revenue and ensure the survival of their families?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague who is on an official visit in Newfoundland, I want to tell the hon. member that the moment the minister is back I will forward to him the representations he just made by the hon. member in the interest of his constituents.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The International Commission of Jurists has just reported to the United Nations that 100,000 people may have been killed by security forces in Idi Amin's six years and that arbitrary killings and torture are still going on. Today in the External Affairs committee, Ambassador Beaulne said that the report would not be discussed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights before next February. Will the government now change its policy on human rights from quiet diplomacy to one of public leadership and express the moral outrage of Canadians by insisting that Idi Amin be excluded from both the Commonwealth Conference in June and the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton in 1978?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked us to change our policy on human rights, inferring we have not already spoken out clearly and forcibly with regard to the violation of human rights in Uganda. Both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself have spoken, on behalf of the government, inside and outside the House, expressing our outrage at what is happening, at what has now been proved by the Committee of Jurists to be the situation. We have expressed our indignation in the House. We have made representations to the govern-

May 19, 1977
Oral Questions
ment of Uganda. We have asked, as I recollect, for an independent inquiry to be made into the situation there. As for the other aspect of the question, I have no intention of commenting today on the question of representation at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers meeting in London.


Douglas Roche: I am sorry the minister did not respond to my specific question concerning exclusion from the games in Edmonton. May I ask him this question? Since the UN Commission on Human Rights has been crippled by the double standard adopted by African states, which are willing to criticize publicly discrimination based on policies of race but are unwilling to denounce publicly violations of human rights in Uganda, what steps will the government take to protest the increasing violation of human rights in the world as President Carter has done?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have already stated. When the question was asked some time ago with regard to statements made by President Carter we in this House made similar statements. They have been public statements. The hon. member was in Winnipeg at the same time as I was there and heard the Secretary General of the United Nations analyze the various courses open to governments to indicate their concern about human rights. It is possible, as the Secretary General outlined, to get headlines by making public statements but sometimes these headlines do not have very much effect. Often they harden a situation and make it more difficult for people who are suffering the loss of human rights. So in each of these cases one has to analyze the likely effect of any course of action.
As the hon. member knows, with respect to the Edmonton games the government is doing everything possible at the present time to make them a success and to get all countries to participate. I wonder whether he understands the implications of his suggestion that at this moment we should say that one member of the Commonwealth be denied admission. It might result in the collapse of the games, which is not our intention.


TRANSPORT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Have the minister and the government yet come to a decision with regard to the proposal contained in the Hall Report which suggests the union and rationalization of existing railway lines in northern Alberta and the territories. I say "existing" as opposed to the proposal to build a railway line in the Arctic. Has the government yet come to a decision and does the minister intend to get in touch with those whose have responsibility for the operation of the existing lines?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a conclusion on this matter has not yet been reached but, clearly,

we shall be in touch with the persons involved with the existing lines and also with the provincial governments.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour. He was here a minute ago. Perhaps he is behind the curtains.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
[Stage Direction]
POSSIBILITY BOOK NO. 4 OF "SEX EDUCATION: A TEACHER'S GUIDE" CONTRAVENES CODE-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and arises from a series called Sex Education: A Teacher's Guide and published under the authority of his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the minister tell the House what he has found as a result of my special request to him that he look at that series, particularly at booklet No. 4, to find out whether it is in contravention of the Criminal Code?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have not so examined it. I think I indicated to the hon. member that I would do so. I am fairly sure of what my answer would be, but in any case it is quite clear that any action called for would be taken by provincial attorneys general.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: In light of the minister's answer that he has not yet looked at this, would he now undertake to consider this matter very specifically and report back to the House at an early date?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will. However, I would reiterate an answer given by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, that the series of books referred to was published by his department to provide information on a vital subject for use in schools. As I understand my colleague's reply, they have proven very useful and have been in great demand by schoolteachers across the country as an aid to them in their very important work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INCOME TAX
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would address my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue, in answer to a question by my hon.
May 19, 1977

friend from Edmonton West, stated that her department had decided to include in income for tax purposes the deemed benefits from low-interest loans granted by employers to employees. Since the courts have already ruled that there is no obligation to charge a specified or, indeed, any rate of interest on loans, how can the Minister of National Revenue make such a ruling without such a legislative proposal coming before this House?


Miss Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: After the usual consultations with the Department of Justice on this question, Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that we believe we are following the spirit and the letter of the law.

[ Translation]


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Given the fact that Bill C-24 is before a standing committee of the House and since it is well known that it is not endorsed by many interest groups across the country and that clause 109(1) does not grant any power to the provinces-and I mean all provinces-except to decide on the number of immigrants, could the Minister inform the House whether or not he intends to send this legislation before a public committee so that interest groups and the general public might make representations to amend a bill which is merely robbing Peter to pay Paul?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might pre-empt the Minister of Agriculture here. The bill referred to is, in fact, before a standing committee of the House. The committee is master of its own procedures. They have indicated the number of groups they wish to hear and recommendations for change will no doubt come from these various interest groups. We shall listen with open ears and an open mind.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to the confidentiality of statistical information given to manpower offices. The minister suggested I should look at section 114 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which, he said, went a long way to protect the individual. I disagree, inasmuch as section 114 gives the Commission the authority to give out this information not only
Oral Questions
to its own employees but to any person providing it deems such a course advisable. My question to the minister is: are there any guidelines or regulations governing the conduct of the Commission with respect to distributing this highly confidential information?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member did not read the whole section into the record. I understand his concern here, however, since I share it. I might tell the hon. member that we are exploring possible avenues by which the provisions governing the privacy of our records with respect to third party request can best be safeguarded. We have followed the letter and the spirit of that particular section and the information has not been made available to outside agencies. We are doing everything possible to strengthen the confidentiality of the section.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I notice the minister did not answer the pertinent part of the question with respect to the rules and regulations. In light of the fact that Bill C-27 is before the House and that the minister has not registered his concern over this awesome power given the commission by the words, if I may quote them, "and such other persons as the commission deems advisable", will the minister now bring in an amendment to section 114 in order to remove those very damaging words? The minister has that opportunity now so will he see to it that that is done?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I can give that commitment at this stage. However, as I said, the hon. member did not read it all. The act goes on to provide that this information shall be made available only to employees of the commission in the course of their employment and such other persons as deemed necessary for the control or management of the particular department.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It does not say all that; don't stretch your imagination.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I am prepared to look at the section, Mr. Speaker. Having been Minister of National Revenue I do recognize the importance of protecting confidentiality. I have the same interest in this matter as the hon. member.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise on a question of privilege which deals with a very important matter.
In a news bulletin broadcast by the CBC French network on Wednesday, May 11, 1977, Mr. Paul Racine, a journalist for that network, stated that according to information he had received from the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) five of our good Social Credit members were about to join the Liberal party; in other words, 50 per cent of the Social Credit caucus. Now, Mr. Speaker, such a statement on the part of a CBC journalist reporting the words of the Minister of Supply and Services deserves to be taken seriously, for it deals a blow to the reputation of each and every one of the Social

May 19, 1977
Oral Questions
Credit members in this House. Further to that statement, Mr. Speaker, I therefore want to dispel all the confusion it may have created in public minds: I have never had any intention of joining the Liberal ranks. I was elected under the banner of the Social Credit Party of Canada and the electors of Shefford have given me their trust as a Social Credit member. I must, however, confess that I did allow myself to be misled once, in 1956, when the Liberal party, to get the votes of the Socreds, included in its platform the following social credit principle: That all that is physically possible and morally good must be made financially achievable. Now, that statement from the minister, as reported on the CBC news by Mr. Paul Racine, was intended to discredit Socred members during the by-elections, while trying to create an atmosphere of confidence in the Quebec federal Liberals by spreading the rumor that members of all parties are about to join the Liberal party.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by dispelling any expectation the Liberal Party might have about me and I hope Radio-Canada is going to correct the impression it has created and will this time tell the truth instead of spreading mistakes and confusion which affect the credibility of individuals who are not all at the service of Radio-Canada or the Liberal Party.
Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) tell the House the names of the five hon. members of the Social Credit Party who, according to him, are about to join the ranks of the Liberal Party, as he gave them to Mr. Paul Racine.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will merely assure the House that the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau) is not among them.


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, I raise the same question of privilege of which I gave you notice of yesterday. I think that, even though I am sometimes accused here of all kinds of things, the worst thing I can be accused of is the intention to join my hon. friends opposite. The only thing-


An hon. Member:: We do not want you!


René Matte: No, don't be afraid. The only thing they will get from me is to make me red, but only out of anger.
Mr. Speaker, I think that when the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) suggests, without giving any names, that half of the members of the Social Credit Party have been approached and were tempted to go over to the Liberals, it is like a sword of Damocles over our heads, and we bear all the outrages and consequences of it.
So, it is extremely important that the minister have the courage and the honesty to say to the House who are the members in question, so that the privileges of hon. members be preserved.


An hon. Member:: If they have names, let them give them! This is dishonest!


René Matte: That is why, Mr. Speaker, we will make arrangements to get that matter referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, so that we are no longer manipulated by that arrogant party, which is willing to do anything, even lie, to have people believe that we all share their famous views on national unity, whose only result is to create disunity in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am sure all hon. members realize that despite the passion and the very great importance of the subject matter which has been discussed, it would be an unwarranted and rather spectacular extension of the concept of a question of privilege if I were to attempt to include every suggestion that what had been said by a minister of the Crown was in some way inaccurate.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Speaker, I am taking this first opportunity to address myself to a matter which I think offends the privileges of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands as well as the privileges of the House. Obviously inadvertently, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources during the question period led the House and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands to believe that it is not the intention of the government at the present time to pursue the prospect of reprocessing nuclear waste for the purpose of extracting plutonium to double the efficiency of our reactors. Evidence from officials of AECL given in committee this morning indicated that that company, a Crown corporation, does not only have a mandate to develop, but is spending $8 million this year on developing not only technology but gadgetry for the reprocessing of plutonium.
I should like Your Honour to direct the minister to make a statement in the House as to the government's policy in this regard, and to state why he made this statement knowing full well that this kind of activity is going on within the corporation.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as I understood the question of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, it was, "Has the government taken a decision on whether to authorize AECL to go into the plutonium recycling business?", or words to that effect. I made it quite clear that the government has taken no decision; that AECL has not been authorized to build reactors based on this potential technology. The option is being considered by the government, and no decision has been made at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River raises a question of privilege which is essentially a difference of interpretation of language. It is perhaps a disagreement, but certainly not a question of privilege.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a matter of privilege concerning the answer given in this House today by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to the last
May 19, 1977

question I asked. At that time the minister left the impression in the House that other provinces of Canada had not indicated a willingness to participate in a national insulation program.
The reason I am suggesting the minister has misled the House is that the documents I relied upon in my question were documents tabled before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works yesterday, and those documents were also tabled at the energy ministers' conference on May 11. I would like to refer the House to the second page of that document which indicates that three provinces-British Columbia, Manitoba and Nova Scotia-have implemented a loans program. The federal government has contributed to the Nova Scotia program. Since that time, Ontario has indicated a loans program in a national insulation project. These provinces have clearly indicated their willingness to participate in a national program.
The Minister misled this House in saying that the provinces are not willing to undertake a national insulation program with the federal government. The minister can now proceed with the provinces of British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Ontario by simply providing federal grant funds for national insulation programs in those provinces, and we can begin next week on a national insulation program.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has exaggerated and distorted the situation out of all recognition. If he will look at the "blues", he will see I gave him an answer which indicated that if there was further evidence from the provinces that they were prepared to enter into programs of an insulation nature, I would like to receive it.
I am well aware of the initiatives taken by the province of British Columbia, the first province to do so through their public utilities. I have given them a great deal of recognition and have urged other provinces, other provincial utilities, other private utilities, other private companies and other commercial interests as well to follow the lead taken by the British Columbia government in this regard. That initiative on the part of the British Columbia government was not tied to a national insulation program in any way; it was done for their own purposes. In the case of Manitoba, I believe this was done for provincial reasons and it was not done from the point of view of its being a condition of a national insulation program. I applaud that initiative.
The most recent one the hon. member referred to is the province of Ontario. The announcements and the letters I have seen from the premier of the province indicate that the province of Ontario is going to introduce some kind of insulation loans program. It is not conditional in any way upon a national program or a grants program provided by the federal government. Quite clearly, these are loans programs being introduced by the provinces for their own purposes. They are sound initiatives, and I would urge other provinces to follow their lead. They are not conditional upon either a grants program or a national program.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is to request from the Chair clarification of your ruling today. I was
Business of the House
attempting to put a question to the Secretary of State concerning an inquiry instituted by this government which is to be reported by a certain fixed date. The intentions of the government today concerning what it is going to do with that inquiry will have a major impact on committee activities which will take place this afternnon. I say "major impact" because, obviously, whatever happens this afternoon could have an effect on the life of the House. I am, therefore, somewhat puzzled why a question concerning the government's intention in connection with an inquiry, which the government has instituted itself and which is to be reported by a certain fixed date, should be considered as hypothetical.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, the hon. member for Vaudreuil realizes that he asked the minister what he would propose to do with the oil report when the report is received. In its very terms, that is obviously entirely contingent upon an event which has yet to take place. The hon. member also asked the minister if he would be favourably disposed to some kind of examination of the problem in a future parliament. Surely the hon. member realizes, by the very terms of the questions he put to the minister today, that both questions were hypothetical in their language and totally dependent upon an event which has yet to take place. There could be no other interpretation except that the minister's answer would have to be based on a hypothetical premise.
If any committee hearing is dependent upon answers by the minister, it might be incumbent upon the committee, therefore, to invite the minister to answer such questions before the committee. He certainly cannot answer them here.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader his intentions for the balance of this week, and into next week, in terms of the legislative program, and whether or not he is prepared to allocate an opposition day or days next week; and, if so, what days?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, the plan tomorrow is to continue with second reading and other stages of the Excise Tax Act, to be followed by the Bretton Woods bill, and then we would deal with two transport bills: the aeronautics bill, C-46, and the Air Canada bill.
I would be ready to designate next Thursday as an allotted day. Later today, or tomorrow, I hope I will be able to indicate to hon. members the program beyond the four bills I have mentioned.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
May 19, 1977

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Prud'homme.
[ Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,053, 1,634, 1,798, 1,950, 1,990, 2,287, 2,301, 2,327, 2,348, and 2,437.
[ Text]


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Since April 1, 1970, has any employee of Statistics Canada (a) at the management level, (b) below the management level received any remuneration for services rendered outside of his or her official duties at Statistics Canada from any private organization which at that time had a contract with Statistics Canada and, if so, in each case, what (i) is the name and classification of the employee (ii) is the name of the organization which paid the employee (iii) was the nature of the service rendered (iv) was the amount involved and the date of payment?
2.	Since April 1, 1970, has any Statistics Canada employee at the management level, or the immediate family of any such employee, had a financial interest in any organization involved in data processing, storing and/or dissemination and, if so, in each case (a) what is the name and classification of the employee, (b) what is the name of the organization, (c) what was, or is, the extent of the financial interest, (d) on what date was the financial interest acquired and on what date was it terminated, if applicable, (e) did the organization have any financial dealing with Statistics Canada and, if so, what was the (i) date of the transaction (ii) amount involved (iii) nature of the involvement, (f) did the organization engage in commercial activity parallel or quasi-parallel to the official activities of Statistics Canada?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that as of November 23, 1976: 1. (a) Not to our knowledge, (b) Not to our knowledge.
2.	With the exception of the case detailed in the answer to House Question 764, none* to our knowledge. (Tabled on Nov. 3, 1976).
* Since 1970 several employees have reported that they hold common stock, (the value of which exceeded $2,500), in a variety of major corporations. In some cases these corporations or their subsidiaries are probably involved in data processing, storage or dissemination activities, but these activities would not be described as parallel or quasi-parallel to the official activities of Statistics Canada. None of the employees in question has, in the course of their duties, access to the identifiable confidential records of the corporations in which they have invested or the competitors of these firms nor do they have responsibility for awarding or administering potential contracts with these corporations or their competitors.


Mr. Coates: How much space is rented by the government in the Province of Quebec and what is the estimated total amount to be paid to property owners for the fiscal year 1976-77?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: As of
January 31, 1977 the Department of Public Works was renting 4,579,118 square feet of space. The estimated total amount to be paid to property owners during 1976/77 fiscal year is approximately $33,340,976.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): For each of the past five financial years, what were the deposits by the government and Crown corporations in (a) financial institutions, (b) charter banks, (c) credit unions (d) co-operative credit societies?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) and (b)
	Amounts on Deposit by the Government and Crown Corporations in Chartered Banks (in millions of dollars)									
U)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(1)	(2)Month	FY 1972-73	FY 1973-74	FY 1974-75	FY 1975-76	FY 1976-77	April	1,303.5	89.6	2,029.2	81.6	603.7	89.2	3,084.4	44.3	2,191.4	30.4May	1,263.5	66.1	2,389.7	67.4	574.5	66.4	3,393.4	38.3	2,422.9	40.2June	812.5	84.8	2,207.6	88.4	679.5	95.5	2,664.4	57.7	2,133.6	57.7July	912.9	69.2	2,065.9	74.2	876.7	61.2	2,310.7	35.9	2,160.3	33.6August	734.9	61.5	2,047.9	70.4	1,065.7	57.2	2,139.7	30.5	2,469.2	48.7September	444.0	67.5	1,809.9	71.6	862.7	70.6	1,278.7	51.2	1,823.2	35.4October	503.1	64.5	1,660.3	64.1	1,163.7	63.3	1,124.5	45.6	1,908.6	28.6November	2,019.1	62.0	1,890.2	70.6	5,052.3	69.3	4,044.4	33.6	4,050.3	35.3December 	2,380.1	88.8	2,335.0	138.5	4,703.6	98.7	3,667.7	81.7	3,266.4	65.9
May 19, 1977

Order Paper Questions
Amounts on Deposit by the Government and Crown Corporations in Chartered Banks
to	(2)	to	(in millions of dollars) (2) (1)	(2)	(1)	(2)	(i)	(2)January	2,492.1	60.7	1,916.7	68.8	4,619.0	43.8	3,850.2	40.2	4,357.8	60.8February	2,348.1	71.1	1,475.3	76.8	3,807.2	39.2	3,377.5	52.5	4,343.8	32.0March	1,936.6	107.6	750.7	119.3	3,174.2	74.1	3,030.8	44.3	3,571.4	Not availableGovernment (2) Crown Corporations	
Note: The amounts shown for Crown corporations are based on monthly figures reported by the Crown corporations to the Receiver General.
(c) and (d) The Receiver General does not maintain amounts on deposit with credit unions or co-operative credit societies as this is prohibited under the Financial Administration Act.


Mr. Peters: 1.	What courier services are used to handle special mail and documents in the postal areas in the Constituency of (a) Timiskaming, (b) Timmins, (c) Cochrane, (d) Sudbury, (e) Nickel Belt, (0 Nipissing?
2.	(a) What is the total cost for courier services in each Constituency, (b) what is the amount received by each courier service?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.


Mr. Yewchuk: By chemical and commercial nomenclature, which (a) anticaking agents (b) bleaching, maturing and dough conditioning agents (c) colouring agents (d) emulsifying, gelling, stabilizing and thickening agents (e) food enzymes (0 firming agents (g) glazing and polishing agents (h) non-nutritive sweetening agents (/) pH-adjusting or acidulating agents (j) preservatives (k) sequestering agents (1) starch modifying agents (m) yeast foods (n) carrier and extraction solvents (o) humectants (p) anti-foaming agents (q) whipping agents (r) flavouring agents (s) vitamins (t) minerals (u) amino acids, are added to (i) Heinz Infantsoy baby cereal (ii) Pablum (iii) Aunt Jemima waffles, frozen (iv) Maple Leaf bacon (v) Toastmaster bread, white (vi) Kraft Parkay margarine (vii) Kellogg's Cornflakes (viii) Kellogg's Sugar Pops (ix) Taster's Choice Instant Coffee (x) Dominion coffee whitener (xi) Lipton's chicken noodle soup (xii) Kraft Cheese Dinner (xiii) Loblaw's ground beef (xiv) Hamburger Helper (xv) Kraft cheddar cheese (xvi) Cheese Whiz (xvii) McCains Fries, frozen (xviii) Hostess Chips (xix) Jell-o, strawberry (xx) Chocolate Quik (xxi) Coca Cola (xxii) Safeway sirloin beefsteak (xxiii) Frozen salmon (xxiv) Sherrifs Mashed Potatoes (xxv) Green Giant tinned peas (xxvi) Kraft pizza mix (xxvii) Mazola oil (xxviii) Crisco shortening (xxix) Five Roses white flour (xxx) Kraft salad dressing, coleslaw (xxxi) Dream Whip (xxxii) Borden's ice cream, chocolate (xxxiii) E.D. Smith pie Filling, lemon (xxxiv) Sunkist oranges (xxxv) Labatt's "50" beer?


Marc Lalonde: It is optional, not mandatory, to add food additives to foods. Therefore, the department does not maintain lists either of brand names of foods, or the specific ingredients in specific foods. The detailed information requested can be obtained by reading package labels and by consulting the Food and Drug Regulations.


Mr. McCleave: 1.	On what date was the latest printing of the Canadian Bill of Rights and (a) by whom, (b) in what quantity, (c) at what cost?
2.	(a) How was the distribution of the printing carried out, (b) what quantity remains?
3.	Were charges levied for some or all of such copies and, if so (a) at what rate, (b) what amount was raised, (c) into what public fund was it paid?
4.	(a) Were Members of Parliament provided copies without charge for their own distribution and, if so, on what basis, (b) has such provision been stopped and, if so (i) by whom (ii) for what reason?
5.	What consideration was given to providing copies to Members of Parliament on a similar basis to their receiving the Canadian flag without charge and for what reason is the practice not similar?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. March 16, 1977. (a) Thorn Press, Toronto; (b) 5,500; (c) $3,382.
2.	(a) The printing was ordered to replenish sales stock in the mail order service warehouse; (b) As of April 4, 1977, 5,000.
3.	Yes. (a) Various rates depending on customer's discount status as described in the regular discount policy; (b) A maximum amount of $625; (c) Supply Revolving Fund.
4.	(a) No, in so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned. Members of Parliament, pursuant to T.B. 667239 had the opportunity of requesting one copy at the time of release of the first printing in 1961. (b) No. Distribution pursuant to T.B. 667239 continues; (i) n/a; (ii) n/a.
5.	Distribution of the Canadian flag to Members of Parliament is controlled by the Secretary of State Department.


Mr. O'Sullivan: To date, how many applications for the (a) Canada Works Programme (b) Young Canada Works Programme have been received from the Constituency of (i) Hamilton-Wentworth (ii) Hamilton West (iii) Hamilton East (iv) Hamilton-Mountain (v) Halton-Wentworth (vi) Halton and, in each case, what number and percentage of these applications have been successful?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Constituency	(a) Canada Works Applications Received	(b) Young Canada Works Applications ReceivedHamilton-Wentworth	12	6Hamilton West	33	29Hamilton East	20	10Hamilton-Mountain	18	19Halton-Wentworth	9	13Halton	32	11
Note: As of the date of the question, the assessment approval phase of these programs had not been completed, and thus statistics on applications approved cannot yet be provided.

May 19, 1977
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKinnon: Did the government let contract No. 1EY.1059W-6-1OI0M in the amount of $718,842 for maintenance and repairs to the computer at North Bay, Ontario and, if so, what would it cost to replace it with a new and modern computer?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: The government issued contract file No. 1EY. 1059W-6-10M in the amount of $718,842.02 on March 9, 1977, for the maintenance of and repairs to the AN/FSQ7 SAGE Computer that is installed at CFB North Bay. The AN/FSQ-7 was provided to the Department of National Defence by the USAF who retain title. The above noted costs are funded jointly by the Department of National Defence and the USAF which pays two-thirds of the costs. The costs for a replacement computer system including peripherals, displays, software installation, training and support is estimated to be approximately $30,000,000.


Mr. Gillies: Did Crown Assets Disposal Corporation dispose of a large quantity of the Earth Sciences issue and other stamps and, if so, in each case, what issue was sold (a) to whom, (b) at what discount from the face value, (c) was it sold by tender, (d) was it offered for public sale?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: No. (a) to (d) Not applicable.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Has the government bought 4x4 vehicles from General Motors Corporation and, if so (a) how many, (b) at what price, (c) were tenders called?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) 2,848 I'A ton 4 x 4 utility trucks; (b) $9,376 (average price per vehicle, depending on options); (c) The contract was awarded February 4, 1975 as a result of Invitations to Tender issued to Canadian truck manufacturers producing a vehicle in the range required.


Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total number of penal institutions of all types in operation in Canada and, what (a) are their names, (b) are their locations, (c) is the number of inmates in each?
2.	In each institution (a) how many employees of the Canadian Penitentiary Service are employed and what was the comparable employment for the same period in 1975, (b) what is the total payroll?
3.	(a) How many disturbances have occurred at each institution since January 1, 1974, (b) on what dates, (c) how many inmates were involved?
4.	How many (a) escapes have taken place at each institution since January 1, 1974, (b) inmates were involved in each escape, (c) of the escapees are still at large?
5.	How many female employees are associated with each institution and, in each case, how many come in daily contact with the inmates?
Return tabled.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Have employees of Statistics Canada, in the management category, been asked to file written declarations listing their corporate and business involvements, stock investments exceeding $2,500 in value, commodity holdings, outside income sources and outside offices and, if so, how many were (a) asked to file, (b) in fact filed such declarations?
2.	In each category of holding or interest (a) how many indicated that they had no holding or interest, (b) what was the total value declared?
3.	(a) What was the total value of declared holdings or interest, reported by management level employees, by 3-digit SIC classification, (b) what was the distribution of these employees by salary range in $5,000 intervals?
4.	(a) How many employees travelled on official business outside Canada in
(i)	1970-71 (ii) 1971-72 (iii) 1972-73 (iv) 1973-74 (v) 1974-75 (vi) 1975-76 (vii) 1976 to date (b) in each case, what were (i) the names and salary ranges of employees involved (ii) the dates and destinations (cities) of each official trip (iii) the costs to the public purse?
5.	What is (a) the function of the job (b) salary range of the Co-ordinator, International Relations, located in the office of the Chief Statistician?
6.	(a) What travelling at public expense has been done by Dr. Sylvia Ostry since April 1, 1970 (b) in each case, what was the (i) destination (city or cities)
(ii)	dates (iii) costs to the public purse?
7.	What is the policy of the government for security clearance of employees working in Canada, who are not Canadian citizens and whose jobs involve access to classified information?
8.	(a) What level of security clearance is required for the incumbent of the position (i) Director, External Trade Division (ii) Director General, General Statistics Branch, in Statistics Canada, (b) in each case, to what categories of classified material have they access?
9.	What level of security clearance was given to Mr. Jacob Ryten in his (a) former position of Director, External Trade Division, (b) present position of Director General, General Statistics Branch, Statistics Canada?
Return tabled.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 717 and 975 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2280?

May 19, 1977


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PERSONNEL STRENGTH AND CONCESSIONS/FRANCHISES-CFB BORDEN


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What are the names of all the concessions or franchises at CFB Borden, Ontario?
2.	What is the procedure used in granting these concessions or franchises?
3.	Has there been an increase in rental rates charged to these concessions or franchises and, if so, on what basis are the increases made?
4.	What was the cost for each year 1970 to 1976 for (a) maintenance, (b) heating, (c) water, (d) electricity of the building in which the concessions or franchises are located?
5.	For each year 1970 to 1976, what was the total (a) civilian, (b) armed service personnel population of CFB Borden?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy answer I wonder if the House would be disposed to have the answer tabled and recorded in Hansard as read?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Editor's Note: The answer referred to above follows:


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1. Bank of Montreal; Bank of Commerce; Dr. Scott, Dentist; Dr. Wala-sek, M.D.; George's Coiffure; Circled Pine Coiffure; Wright Dry Cleaners; Lancaster Barbershop; Harold's Barbershop; CFSAL Barbershop; Muriel's Taxi; Courtesy Taxi; Essa Taxi; Income Tax, Assistance Office; Jack Rice Caterers; Orangeville Bottling, Vending Service; Simcoe Coin Sales, Amusement Machines; Newspaper Vending, Toronto Sun; Snow Removal, Tom Darnley; Snow Removal, Merv Johnston; Georgian Vending, Catering Service; Cadet Cleaners.
2.	Under section 38(1) of the National Defence Act the Base Commander selects the person or company that is most likely to provide the best service to the personnel at the base and the best financial return to the base fund (a non-public fund). Depending on the type of concession desired and on the number and quality of agents or agencies able to provide the service, the Base Commander may advertise, may call tenders, or may negotiate directly.
3.	Yes. Increases are based on the consumer cost of living index and on the change in the amount charged to Non-Public Fund activities by the Government for utilities and maintenance.
4.	These data are not readily available since charges for non-public fund activities which include concessions messes, and Non-Public Recreational facilities are all based on a rate per square foot, and the accounting system is such that actual separate costs cannot be captured for each location. The rate per square foot is intended to reimburse the Crown for utilities, routine maintenance and basic services such as snow removal, garbage removal and fire protection and is based on a general average.
5.	(a) and (b)
Economic Situation
CFB Borden Population
		Course	Other		
		Students	Transient		
		(Duration	Personnel		
	Perma-				
nent	of stay	(average	Military	1 wk to	stay 3	Civilian	Staff	6 mo)	nights)	Personnel	Dependants1970	2,408	Not available	Not available	1,404	Not available1971	2,227	7,944	Not available	1,342	Not available1972	2,970	9,192	Not available	1,338	Not available1973	2,980	10,064	Not available	1,337	Not available1974	3,249	11,396	4,028	1,337	Not available1975	3,169	12,529	4,537	1,340	Not available1976	3,329	13,414	6,313	1,340	3,944


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe) moved:: That this House holds the Government directly responsible for the present economic disorder in Canada and the disastrous consequences of that disorder upon the spirit and unity of the country.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the debate which we are initiating is timely. It affords us an opportunity to deal once more with the problems confronting Canada at the present time and with the kind of direction which our country needs to come out unscathed and, let us hope, strengthened as a result of the serious crisis which it is now experiencing.
To become aware of the general dissatisfaction in Canada and the concern which is taxing at the utmost our collective energies, we only have to take note of the complaints voiced by the media and to add our personal observations. This is why if we wish to avoid the social disorders now afflicting other countries, we must make a collective effort of reflection and join in a common quest for remedies required under the circumstance. This debate is therefore an opportunity for us to undertake a constructive dialogue through which we could begin to fashion the new society of which we all dream.
However, being responsible for the direction of the country, the government must take special care to restore the economy and satisfy the legitimate political yearnings of various areas of the country. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the unrest felt in Canada

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
is due to a defective leadership in economic endeavours and a false conception of what the political leadership ought to be at the present time. The outstanding characteristic of that chaotic policy often arising from panic has been disproportion. No other government has so coldly and cruelly left so many workers unemployed.
There is no other example either of a government which, over a nine-year period, has allowed inflation to get out of control and has given it such a strong impetus by increasing during that period its own expenditures by more than 200 per cent. Even its most commendable initiatives have only met with a partial success. I am referring in particular to its policy on regional economic expansion of which the Economic Council of Canada was quite critical recently. I am sure the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) will forgive me for saying this, because I know that he, perhaps more than any other, knows that the 1968 act did not have the impact that everyone expected. Regional economic disparities remain unabated. It is fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that in economic matters, the government has often started by building the roof instead of the foundations. The best example of this is perhaps the job-creation program.
Although it has its merits, no one can claim that ;t is an adequate answer to the chronic unemployment which affects so many Canadian regions and provides young Canadians especially with legitimate grievances.
I sincerely hope that Quebec City and Ottawa will play down their political differences and finally agree on a daring development program for the weakest or most promising industrial or regional sectors.
I take this opportunity to urge the government to deal most urgently with the critical situation in the Montreal building industry. Making Montreal a designated area, as it was two years ago, might relieve the unemployment situation, for some 40 per cent of construction workers in Greater Montreal are unemployed. I feel agreements in the areas of urban renewal, housing, water treatment plants and public transport system improvements are called for. They would certainly do more to revive the Montreal economy on a permanent basis than the construction of a giant complex such as Place Guy Favreau, as there is already in Montreal a plethora of office space.
We could discuss at length this problem of regional economic disparities and the government's inability to deal with it alone. The Economic Council of Canada, in the report 1 referred to a moment ago, rightly observed that the provinces were unduly left out of the implementation of programs designed to give a new impetus to their economy. It cannot be held against them when one of the main complaints of provincial governments is that they lack the financial means required to step up industrial development. Our long-standing tax system has too often compelled them to beg for federal funds. Such requests have resulted in delays and municipalities were the most heavily hit. Much delay would have been prevented if, in addition to a decentralization of taxation powers that has now become urgent, there had been between the federal and

provincial governments a body to coordinate their economic policies.
It was to such an agency that I was referring on February 21 last in this House, when I expressed the wish that an economic planning council be set up, or if you prefer, a national priorities council, to determine the joint undertakings of both levels of government in such sectors as industrial development.
Mr. Speaker, federalism cannot be judged solely on its economic profitability. However, every area of the country is still justified in wondering what benefits it derives from its participation in the Canadian confederation. Without relying blindly on figures and taking into account the intangible benefits of a social and especially political nature that the provinces derive from their belonging to a federated Canada, I hope that we will be better informed in the future about the economic aspects of Canadian federalism.
If only to enlighten those who run the country about the impact of certain measures on local economies, this type of study should be encouraged. If we were to discover that, indeed, such and such an area is unduly disdavantaged, it would then be possible to change our course without demanding, like the Pequistes, that the whole house be torn down because it needs repairs.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, that is the type of action that should be taken by the special unit set up recently in the Privy Council, supposedly to develop a strategy against the separatist movement in Quebec. We know very little about this group's terms of reference. For my part, I hope that it will not be content to find arguments against Quebec independance or to devise counter-tactics against the referendum. This agency should rise above mere controversy. It should undertake an in-depth study of Canadian federalism, in order to reveal its unquestionable merits, but without hiding its deficiencies or questionable orientations. I do not believe that the secrecy around the activities of this special unit is very healthy from a democratic standpoint. In fact, the government would be well-advised to refer its terms of reference to a parliamentary committee.
I would go even further. In this battle to save Confederation from the anguish of a break up, all supporters of federalism, no matter to which party they belong, should close ranks in a common strategy. The defence of the federative system is nobody's prerogative. This is why I suggest the creation of a parliamentary commission of members from all parties to diagnose the ills from which the present system may be suffering. This commission, which would be one of national conciliation and even reconciliation, could from the outset concentrate its efforts on identifying the causes of the national tensions. Having duly pin pointed them and considered the representations of the parties involved, the commission could submit a vast range of propositions arising from such representations and aimed at solving the difficulties about which we feel justified to complain. This first step would certainly be part of a long process which should eventually lead to the
May 19, 1977

constitutional reform whose necessity no one any longer denies.
That kind of political clearing house might make it possible to better determine what powers remain essential for the central government to keep the country together and what powers could be better exercised by the provinces so as to speed up the development of the various areas without jeopardizing Canada's federal nature.
As I said a moment ago in French, parliament should be associated more closely with the search for adequate solutions to the present national crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: One way to do so would be to set up a parliamentary committee on a non-partisan basis. Its mandate at the start could be only to identify areas of conflict between the central and provincial governments and to deal in depth with their causes. Having done so, this committee could very well proceed further with substantive proposals of its own. In the meantime, this committee could very well examine the work being done by the special unit in the privy council dealing with the issue of national unity and about which very little is actually known by this House.

In that respect, Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that such a long time after the crisis started this government has not managed to make a greater contribution to the study and solution of the constitutional problem. I know that the Prime Minister will point to the Victoria Charter, but on second thought he will admit that it failed to meet all the claims not only of Quebec but of several, if not all, other Canadian provinces. It is all very well for the head of the government to say he is open to compromise and in the same breath express skepticism about the need for or the chances of success of such discussions. It is also very easy to build up an artificial popularity by denouncing Quebec separatists without considering why they advocate the secession of Quebec. Finally, it is very easy to claim that Canada is indivisible while too often, unfortunately, saying things that are likely to divide it even more. Such behaviour cannot protect Canada for long against the forces that would break it up.
It should be recognized, Mr. Speaker, that we, of the Progressive Conservative party, did not wait until November 15, 1976 to worry about the growing discontent in Quebec with the kind of federalism we have had for at least a decade. For at least a generation we have been cautioning Canadians against the dangers of en excessive centralization and we have in many areas proposed alternatives to alleviate tensions and bring about a better political balance in this country. If one really wants to be objective, it is obvious that our contribution to the constitutional dialogue is great and worthwhile, and that we have no lesson to take from anyone on Canadianism, quite the contrary.
Economic Situation

One should be careful, however, not to confuse, among reforms advocated by the Parti Quebecois, those which are specifically of a separatist nature and those which are also demanded by genuine federalist parties in Quebec. From Alexandre Taschereau in the thirties, for example, down to Rene Levesque, there has been a striking continuity of complaints about the way Canadian federalism has been implemented in such sensitive areas as social security and communications, to mention only those two issues. That the Parti Quebecois calls for complete separation in order to solve its differences with Ottawa does not necessarily mean that its grievances are without foundation and that they should be dismissed summarily. It is my hope and, indeed, my deep conviction, that at the forthcoming referendum Quebeckers will reject the separatist solution to their problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: But the yearning for a larger freedom of action at the political level will not die automatically. Ethnic groups naturally tend toward nationhood and statehood, and Quebec is no exception. The only way to avoid the final break-up of Canada in the future is for all of us to try hard to find ways of channelling the tremendous energies of the Quebec revolution into a new constitutional framework in which Quebec would more adequately assert herself culturally and economically.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Translation[


Claude Wagner: It is a fact that the Quebec premier's attitude is hardly better than that too often shown by the Prime Minister. Constant use of excessive language is no way to create between opponents a more sober climate, the lack of which might tear the country apart, and Quebec itself might never recover from that. Let Mr. Levesque prepare his referendum, since he has a mandate to do so, but let him remember in the meantime that as premier he is committed to respect the existing constitution.
Mr. Speaker, when 300,000 Quebecers are unemployed, when investments dwindle and nervousness takes hold of those who could help Quebec get on its feet again, the provincial premier has no excuse to take a rigid, dogmatic attitude which has no factual basis. Instead of behaving as if the people in Quebec had voted for independence, Premier Levesque would be better advised to use the tools at hand to restore a disquietly declining economy.
In addition, Mr. Levesque should stop fooling himself on the chances for a mutually agreeable separation. It takes a good deal of naivety to believe in pleasant divorces. If the Quebec premier persists in going his way in the face of Canadian hostility and international indifference, Quebecers will pay the price. And the price will be high in moral prestige, political influence and economic welfare.
5806

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
But it will not be enough for Canadians to counter separatism. We will have to learn the lesson and amend our political structures in such a way that each province, and especially Quebec, feels at home in a renovated federalism. In that respect, we should clear up a misunderstanding on which the Prime Minister has been relying too long in his attempt to counter secessionist forces in Quebec.
According to him, the general implementation at all political levels of the Official Languages Act alone would put an end to separatism in Quebec. This is a confusion between the aspirations of French Canada to cultural equality and those of French Quebec to political equality. However praiseworthy and necessary a bilingualism policy, it could not replace a constitutional reform. Only that reform is ever likely to conciliate the desire of French Quebec to become a separate political entity and its need to rely on federal structures able to extend its influence and to amplify its action. It is only under that condition that we will save Canada.
But in the meantime our two main linguistic communities must learn to live together and to develop freely in the mutual respect of their culture. Our history is such that our two founding people are united in blood and that modern Canada was born under the banner of war. It would be vain today to resume yesterday's fights in another form. I for one, Mr. Speaker, am prepared to forget the Plains of Abraham but in return I expect I shall not be reminded of them every day.
This is why, when the issue of minorities is more acute than ever, all Canadians of good will should find the answer in the fairness of a language policy and the fraternity of collective relationships.
To do this, we should consider drafting a charter of minorities that would define the linguistic and the educational rights of the English and the French elements of Canada. Time has come to proclaim A mari usque ad mare the equality of our two main national linguistic communities. Time has come to assert that local communities issued from them have the right to live and develop freely under the protection of laws and to the extent permitted by an heterogeneous environment.
I am not thinking, Mr. Speaker, of a mere statement proclaiming the equality of both official languages and the right of the two funding people to obtain from the state the means to achieve it. This charter of minorities should proclaim the basic right of men to belong to the culture they want and the obligation for the administration to allow them to exercise this right without legal restraints or worries. But the achievement of this purpose, Mr. Speaker, is yet a long way ahead. I happen to wish some times that Canadians get rid of the words generosity, tolerance and understanding in their vocabulary and replace them by one term: acceptance. We shall have to do just that if ever we want our country to survive the disruptions which have too often shattered it. Either we shall decide to accept one another with every compromise that our living together requires, and then we shall see the prospect of a tranquil and great future for Canada; or we shall meanly deprive the other linguistic group of its place in the sun, and then the clouds will grow darker still and the storm will roar.

Please God that at the end of the road we shall not be carried away by a swirl in which the very name of Canada would be but a recollection haunting the conscience of those who would have destroyed it. However, I prefer to conclude on an optimistic note. The years to come will certainly be difficult, our public men will have to act with wisdom and judgment and to show firmness to cope with the dangers which jeopardize our country and to funnel off, for the benefit of an innovating federalism, the centrifugal forces which threaten its unity. But our political leaders will be unable to save this country from collapse if Canadians themselves have not enough will to solve their problems in harmony, dignity and equality. They are the ones who, finally, will tell us whether the Canadian adventure is finished or if, on the contrary, revitalized by its experiences, Canada will start again its progress through history and will bear witness to the political genius and the spirit of brotherhood which inspire its citizens.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion where I do not mind waiting to say my few words because of the excellent address we have just heard and the applause which was richly deserved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I must say to my friends in the Conservative party that they are not very reliable in the way they put down motions. When this motion was handed to me, I had to prepare some notes in order to respond to it. I thought we were going to be subjected to a rather one-sided attack on the government, holding them responsible for everything from chilblains to snails in the soup. It turned out to be quite a bit different, and I am pleased to acknowledge that.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). I congratulate him on his lyricism, passion and concern for this country: it is just the tone of debate that is required in this serious matter facing our society. I wish to respond to the suggestion he put forward about a parliamentary committee, on a nonpartisan basis, to look into the causes of dissatisfaction in confederation. Those are not his exact words, but I think that was their intent. My party has discussed this matter but we have not reached a conclusion on it. I know the government has discussed it. I am quite certain, if I judge my colleagues correctly, that should the government propose such a committee, it would be warmly supported by members of my party. In some way, hon. friends to my right are catching up to the NDP. I am glad to see that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What a joke.


Max Saltsman: I am trying to be nice. Usually, I have something other than nice to say. I am just trying to be nice and I hope they will accept that as a compliment. I am sure
May 19, 1977

that my leader, Mr. Broadbent, would approve the position they are taking, as would Mr. Lewis, Mr. Douglas, who is here, and as would M. J. Coldwell.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 1 suggest that the hon. member should refer to members of this House by their constituencies and not by their personal names.


Max Saltsman: Some do not have personal constituencies any more, so I took a liberty. I apologize for having used their personal names. In the other place, Senator Hazen Argue, if I may use that name, would even have approved of what has been said today.
This debate has been going on for years. It is not a recent debate; it has been going on as long as I can recall, certainly in my readings of the debates of the Commons long before I came here. Concern has always been expressed about holding the country together. It has been one of the cornerstones of Canadian policy. The great question asked by every government when it introduces a policy or takes a position is: What will it do to national unity? Therefore, it is not a new concern. It is a concern that has been around for a long time-the great confederation debate.
Years ago we took the position, I think the correct position, that while culture, language, and people wanting to determine their own lifestyle is important, it is as important that there be prosperity in Quebec as there be in the rest of Canada. We argued. It was called the class argument. There was a great deal of merit in that argument. We said that we cannot keep this country together if we have unemployment, if one part of the country feels that confederation is not giving it an economic break.
Many of the problems we face today in confederation, while not exclusively for this reason, arise directly from the fact that this government and governments before it have not been able to solve the economic difficulties created by unemployment. Unless these difficulties are solved, we are not going to solve the problems of confederation. That is what I was referring to as the lesson that hon. friends on my right have learned from the NDP. We have argued this matter over and over again. I cannot remember a time when we did not take that position. We now see that position being accepted.
It is interesting to look at the timing of the argument put forward in the motion today. Over the last week the Toronto Star has been running a series of articles on Quebec in which they have been exploring the psyche of Quebec to find out what it is that Quebec really wants. Is it language? Is it culture? The outstanding conclusion of what has been a very important survey is that economics are important in Quebec, unemployment is an important factor, and our ability as a federal government to solve the problems of unemployment may be the decisive issue as to whether we can hold this country together. Therefore, if my party talks about solutions which are not laissez-faire, which call for great government intervention and sticking out our necks, it is important that we pay attention to those solutions. There is no easy way of holding the country together.
Economic Situation
I want to say something in fairness to the government. I acknowledge that it is not going to be an easy problem to solve. The situation we face today has not been caused entirely by this administration or any particular administration before it. I do not think the problem would have been completely solved had the NDP been the government in Canada. A lot of this has to do with people's attitudes and their perception of our society. To the extent that Liberals and Conservatives have formed the government, it says something of the Canadian perception of their problems and the kinds of solutions they want to those problems. Our society-not only in Canada, but western society-is changing in a very dramatic way. All the evidence that we have before us, such as the studies carried out and the projections made, indicate a number of things.
If we continue on the path that we are going with our laissez-faire, tinkering attitude, unemployment will get worse. We think it is bad now. There are predictions by reliable people who can bolster their predictions with very sound arguments that the situation will get worse. I do not say it has to be worse; I simply say that if we proceed in the way we are, and do not do anything more than we are now doing-which is not very much-unemployment will increase in the future and confederation will be far from secure.
I wish to read a quotation in order to bolster what I am saying. I know that most members would take my word, but for those inclined not to do so I will read a bit of corroborating detail. I quote from an article which appeared in the Executive magazine of April, 1977:
Work is going to be hard to get for longer than most people have dared to imagine, unless there are some radical changes in work trends.
The very fact that a magazine like Executive would not edit out a word like "radical" indicates that they are a little concerned these days.
The most optimistic forecast I can make for 1986 is an unemployment rate of 11 per cent, and the worst case-also, unhappily, the most convincing case-is half as much again, around 17 per cent, or almost as bad as the unemployment Canada experienced at the height of the depression in 1933.
There are reasons for this. I am sorry I do not have as much time as I should like to have today to go into those regions. One of them is the falling birth rate. It is very significant. If you look at the past you will find that much of our growth and prosperity has been fuelled by the birthrate. It has been fuelled by cheap energy and cheap food. It has been fuelled because we did not care about the environment; we wrecked the environment and we despoiled, in one generation, what had not been despoiled for years. That cannot go on any more. It simply means that growth is not going to take place in the traditional way and that employment, as a consequence, will not be available in the traditional way.
Let me read from another article which deals with the question of growth in the foreseeable future. The article is entitled "The Growth of Growth" written by Leon C. Martel, executive vice-president and director of the research management council of the Hudson Institute. It is from "Futures", volume 9, No. 2. Might I, as a digression, put in a good word
80016-27%

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
for the library clipping service? Those of us who use that service are grateful for the fact that they cull these articles, the kind of reading we are just not in a position to do, and make them available to us so we can keep in touch with some of the fine thinking which is going on not only in this country but internationally. Let me read from this article. These are excerpts, because of the shortage of time. The point of the article is to make the case that we cannot really count on the kind of automatic growth which has characterized not only our own society but the western world generally since the end of the Second World War. He says:
With insurance, social security and welfare for all, there will be protection against most of the vagaries of life, and this should produce a shift in priorities and values.
I should say at this point that while I have been critical of other parties, all of us, even with the best intentions, contribute to the kind of difficulty we are in. On balance, however, I would say that were it not for the welfare state, things would be much worse than they are. The welfare state itself creates problems, and that is one of the things we are facing. Some of the problems we have arise from the kind of security we build into the system. On the other hand-and this is far more important, in my opinion-were it not for the welfare system we have built in our society we would be in a worse depression than that experienced in the thirties.
Whatever abuses there may be with respect to unemployment insurance, without unemployment insurance, old age pensions, without medicare or hospital insurance, the western world would be in chaos right now. Having said that, we still have to recognize that this change in our society has itself created problems which call for new approaches and new ideas. The article goes on:
While the flower children of the 1960s have faded, the fact remains that a change in values has occurred.
This is a fundamental fact of our times. We are living in a different world, and the old solutions do not apply. They will not solve things. I continue quoting the article:
With mature economic development and the wealth it brings to individuals, there seems to be an increasing desire to leave things as they are, to be satisfied with the status quo. There is a growing emphasis on the protection and preservation of what one has, on health, comfort, safety, and the environment. This in turn spawns attitudes of risk aversion and localism.
In the past, in most cultures, people were taught that happiness was to be achieved as a more or less reasonable by-product of some other activity-a satisfactory job, the recognition of one's achievements, a devoted family, close friends, and so forth. Happiness was not usually recognized itself as an important value. However, today in affluent societies there is increasing emphasis on the direct search for happiness. The result is often a heedless hedonism.
The above trends and tendencies, and others which arise from them, can be found in varying degrees in most developed nations today. As they continue accelerating and reinforcing each other they will slow rates of growth. Already the process is under way and it is unlikely that Western Europe and North America will again experience sustained growth rates at the average annual level achieved in the decades following the Second World War.
Those of us who are close to the people of Canada, because we represent them, know this to be true. Our own personal experience tells us that our world has changed. While it may not be possible at this time fully to understand what we are going through or the way in which the change is taking place,

or the rate at which change is taking place, how many of us can say we do not sense the new society which is emerging or that we do not recognize that the old solutions are not working?
To get back to the central theme, the problem of unemployment and its effect on confederation, I want to say that while I give colleagues on my right high marks for learning their lesson today, I am not prepared to give them a full diploma, because while they have learned something from the NDP, it is only part of what we are saying. We are saying something else, and we have said it since the inception of our party. It is truer and more needed today than ever before.
What we are saying is that there is need for equal dignity for all. It will not be enough to provide jobs in Quebec, say, if they are ditch-digging jobs. This is what Quebec is saying and perhaps it is at the heart of the whole problem over language. Unfortunately, in Quebec language and jobs are related. It is an unfortunate fact that the big, important jobs were reserved for those who spoke English.
No self-respecting person can accept that in order to get a decent job he or she must learn somebody else's language. English, to Francophones, is somebody else's language. They are as entitled to their language as are the English. I should not have to state this, but I wish to do so to make clear what I am saying. This became obvious during the air controllers' strike. We talk about opportunity. Again, it is not enough to say we are going to create many jobs. What kind of jobs; and who is to get them? Will they be good jobs? I am sure that during the air controllers' strike a few months ago the question of air safety was an important one and that many of the people who put forward arguments on this basis were doing so with great sincerity. I do not question their motives. But in the way in which it was put forward, it was perceived as a means of preventing those who spoke French from getting jobs to which they were entitled. It was perceived as a way in which the English could continue to occupy positions at the top, to the detriment of the Francophones. Therefore, it is not enough to provide jobs. You have to ask about the quality of the jobs and the nature of the jobs, and there has to be equal dignity attached to them.
Then there is another matter. We have always talked about the need to redistribute income in this country, not only as between the English and the English but between the French and the English and perhaps between Canadians and the rest of the world. That is essential. If new jobs are created, some people will get very good jobs and others will get not such good jobs, and the gap between them will be enormous. Even if the question of language or the question of culture did not arise, we must see that these other matters are taken into account.
As it turns out, according to my calculations, in order to deal with this new world which all of us sense is upon us, and in order to deal with the new problems which are associated with this new world, we must redistribute income. We cannot go on having the disparity of income that exists in our society
May 19, 1977

today. Let me give an example of one incredible distortion which has taken place and for which we are to blame. If people are angry at their legislators for this, then I do not blame them. We encourage people to go to university. To learn, to enlarge their knowledge of the world? No-because university is the passport to making more money. We had the Dennison report, a study we copied from the United States, which related productivity and high income to education. Therefore, we falsely encouraged-


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Max Saltsman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and through you may I thank my colleagues in the House. I appreciate this opportunity to continue for a few moments, but I will not be too long. This is an important point to me. Looking back, it is a terrible mistake which we made. We should have seen it, but most of us did not. Why did these people go to university? Because it was an "Open sesame". At a time when we needed plumbers, carpenters, machinists, orderlies, all kinds of people with practical skills we encouraged most of our students to get a B.A.
What has been the consequence of this? We are not the only country which has done this sort of thing. Every western country has done the same. We now have people coming out of university faced with fantastic frustration, knowing they have given four or five years of their lives to learn a skill for which there is no opening. They are resentful and bitter. It is hard to say to them "Yes, I know you have a B.A. in political science, but you may have to work side by side in a factory with someone who was a high school dropout".
In some ways we should not feel too bad about this, because having gone to school is not a waste. Anyone who has spent some time at school, whether or not they can apply everything they learned there, has done something to improve himself. If they have to work and get their hands dirty, so what? I do not buy the argument that because someone has a baccalaureate he has the right to go around with clean finger-nails for the rest of his life. We really have to demonstrate that we have respect for labour. We must make sure that a man who leaves home at five or six o'clock in the morning to go to work in a factory has equal treatment and equal pay with the person who leaves for the office at nine o'clock and perhaps returns home at four and never get his hands dirty.
We have had this double standard in our society, this cruel elitism, this aversion toward the blue-collar worker. We are now paying for it. We have forced a whole generation into believing that the road to dignity is the clean shirt. The road to dignity is more than just a clean shirt; it is what that person is and what kind of contribution that person makes. The waitress, the man who works in the factory or the orderly who works in the hospital deserve our praise and recognition, as
Economic Situation
does the lawyer, the doctor or the MP. We are entering upon a society where equality of income will no longer be some kind of socialist pipe dream where we pat a person on his head and say he is a fine fellow. That is very idealistic, but it will not work. What I am saying is that if that sort of thing happens then our society is not going to work.
There are other matters I should like to deal with, but I do not want to trespass upon the generosity of my colleagues who have granted me extra time. I want to conclude by pointing out some of the things which I think need to be done, aside from the general proposition I have been putting forward about redistribution of income and commitment to full employment. Our society must commit itself to work, not welfare. Welfare must certainly be provided if we cannot provide jobs, but it is a sign of our failure. If a person is receiving welfare or unemployment insurance because he cannot find a job, then that is not his fault. But we can certainly condemn a society that cannot solve the problem of providing jobs for its people. As I have said, we have to assert the dignity of all work; we have to get rid of elitism.
There are many things we can do, Mr. Speaker. We can embark upon capital projects, and to get the money for these we have to learn to tax those who have it. I know the House has been averse to doing this. The government, supported by the official opposition, had done the worst possible thing, faced with the kind of situation we are in. The last budget was essentially a budget which gave more to the well-off than it gave to the poor. At a time when we have to increase purchasing power and when our number one problem is unemployment, the government, supported by the official opposition, encourages savings. This is a good way to put ourselves into an even worse situation.


Donald W. Munro: We did not vote for the budget. What are you talking about?


Max Saltsman: We should also give consideration to earlier retirement. Many young people have come to me and told me that their father or their uncle is working, that he is tired and they wish they could get a job. The uncle or the father, on the other hand, would probably say, "Why should I slug it out? Having worked 45 years, I should like to quit now". I say, let the young people have a job. Certainly, this is one of the changes the government must consider. I know this cannot be done in one fell swoop, but let the government at least work toward lowering the age of retirment. If it cannot be done for both men and women, then let us forget about women's lib and let us start to lower the age of retirement for women.
If the government does not want to do it on a universal basis, then let it be optional. But let us at least move in that direction since jobs will not be available for everyone. Just as we must create jobs, we must also take people off the labour market. If a person does not want to come off the labour market, fine. If a man wants to work until he is 80, I say good luck to him. But a lot of people do not want to do that.

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe on his motion, and I thank hon. members for allowing me indulgence to continue for a few more minutes.
[ Translation]


Charles Edward Rea: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate at this point the mover of this motion on such an important, essential and urgent matter. We, in the House of Commons, are probably those who, in the history of this country, will have made the most momentous decision.
Therefore, 1 commend the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for trying to bring serenity to a debate which could easily become overheated. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that it is very difficult to remain calm when the government resorts to arrogance, anger and sometimes even blackmail. I say Canadian problems will not be solved in a dispassionate manner as long as we have this government and particularly its leader.
Mr. Speaker, we must accept matters as they are. And when the future of the country lies in the hands of a sophist who is primarily interested in winning an intellectual argument, we cannot expect to solve our economical problems. It is quite normal also when we realize that the leaders of this country were so shortsighted that a few weeks prior to November 15, they were proclaiming all over the world, in Japan particularly, that there were no more separatists in Quebec. What are these people doing, Mr. Speaker? What are they doing now at the head of this country? I say that they are destroying it. And when I hear those same individuals accusing Quebecers in particular of trying to break Canada, Mr. Speaker, I say the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his cabinet have a real tunnel vision as to what Canadian unity means. They are now obsessed with their own idea of national unity and God knows that is not the answer for this country. We will have to come down to earth, as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe suggested, and realize that we have to create a climate where we can sit down and discuss, and agree on the best way to achieve Canadian unity.
And why would such unity not be achieved within a common market within which fully independent Canadian entities could develop freely? Why not, Mr. Speaker? Why has it to be this heavy burden of unpopular, costly, harmless bilingualism that the Prime Minister has been trying to establish for years when a majority of Canadians are against it? Mr. Speaker, this is a lack of realism. It is an attempt by someone to destroy the country with his fallacies. He is supported by irresponsible people who cheer him on, such as the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) who is faced with the following dilemma: he wonders to what extent he should help Quebec, because in doing so, he proves that the Quebec government is right, and to what extent he should not restrain his department's expenditures and let Quebecers know that they had better stay within this obsolete and outmoded federalism which divides us.

Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, on the pretext of being too busy, refuses to meet the Quebec minister Mr. Leonard to finalize a federal-provincial agreement, which shows the goodwill of the Quebec government, when, instead of solving this problem, the minister prefers to campaign for the Liberal candidate in the Temiscamingue riding, I say that he is irresponsible, and this is what causes an unhealthy climate to develop, one which will bring about the destruction of this country. May I add, Mr. Speaker, that for those reasons I have to agree entirely with Rene Levesque who said lately about this minister, and I quote:
At present, they are a bunch of bunglers. That is how they behave! Mr. Macdonald went to New York to meet financial analysts and he told them the same old story of uncertainty, and so on.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, and I am no longer quoting, the Prime Minister went to Washington and he dared say a terrible thing-that if Quebec wanted to become independent, to develop freely in its own way, to come to an agreement with the rest of Canada in the best interests of the whole country, it would be a crime against mankind! Does our Prime Minister think he is God himself, Mr. Speaker, to say such nonsense and such terrible things? Well, such are the things which destroy this country. It is not the Quebec separatists only who want to compel Canada to find its own identity.
Mr. Speaker, this partnership that could be created among Canadians of goodwill, this true partnership based upon the absolute respect of sovereignty and the mutual agreements which could cover all the jurisdictions over those areas that can be administered in a comprehensive way, this is, I suggest, a very commendable goal, one which all of us in this House should try to achieve. This is also why you have Rene Matte, the member for Champlain, who fights for the independence of Quebec, but at the same time is prepared to discuss with everybody this country's future. This is easy to understand, there is no argument against it.
I would rather have a straightforward and honest proposal than pieces of sophistry, flip flops and what not, Mr. Speaker. One should see things as they are, and I go on quoting the Premier of Quebec:
As for me, I suggest that those people do not do their job as government members for the whole of Canada, which we are still part of, and within which we are quite willing to maintain normal relations which can be discussed among people representing the same kind and the same level of taxpayers. They are increasingly behaving like a bunch of petty terrorists. It seems to me that the majority of Quebecers should realize that. They do not behave as Quebecers and, in a way, at the national level, as good Canadians.
This is the attitude of the Prime Minister and his ministers when they try in every possible way to create a climate of uncertainty by making Quebecers fear their livelihood and their economic future is threatened. They say to them: "Go ahead, enroll in the fight for federalism." One thing must be realized, Mr. Speaker. At the time the men we would now call the "grand-daddies of Confederation" were holding their meetings, they had in mind some Unitarian form of government of course, but nothing like Confederation. This has been
May 19, 1977

the source of all sorts of problems, and this is why today we are at the turning point in our history. A solution must be found at all costs. But what is the governments doing? It is simply worsening the economic disorder. Therefore, the consequences of such disorder upon the spirit and unity of the country are disastrous, to quote from the motion.
Mr. Speaker, what is it that will prompt Quebecers to vote for independence at the next referendum? Why? The answer is: Because the people in an industry which has been basic in Quebec for years, as was the shoe industry, which used to supply 95 percent of the Canadian market 25 years ago, have seen that, thanks to the actions of the federal government, the total Canadian shoe production came down from 58.5 percent in 1968 to 51 percent in 1974, 50.7 percent in 1975, 45.8 percent in in 1976 and 32 per cent 1977. During that period, imports rose from 41.5 to 68 percent. That industry was mainly based in Quebec. Did the federal government help Quebecers keep their industry and increase their economic power? Not at all. People are wearing shoes from Sweden, from Taiwan, from Japan and Poland, but in the meantime Quebecers are unemployed. Is there a belief this will lead Quebecers to vote for federalism? Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that Quebec farmers producing 60 percent of the overall dairy production in Canada will vote for federalism, when the government has been systematically allowing increasing volumes of butter and cheese imports over the last ten years? Recently still, there could be seen in Quebec powdered milk bags from New Zealand, while the industrial milk producer was penalized because of powdered milk surpluses. Is that what a federal government is all about? Will Quebecers vote for Mr. Trudeau's kind of federalism? An end should be put to the monstrosities and historical absurdities we are hearing. Even when uttered from the Capitol in Washington, they do not become any more intelligent.
I think it would be better if the Prime Minister tried to cope with financial problems. Had nobody made suggestions we could understand that he has to look for them, but heaven knows our party particularly came up with proposals to settle that economic problem so as to pave the way for our country's unity, but I say a unity which would faithfully reflect the Canadian reality.
Mr. Speaker, we have noted all these things but then we see the government behave in such a way as to prompt businessmen like Mr. Crump, former Canadian Pacific chairman, to state the same sort of nonsense as the leader of the government, and I quote:
I believe that if this bill. ..
... speaking about the language bill in Quebec.
... is approved in its present form, any national or multinational company which will not move its head office from Quebec-will do its owners a disservice.
Mr. Speaker, why did Mr. Crump say that? That is what the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) has been telling us for weeks, he who has been seeing head offices heading for the nearest border. He is creating that artificial atmosphere, which is why the economic situation is so disastrous. So I will conclude by saying that it is absolutely
Economic Situation
important, particularly in this place, that we should come down to earth and stop thinking ill-advisedly that Canadian unity has only one form. We should have open minds and be Canadians enough, I should say, to understand that perhaps the present Quebec government is the one which most wants Canada to continue as a nation, but that it should do so in full respect for its components.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for his excellent contribution to the debate on the motion he presented before the House. I also wish to congratulate the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) for his contribution to that same debate. I wish to comment on some points raised in those two very clear and well-balanced statements and although it is, of course, an analysis by the opposition parties, I think it makes a very positive contribution to the solution of economic and political problems that worry all Canadians and of course, all members of the House.
Mr. Speaker, considering the short time at my disposal, I shall not waste it commenting on the ineptitude and the separatist demagogy of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).


René Matte: I expected nothing less.


Marc Lalonde: I shall leave it to someone else. I think that such a contribution deserves only to be ignored in the debate we want to have today.
The motion blames the government for the economic disorder in Canada and deplores its consequences on the spirit and unity of the country. I thought we were going to discuss in length the economic situation but apparently they preferred to place the debate in a larger context and I do not object to this, on the contrary.
I would like to deal with a few points made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and make a few comments on some of his remarks. I am pleased to hear and note how his views are akin to the government's in a great many areas. As a matter of fact, some of his statements, and suggestions have been made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or some ministers on various occasions. Whether it is the matter of the Francophones' rights in this country, or the importance of guaranteeing the Francophone community not only linguistic but also economic rights and a fair economic role in keeping with their talents, those concerns are exactly those the government has been expressing for a number of years. As for revising our federalism, again this is nothing new, since in 1966 and 1967, this government brought about proposals for a complete review of the Canadian constitution.
Those discussions led to several premiers' conferences and to a proposal known as the Victoria Charter. For historical reasons that are well known, there was no agreement at that

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
time, but it is important to remember that in spite of those failures, over the years, the Prime Minister indicated to the provinces, again in a letter he sent them at the beginning of last December, that he was willing to sit down with them at any time and either discuss a restricted formula for amending the Constitution, in order to repatriate our Constitution, or to make a complete revision of our Constitution, depending on the choice and discretion of the provinces. Until now, most provinces have not seen fit to follow up that proposal. Some of them seem to have indicated they were considering it. Others, particularly Quebec, have repeatedly indicated that their government was not interested in any negotiation whatsoever before the referendum was held. Again last weekend, the premier of Quebec took that position.
It may also be important to recall what the Prime Minister said in this regard in Quebec City not so long ago because, to my mind, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe gave, in his speech, a truncated if not erroneous interpretation of the position of the government with regard to the whole matter. When we stand up for the French language, when we champion the equality of the two languages in this country, we do not do so as if it were the only means of frustrating the separatist tendencies evident in Quebec. The official languages proposal was put many years ago and once again, not for strictly political, immediate, or partisan objectives: it was made to guarantee the Francophones of this country, and the Anglophones as well where they are in a minority the rights to which they are entitled. It is merely a matter of respecting the minorities in Canada. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe spoke of a charter for the minorities: that is precisely what the government proposed in Victoria when it was suggested that a list of the fundamental rights of the citizens, and especially recognition of their linguistic rights, should be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution.
There again, even if there were absolutely no separatist tendencies in Canada, even if no one was trying to break up the country I am convinced, as well as this government, that it would have been necessary, in all fairness, to enact legislation such as the Official Languages Act which this Parliament adopted. But it is a far cry from that to claiming that the position of the government is based strictly on a linguistic matter, and that it is the opinion of the government that in meeting the linguistic problems we will solve all problems of a political nature in our country; this is surely a false and erroneous interpretation of the stand taken by this government. Moreover, I remind the House of the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in Quebec City quite recently, when he addressed the Quebec Board of Trade on January 31: He said quite clearly and I quote:
In the constitution, I think there is only one principle, that is to respect the rights of men and women, the respect of human rights, and probably the respect of the collective aspect of these human rights. I'm thinking of language, the right of regions to exist. And from this principle you can start from the beginning: write a new constitution. We haven't had one in 110 years, we can make one. And I refuse no challenge. All that I ask as long as I am here is that it must be concretely established that such and such a level of power, for example, must be exercised at the federal-provincial level in such a way that the Canadian community will profit by it.

This, Mr. Speaker, is the position of the Prime Minister, and of this government. We have indicated once again, as recently as in the letter the Prime Minister wrote in early December to the provinces, that we are always ready to sit down and discuss such a basic constitutional review.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious on the other hand that there is a fundamental disagreement between the position of this government and that of the Quebec government at this time. And never will my colleagues or myself subscribe to an objective aimed at the destruction of this country and the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada. However, this does not mean once again that we are for the constitutional status quo or that it is impossible to consider certain rearrangements of powers between the provincial governments and the federal government. The great flexibility of federalism, Mr. Speaker, has been demonstrated by the fact that there are not two identical federal systems in the whole world and that many forms of federalism can be found among the various countries that have adopted that form of government throughout the world. But when once again the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe suggests in his speech that his party has been concerned about over-centralization for years, he is truthfully stating the speeches made by his colleagues in recent years. But what is important to note is not so much the speeches on this matter, but the facts. And what are the facts? Well, the facts are that there is practically not a government in the world today or a country in the world with a federal form of government that has a system as decentralized as Canada. I will only mention, for example, the United States, Germany, Switzerland, Australia, where the central power accounts for a much greater part of the total public expenditures than the Canadian government today.
And this is borne out by the evolution of public expenditures in recent years. Mr. Speaker, suffice to recall that in 1965, after transfers to the provinces the federal government took 53 per cent of the tax base, and that percentage went to 40 per cent in 1975. And in 1977, under the agreement reached at the last conference of first ministers last December, it is expected that the percentage of the tax base accruing to the federal government will represent only 37 per cent as compared with 63 per cent going to the provinces and municipalities. Well, when the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was suggesting in his speech that the provinces are complaining of a lack of funds to carry out industrial development, I think that is a somewhat limited perception of the situation. In fact, provinces and municipalities have taken an increasingly larger share of the tax basis and the question now being asked by many is whether the federal government will soon be left with a share of the tax basis large enough to be able to truly assume its responsibilities and keep its commitments.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe also talked about a national priority council. I would remind the House that we have had a national priority council in Canada for many years and that it takes various forms. It can be found within federal-provincial conferences, where ministers are commissioned by their government to decide to jointly agree on the
May 19, 1977

directions to be given to various areas of government activity. When there is a meeting of either the ministers of agriculture or the ministers of health and welfare, or the ministers of energy, or the finance ministers on a regular basis as we have seen, and finally, when the premiers meet as frequently and as regularly as has been the case in the last few years, on those occasions the provincial and federal governments do in fact sit down together and determine our national priorities, and these priorities are set by the people who are democratically responsible to their constituents for assuming the burden of the decisions which are made during these meetings.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe also talked about the need for better information on the economic aspects of federalism. I believe that all governments have become aware of this in the last few years and through the ministers of finance, considerable work has been done by federal-provincial committees on all economic aspects of the Canadian activity. To have considerable statistical information on the taxation situation and the economic situation of the various areas of the country is nothing new. In the last few years, Statistics Canada has made considerable efforts to improve the quality of information in this field so as to truly allow an informed debate among the citizens and the government in Canada to take place, and we are happy to see that more and more information is given to the public in this area.
Unfortunately, some people make reference to it abusively and in a partisan spirit. I am referring particularly to the famous economic accounts that the Quebec government made public recently and which, obviously, backfired on those who thought they had planted a bomb within the federal system. It is quite interesting to see how the Quebec government, and the ministers who were involved in this matter, are now shunning the subject and trying to ignore this sad experience.
I think that it might be a lesson to all those who should be careful not to put words into their mouths, not to distort them for purely sectarian reasons, and in so doing delude and mislead the public, which cannot promote a worthy and healthy democratic debate.
The mover of the motion has also regretted that the opposition seemed to be unaware of the work done by the national unity group. I remind him that the director of this group met with each party leader when the group was formed and he mentioned, on behalf of the government, that he was at the disposal of the party leaders and/or the parliamentary groups of each party and/or the party caucus, and that whenever these groups would like to meet him and have discussions, he would be ready to do so.
Finally, as to the proposal to establish a parliamentary committee that would look into the causes of the uneasiness in our country and would propose means of improving the situation in Canada, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe also knows that this is another question which has been explored by the parliamentary leaders of the various political parties, and we shall have to await the result of those discussions before making a final decision as to the timeliness of such action.
Economic Situation
In the few minutes I have left, I should like, Mr. Speaker, to deal with and put on record a number of facts pertaining to the very nature of the motion before us. That motion deals with the situation of the economy, and I think the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) was quite right when he said it was impossible to talk about the political situation in Canada without dealing with the economy, and that it was an illusion to think that Canadian federalism could work if the Canadian economy does not work.
Of course, in the last few years our country has faced and is still facing economic problems. The government is aware of it and is concerned about this situation, and it has taken various steps and measures in order to solve, at least in part, these problems, whether it be unemployment or inflation. Here I should like to quote what an old Franciscan friend of mine used to say: "When I look at myself, I grieve, but when I compare myself to others, I take heart." The same remark could apply to the Canadian economy.
A few days ago, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) tabled in the House the Economic Review for 1976. This review provides us with a most valuable reference work to assess the performance of the Candadian economy not in isolation but in the general context of the world economy. I regret that my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, an expert on international affairs, did not deal with this matter within a somewhat broader context.
I shall refer to the fact that 1976 was a year of continued economic recovery following the most severe slowdown in over 30 years. In most of the major member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, the upturn happened in early 1975. In the OECD area, the real output increased at the annual rate of A'h per cent in the second half of 1975, and showed a 6 per cent rate in the first half of 1976. As personal expenditures stabilized and inventories became negligible, there was a 3'A per cent slowdown in the annual growth rate in the second half of 1976. The slow recovery was due to the fact that the authorities were cautious in stimulating demand, because of the underlying inflation, and to the fact that investments did not take over at the usual stage of expansion. For the whole year 1976, the real growth rate averaged 5 per cent in the OECD area. In the 24 OECD member countries, consumer prices, after an average increase of 11.4 per cent in 1975, showed an 8.6 per cent increase in 1976. With a 7.5 per cent rate, Canada ranked fourth for the slowest price increase, behind Switzerland, West Germany and the United States.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to a recent study prepared by the national bureau of economic research in the United States. The study showed that in comparison with the other six major western industrialized nations, Canada had the best economic recovery from the 1973-75 recession. This country's index of economic performance in March of this
5814

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
year, according to the bureau, was 67 per cent ahead of its situation at the start of that recession.
This reflects the fact that because of the economic policies pursued by this government in the early 1970's, the drop in Canadian economic activity was not nearly as severe as that experienced by other countries. Comparable figures for West Germany, France and the United States show that their recovery was not as strong. It was between 2 per cent and 10 per cent of their pre-recession situation. Italy, Japan and the United Kingdom, on the other hand, have not yet recovered fully the level of economic activity they experienced prior to the recession. This study, prepared in advance of the recent London summit meeting, is based on a monthly index of economic performance which summarizes in a single indicator the more important measures of aggregate economic activity such as income, output, employment, unemployment, and sales.
The authors of the study, which was published in the New York Times, note that reliance on any single measure of economic activity, even such important and frequently used indicators as the index of industrial production and the rate of unemployment, can give erroneous assessments of economic performance. To underscore the fact that persistent high levels of unemployment are an international phenomenon, the study reveals that none of the countries attending the Downing Street summit has yet managed to get its unemployment rate down to the levels prior to the recession.
May I remind the House that this particular subject was one of the topics discussed at the Economic Summit on May 7 and 8. Canada, together with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan and Italy, took part in the Economic Summit in London. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) emphasized the critical importance of dealing in a systematic and co-ordinated way with the economic problems facing the western world. This approach was welcomed by all the leaders present and provided the basis for the Downing Street declaration which was issued following the summit conference. I would like to quote a few sentences from that declaration because they summarize the approach being taken by Canada and our western allies to solve the economic challenges before us. I quote:
The world economy has to be seen as a whole; it involves not only co-operation among national government but also strengthening appropriate international organizations. We were reinforced in our awareness of the interrelationship of all the issues before us, as well as our interdependence. We are determined to respond collectively to the challenges of the future.
Our most urgent task is to create more jobs while continuing to reduce inflation. Inflation does not reduce unemployment. On the contrary, it is one of its major causes. We are particularly concerned about the problem of unemployment among young people.
We commit our governments to stated economic growth targets or to stabilization policies which, taken as whole, should provide a basis for sustained non-inflationary growth.
We will provide strong political leadership to expand opportunities for trade to strengthen the open international trading system, which will increase job oppor-

tunities. We reject protectionism: it would foster unemployment, increase inflation and undermine the welfare of our peoples.
The message of the Downing Street Summit is thus one of confidence:
-in the continuing strength of our societies and proven democratic principles that give them vitality;
-that we are undertaking the measures needed to overcome problems and achieve a more prosperous future.
This is the statement to which Canada subscribed. Canada was a very, very active participant indeed in the preparation of this statement.

We share those objectives with the other industrialized countries that participated in the London summit meeting. We want to reach those objectives in close co-operation with those countries. We also want to reach those objectives through the measures we are going to take and implement in Canada. And much as we must get the co-operation of other industrialized countries, so must we get the close co-operation of all provincial governments in this country with the federal government. Our work will be all the more easier if we can depend on that close co-operation and avoid a partisan approach to the economic debates.
Earlier the hon. member for Champlain mentioned my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard). Obviously, Mr. Speaker, ministers cannot be at the disposal of another minister on a six- or ten-hour notice each time they receive a telegram. But for the infomation of the hon. member I shall tell him that my colleague is meeting with the Quebec Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and they are having discussions aimed at improving the existing agreements. And I hope that that new spirit of co-operation rather than confrontation shown by that Quebec colleague will reflect on several of his other colleagues as concerns economic development in Quebec, particularly during the coming months and years.
We are not looking for confrontation or conflicts. We have the responsibility to work for the economic advancement of all regions of the country and since November 15, all my colleagues have constantly consulted the economic communities in Canada and abroad to encourage investors to continue their investments in Quebec and Canada during the months and years to come. When the Quebec premier recently made statements comparable to those of the hon. member for Champlain in this House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) was perfectly right to say that the premier "perdait les pedales" as we say in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, those are the brief comments I wanted to make on the important issue raised by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I thank the House for its good attention and I hope that the contributions to this debate will be on a par with those of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and of the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.
May 19, 1977



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Request that final games of World Hockey League championship be televised.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Mr. Wagner's motion:
That this House holds the Government directly responsible for the present economic disorder in Canada and the disastrous consequences of that disorder upon the spirit and unity of the country.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, it is often said that "plus 5a change, plus c'est la meme chose". To begin with this afternoon, I would like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I think there was not too much partisanship, which shows that my colleague's motion deals with a fundamental problem in this country, quite a debatable motion actually in this House in the way we should have debates and discussions here in the House. This is Parliament, Mr. Speaker, where we express our views. We exchange them eventually. Since we come from various parts of the country, accommodations can be made and it is in accommodation that lies the success of our federation. After all, it is the lesson given during the last century by all federations. They represent various interests, but undoubtedly they realize, and that is indisputable, that the strength of the federation far exceeds the individual strengths of federation members, but once in a while, problems do arise.

I would like to go back almost a century, to 1878, when the first Liberal prime minister, Alexander Mackenzie, observed that there were three great problems facing Canada at that time: inflation, unemployment, and national unity. Of course. Canada was only 11 years old then. It was not a thrust that came out of Quebec or out of what was formerly Lower Canada which called national unity into question. It was from Nova Scotia. If one bothers to read Canadian history, a subject which is not taught very much in our schools and one
Economic Situation
in which present-day commentators are not well versed, one recalls that Joseph Howe actually got the Nova Scotia legislature to pass a resolution approving withdrawal from confederation. But such was the good sense of the people of Nova Scotia that they saw this was not the right way. So the little firecrackers we now hear, banging off here and there in certain areas of Canada, not only in Quebec-there are some damp squibs which go off from time to time in western Canada-are nothing new.
[DOT] (nio)
There is one further dimension. Today we are seeing far too much confrontation, a sort of dialectic approach to the problem which to my mind contributes nothing to an eventual solution. Some have suggested that our feelings on this question are more tense than they were years ago. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know. If we read the important speeches of Joseph Howe and the others of his generation, I am sure we would be persuaded that Canadians of a century ago spoke with as much heat and emotion as people do today. It is true, of course, that this could be appreciated directly only by those who listened to them at political meetings, or, to a lesser extent, read their speeches as reported in the press; there were no facilities for instant communication such as we have today, nor for the almost equally instant editorializing which is done by program producers with regard to the comments of today's political leaders as they appear on radio or television. Nevertheless, I suggest the intensity of emotion was just as great in those days as it is now.
Perhaps our problems are more complex. I do not know whether this is true or not. Complexity is always relative. As to the solutions which might be proposed, in their context they will not be more dramatic. They will certainly not be more untried than those put forward by the pioneers of this country. I do not look upon this motion as being a matter of Canada versus Quebec, or of Quebec versus the rest.

Or of French-speaking Canadians, not only in Quebec but elsewhere, versus the rest of the country. Not at all. What is the text of this motion? I quote:
That this House holds the Government directly responsible for the present economic disorder ...
It is about economic disorder. We must consider this matter and unfortunately the minister did not go through the question. I think that he evaded this difficulty wisely and carefully because we know that there is economic disorder throughout Canada. And the motion concluded this way, and I quote:
... and the disastrous consequences of that disorder upon the spirit and unity of the country.

Of course, the economic problems of the country must be reflected in the attitudes of Canadians wherever they may live, and they certainly are applying strains on national unity. The media maintain a high profile for the situation in Quebec. But that is only a symptom of the malaise which has existed all along in confederation. The people of Quebec express them-
80016-28%

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
selves culturally, linguistically and in other ways because they are a people and they have been affected by regional circumstances. There is no such thing as painting Canada with the same brush from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria. Commentators have always thought in terms of finding a sudden solution to Canada's problems.
Mr. Speaker, we shall always have problems. We have had them for a hundred years. We have them today. We shall have them a century from now, perhaps because there are so many factors over which man has no control, including the fact that he cannot be relied upon always to make the best decision. Let us see where we can go to fight this regionalism. Economic difficulties? We have had inflation since 1968 under the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I remember seeing him before the television cameras announcing measures of stringency, restrictions on the hiring of new public servants, and so forth. I happened to be enjoying a holiday on Cape Breton Island on that occasion. I was in Sydney, Nova Scotia, that day and I watched the Prime Minister telling us the government had resolved to deal with inflation. It was not very long afterwards that he told us inflation had been wrestled to the ground. But it continued. Some 18 months ago the then minister of finance quarrelled with his prime minister, resigned and slammed the door. They talk about splits in parties! What was that but a split, and a fundamental split?
We have had inflation, and it is the federal government which is responsible for allowing it to develop and to carry through from 1968 to 1975 relatively unchecked. As a matter of fact, in the early 1970s they were in there fuelling it with the greatest of coal shovels, piling on the heat. We have had nothing but a history of accelerating unemployment. The solutions have been shoved under the carpet. Here and there there has been a mandate, but no fundamental solutions. Or if there were solutions to be applied, the government has failed right across the country to recognize the problems on a regional basis.
We have declining exports on a constant dollar basis. Our trade is in one hell of a mess. We are faced with high cost and low productivity. In what I am saying now I am going after hon. friends to my far left.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They have gone.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They seem to think they have the sole mandate to speak for organized labour. Within the last three or four years there has developed, somehow, the mistaken philosophy that you can take out of the Canadian economy more than you put in and stuff yourself sick with the money you get out, or with the leisure that you want at someone else's expense. Tie this in with a stupid unemployment insurance scheme which is not insurance at all.


Donald W. Munro: It is welfare.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A former minister responsible for unemployment insurance, who has also slammed the

door on this place and is now in Quebec, said that unemployment insurance was the cornerstone of a guaranteed annual income which he was going to implement. It now appears that one union wants a 30-hour work week and a 10-minute break every hour. Until we decide that we are going to be masters of our own economy, that we are going to produce for our own benefit and for those for whom we are responsible, we will have these kinds of recurring problems.
There is no such thing as the status quo in this regard, Mr. Speaker. Either we improve the situation, or it belabours us about the ears until we are silly. Despite DREE and the hundreds of millions of dollars which have been spent, we have slow-growth economic areas. Are any of the these areas better off as a result of all the money which has been poured into them? I do not think so. For a long time the government resisted having the Economic Council of Canada look at that type of program when it was within the power and the purpose of the council to do so. No, the government is using the old type of snake bite medicine which used to be sold on the carnival circuit, the type of philosophy that cannot stand examination. They would not dare to send it to the laboratory for examination, but it sounded good, and at election time some real IOUs in certain areas were collected as a result thereof. That has been the history of DREE.
The consequences have been disastrous. In western Canada, the premiers have just completed a monumental and most memorable conference in Brandon. They have listed 130 intrusions by the federal government into the activities or spheres of action of the provinces. The provinces of western Canada have been complaining for decades about the transportation policy which has been in place, in the same way that the province of Quebec has been complaining in many fields for decades. We had the western economic opportunities conference in Calgary three years ago, and we saw the Prime Minister, the former minister of finance, Mr. Turner, and the former minister of transport, now Senator Marchand, marching along the road to Calgary in-


Mr. MacFarlane:: Calvary?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They should have marched along the road to Calvary, but I said "Calgary"-marching along the road, in penitence robes, saying that the government of Canada would do much better for the western provinces. They gave a solemn undertaking. I say, mere words, mere puffery, mere hypocrisy. Not one thing has been done for the western provinces. One can see the bitterness and frustration of the western premiers which they expressed in Brandon.


Mr. O'Connell:: Are you sure not one thing was done?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If one thing was done, then perhaps it was like the pebble on the beach, totally lost.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: More than one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Since 1974 very little which was fundamental has been done for western Canada, but the point I want to come to is this. I should like to refer
May 19, 1977

hon. members, in the limited time left to me, to a paper prepared by Dr. O. J. Firestone of the University of Ottawa last March. It has been presented, so I may refer to it. I am sorry 1 do not have the opportunity to make much more reference to it. It is entitled "The Economic Case for Regional Decision-Making" and its historical approach is masterful. I commend it to all hon. members. They can get copies of the paper from me, and in it they will see that Dr. Firestone has hit upon a fundamental truth.
We hear the Premier of Quebec saying that more decisions of an economic nature must be made in Quebec City. Premier Lougheed says more economic decisions which affect Alberta should be made in Edmonton and Calgary rather than in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto. In other words, the status quo must not continue. This so-called separation reminds me of the married couple where one spouse says, "I am going to divorce you, but I am reserving weekend rights". That is what we are being offered by Mr. Morin and company.


Steve Eugene Paproski: And a joint bank account.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, a joint bank account. It is similar to a unilateral divorce in which week end visiting rights are preserved.


An hon. Member:: With twin beds.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With twin beds, of course. Our contribution to this debate has to be limited. I cannot cover the whole subject as I would like. I would ask hon. members to study a more flexible approach from a regional point of view, within the Constitution. The Constitution will have to be amended. There is no doubt about that. It is not going to be done by a unilateral patriation. There will have to be general participation. Canadians will have to be more conciliatory. Whatever one area of Canada gains is at the expense of other Canadians. There is no Canadian who will grow in stature by one cubit, one half inch or one centimetre by lopping off the head of another Canadian. We must work together instead of having these tinpot quarrels where power hungry men are out to grab more power. Is it for the benefit of their people? Not at all. It is for their own benefit.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to use my 20 minutes to talk about a single idea. That idea is job creation. In one way or another, the focus of this resolution and the burden of the debate we have been hearing is: if more jobs had been created by the government, if there were more new jobs for young people and more employment in the underdeveloped regions of this country, we would be a more united country and a more prosperous country. We would then be dealing with issues on an entirely different basis. The shortage of jobs for young people, and for people in depressed regions, is an ingredient in the problem Canada is facing today.
I would like to look at some of the solutions proposed by members opposite in this debate today. I would like to see how
Economic Situation
much better off we would be if they were adopted. I will show that we would be worse off if we adopted some of the suggestions which have been made by members opposite. Before I do that, I would like to set the scene in an international context. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) indicated it was the kind of federalism in Canada today that was responsible for unemployment in the province of Quebec and a lot of the unemployment problems we have across the country. It is interesting to say our federalism-


Walter David Baker: Not federalism!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to the hon. member. He indicated it was our kind of federalism.


Walter David Baker: It is the way you do it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If our kind of federalism is the problem, how does he explain the fact that unemployment among young people and in depressed regions is the single leading economic problem in each of the major industrial countries which went to London for the meeting last week end? If it is the unique Canadian way of doing things that is responsible, why are unitary countries, European countries and the country to the south of ours, all saying youth unemployment, women unemployment, and unemployment in certain regions are the main problems which they face?


Walter David Baker: Where do we stand in the spectrum? That is the point.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: All right, where do we stand in the spectrum? The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) did a bit of reading to the House. He selected an article by John Kettle, who is known more or less as a brilliant gadfly columnist for Executive magazine. He certainly does not speak for the magazine. He is perhaps the most interesting thing in the magazine. His point of view is very often that of a gadfly and a provocateur of ideas, as is the Hudson Institute for which John Kettle is a consultant.
I would like to read to you the opening words of a column which appeared in the Financial Times of Canada. This price is not a gadfly column. This is news reporting. This article is addressed to the Canadian audience and is contained in the Financial Times of Canada of May 9. It reads as follows:
It may seem hard to visualize Prime Minister Trudeau as the leader of the free world's best performing economy. But, judged on the record of the last few years, he is.
According to a new study prepared before last week end's seven-nation economic summit, Canada ranks as the single economy that has most successfully bounded back from the 1973-74 recession.
Hon. members opposite asked me a moment ago, "Looking at the problems of all these other countries, why is ours so much worse?" Here is a Canadian report on an international study done by the Bureau of Economic Research, and not done by Jim Coutts or Senator Davey. It was prepared by nonCanadian analysts who come to the conclusion, judging the record of the last few years, that Prime Minister Trudeau is the leader of the free world's best performing economy.

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation


Walter David Baker: No wonder he is a gadfly. He is also a shadfly.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The article continues:
For the world's seven largest economies, they have devised a monthly composite index of economic performance which compares some key indicators of economic activity, including personal income, output, employment, unemployment and sales.


Donald W. Munro: We are good at
unemployment!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) says, "We are good at unemployment", but that is part of the mix. That was taken into consideration in a national study which produced the result under the headline "Trudeau the Wizard".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not want to create the impression that government is happy with the way today's economy is performing. I do not want to create the impression that the government does not realize the very things hon. members opposite have been saying-it is unemployment which is our most serious problem. Especially unemployment among the youth of Canada and unemployment in the depressed regions are problems. Our performance has been the best compared to the seven countries referred to in that study. I am referring to the countries whose representatives went to London to discuss the performance of the economy. Our economic management has produced results which have been internationally rated as successful. They are not satisfactory to us, but have been rated successful internationally.
What are the alternatives being proposed by hon. members opposite? I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)-

-what the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) had to say. For him, it was the importation of goods at a lower cost than the cost of production in Canada!

He is indicating that the villain is cheap imports-cheap shoes from Taiwan and Korea; cheap powdered milk; and various other things. What is the solution? Close the door and give Canadians a protective market for shoes? Let us make all our own shoes; let us make all our own electronic equipment? A lot of people in Canada see that as our salvation. I have no doubt that more jobs would be created in Canada if that were the case. If we required Canadians to buy Canadian-made shoes and Canadian-made electronic goods, and if we only had products manufactured in this country, more jobs would be created. However, there would be some problems, and I will deal with them in a minute.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shoes would cost $150 a pair.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Please, do not give away the rest of my speech. I want to come to the problems which would be created.


Steve Eugene Paproski: A television set would cost $1,500.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Let us consider the NDP's suggested solution. They say there are enough jobs in Canada. We agree. And what do they say? "The government should create employment." What does that mean: create employment? It means, put more people on the public payroll.


Donald W. Munro: You are doing pretty well now.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Certainly, we could do that. We are to spend $465 million in the coming year, more than we have ever spent before, on direct job creation in the regions. The figure could be doubled, tripled, even quadrupled, and there would be lots more jobs in Canada. So there we have two kinds of solutions for the problem.
I listened to the Conservatives with interest. They said there ought to be more intergovernmental consultation in job creation. Joe Clark recently-


Walter David Baker: Please!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Please refer to him as Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in a recent address gave his solution, which is reviewed in the Vancouver Sun, the heart of Conservative country, as "Rubbish, Mr. Clark." His solution for job creation was to provide more stimulus in the economy, which would heat it up faster and faster. We are being asked to look for solutions of that kind.
Some say the solution to our problems is to close our doors to foreign imports or to put more people on the public payroll. Let me deal with one solution I have heard well-meaning people bring forward in my riding as 1 go around it defending and explaining the government's economic policy. People say to me, "Why was it possible for our economy to produce full employment during the war? No one was looking for a job during the war. We were able to place everybody in jobs, and could have placed even more people. Why cannot we return to that kind of economy? Why cannot we find a way to put all our people to work, to produce all the things we need, as we did during the war? Must we have a war to put everyone to work?" Mr. Speaker, it is true, during the war all our people were working, but Canada was working itself into the poor-house. If we had gone on fighting the war with our hard work, we would eventually have reduced our gross national product to zero.
When you produce in war, it does not matter what things cost. You don't price things. They must be made. You tighten your belt. It does not matter, if you are producing something which is needed, because the product is dumped, destroyed on the battlefield, lost or ruined. True, people are working, but work alone is not the way to increase the country's prosperity.
May 19, 1977

You have to be making things that are good value and that people are willing to buy. And I will say the same about the job creation approach of the NDP, and the closed door approach the Socred party advanced in the House today. Those are ways to get people working, but not ways to increase this country's prosperity, which is what we want to do.
We are one of the most prosperous countries of the world. What has been the ticket to our success? Has it been putting everybody on the government payroll?


Donald W. Munro: Pretty well.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Has it been taking in each other's laundry, closing the doors, and making this a closed inward-looking internal economy? That is not how we became one of the most prosperous countries of the world. That is not how we attained one of the world's highest standards of living.


Walter David Baker: My friend, you have been brainwashed.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We have reached our present high point by having the resources, the know-how and technology to produce goods the world has wanted, at the best possible price, and selling enough of them to enable us to afford our high standard of living.
If people in Taiwan will make shoes for 35 cents an hour, 1 want to see Canadians having the benefit of footwear made for 35 cents an hour. If they will make television sets for low prices in Asian countries, why cannot we have the benefit of those television sets, provided we can do something in return, provided Canadians can find jobs worth $6, $7 or $8 an hour; and this, to a certain point, we have been able to do. That explains how we have been able to afford our present high standard of living.
Our economy has worked well for us. Even with high levels of unemployment, with the kinds of programs and adjustments we have put in place, all Canadians more or less have been able to share in our high standard of living and in the prosperity which has resulted from the way in which we have run our economy.
But in the last two or three years we have seen important setbacks in the Canadian economy. We have begun to fall behind, begun to think that the $6, $7 and $8-an-hour-job can be found without harder work, without doing more and without creating more. We have been taking away from each other, and thinking that that is a way to move ahead. This setback has been expressed in inflation and in the changing value of the Canadian dollar. It received its greatest push when international economies, including our own, were threatened with recession, which was more serious abroad but certainly serious in our own country. We reached the point at which we had to take dramatic action to protect our economy, to preserve the kind of economy which has been doing very well for us. Ours is a free enterprise, mixed type of economy.
What action did we take? We introduced the controls program, which has now been in effect for over a year. Our
Economic Situation
experience in the first year was good. We beat our target, even though lots of people did not think we would. We are moving well through the second year of the program, and at some point between October 14 and the end of the program we will go through a phase-out process by which time, hopefully, we will have put excessive inflationary pressures and exaggerated expectations behind us. Hopefully, the program will have created the realization that you cannot take anything out of an economy unless you put something into it.
We are taking advantage of the period of controls, of this pause, to make a number of fundamental changes.


Donald W. Munro: Name one.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member asks me to name one. I will name several. We have taken advantage of the controls program to try to make important structural changes in our economy.


Donald W. Munro: Yes, like Canada Works.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We are doing this so that we can resume our place, so that we do not have to protect low paying jobs, so that we can move forward into the kind of sophisticated, advanced economy in which all of us can earn a higher income and maintain one of the highest living standards in the world.
What have we done? Perhaps the most impressive thing we have done is something which the Conservative party said we would never do, bring down the rate of monetary expansion to a level which even the Conservative party must consider reasonable.


Donald W. Munro: It should not have been so high in the first place.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Perhaps not. Increasing the money supply before the controls program was introduced had an important purpose. It tended to keep the interest rate lower, and it helped us not to fall into the kind of economic recession into which our neighbour to the south fell. In any event, during the controls period the rate of growth of the money supply has been brought down to a level the Conservative party must consider reasonable-although recently the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) said in another place that the expansion is still too high. It is within the target figure which he said two years ago this government could not reach. That is the first thing that has happened during the control period.
The second thing that has happened is the restraint of growth of the federal government. This has been extremely important, not because there were not good reasons for the government service to grow previously, but because there were good reasons for the government rate of growth to slow down during the control period. I do not want to repeat the speeches which have been made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). It is a matter of record that important government restraint has been achieved during this control period, and a commitment has been made by this government to continue to honour restraint even after the controls come off

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
and to keep the growth in the 1977-78 fiscal year well within the growth of the gross national product.
What further has been done? A number of structural changes are under consideration. The competition bill is now before parliament. It will have the effect of making the economy more competitive in areas where market power is considered to be a problem. At the same time it recognizes that bigness is not necessarily bad, and that where bigness benefits the consumer, under the surveillance procedures provided in the bill it will be permitted to continue.
In addition, we are looking at industrial relations. A 14 point program has been put forward by th Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), aimed directly at improving industrial relations, the temperament of the workplace, the safety of the workplace, and relations between labour and management.
The structure of industrial relations is up for review. A number of proposals have been made. Some of them are so sensible one wonders why they were not implemented years ago. For example, a broader base for collective bargaining is being sought. Why should the total air industry go out on strike when the ticket sellers cannot settle their collective agreement? When the ticket sellers come to an agreement and go back to work and then when the pilots cannot settle their differences, why should the whole industry again go on strike? When the pilots settle their differences and go back to work and then when the air traffic controllers' negotiations break down, why should the whole industry go on strike again. Obviously the broader the base, the fewer days lost there will be within particular industries. I hope provincial ministers of labour will be looking at these proposals for reform in industrial relations. 1 hope that before the controls come off we will see important steps forward in improving this area of tremendous weakness in the Canadian economy.
We cannot simply follow the example of any other country. We have to find our own way, but we know we have to improve the mechanisms we have. An hon. member opposite asked what has been done. Well, a remarkable new rapport has been reached between two sectors which have always been in confrontation in Canada in the past. Labour and management are talking to each other during this period of controls in a way that they never have before talked. They are looking for a common position which they can put to the government which would provide a basis for removing the controls earlier than would otherwise be possible. They are taking some of the confrontation and hostility out of their relationship and hopefully making it possible for settlements to be reached in the future and for prices to be determined in a way which will not take us back to the kind of inflation we have had until now.


Mr.   MlcKenzie@: If you are so good, how did all these things happen in the first place?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has elapsed.
(Mr. Kaplan.]


A. Daniel McKenzie: You people have been in power all this time, and if you are so brilliant how did all these things happen?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is very close to six o'clock, and perhaps I might be allowed another minute. I can conclude in one minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to go on for a minute or two to complete his remarks, at which time I will call upon the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Give the Canadian people an explanation of what you have been doing for the last 14 years.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) asks why, if the economy is so well managed, is it not performing better. Well, it is not performing as well as we would like it to perform, but the hon. member has given me an opportunity to conclude the way I began, by quoting from this Financial Times article as follows:
It may seem hard to visualize Prime Minister Trudeau as the leader of the free world's best performing economy. But, judged on the record of the last few years, he is . .. Canada ranks as the single economy that has most successfully bounced back from the 1973-74 recession.
We have not done as well as we would have liked to have done, but we have done well enough to indicate that the economy is not being badly managed.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is often my fate to be on my feet just at this particular moment. I should like the unanimous consent of the House to call it six o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 5.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I will not disappoint hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman), by a lack of serenity in the remarks I am planning to make this evening. I may very well introduce a note of accerbity into this debate. I am indeed a bit bitter, but I am more angry than bitter.
May 19, 1977

On occasion we say in English that we speak more in sorrow than in anger. On this particular occasion I speak in sorrow and in anger because of the great disillusion that has been brought about for me, because of the fate that my country is now suffering as a result of the mismanagement by this government. I have always had a vision of Canada. Otherwise I would not have volunteered 36 or 37 years to be sure that that vision could be realized.
[ Translation]
I cannot conceal from you, Mr. Speaker, that I am worried and concerned over recent events, particularly the result of the vote taken last November 15 in the province of Quebec. The Liberal party is now ruthlessly campaigning to blame or to put the responsibility for the Liberal defeat by the electors of our neighbour province, on the CBC or on the English-speaking population of the rest of Canada. This campaigning will go on without respite, I am sure, until the by-election and maybe even until the general election. The Liberal party is looking for a scapegoat.
Those who are truly responsible, Mr. Speaker, first examine their own actions and their conscience. Right after a defeat or in an abnormal situation, they do not try to put the blame on others. On the contrary, they question themselves to find out where they made a mistake, where they went wrong. Let me indicate how 1 interpret the events of November 15: the population wanted to reject a government in which it has lost confidence, a reflection of the government in Ottawa, provincial and federal governments alike. And why has all confidence been lost in the federal government? Just look at the economic situation of the country! I would dearly love to read today's motion:

That this House holds the Government directly responsible for the present economic disorder in Canada and the disastrous consequences of that disorder upon the spirit and unity of the country.
[ Translation]
I support that motion wholeheartedly. Why have the people lost all confidence in the federal government? The economic situation is one explanation. It inspires no confidence in the direction taken by the government. Look also at the atmosphere of confrontation in which Pierre Trudeau's federal government governs. The Prime Minister has decided to govern, through federal-provincial confrontations, labour confrontations, cultural confrontations. That government preaches animosity. As for the respect we owe parliamentary institutions, for instance, one needs only look at the attitude of the present government in that regard.
Recently, to mention but one example, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), within 48 hours, made two statements outside the House of Commons concerning basic changes in railway and maritime transports in Canada. Those statements should have been made in the House, thus allowing hon. members to ask for details or express censure.
This government, Mr. Speaker, wants to govern without consulting the electorate or its representatives, the members of parliament. That is why, in my opinion, the role of Parliament
Economic Situation
is declining, and as a result the spirit and unity of the country are suffering, which partially explains the results of the vote of November 15. I feel a deep concern over the future of our country. That future will be seriously jeopardized if the role of Parliament is not restored. Our party, the Progressive Conservative party, which is the one that founded our country, is dedicated under the leadership of Mr. Clark to restoring the credibility of our parliamentary institutions by consulting Canadians regularly and thoroughly to identify their wishes. [English]
When I think in terms of my vision of Canada, 1 go back to a very famous speech. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to, not paraphrase, but alter the words to the present context. The speech was made more than a hundred years ago and it reads like this in its modern interpretation:
Five score years ago and more our forbears brought forth on this continent a nation dedicated to the proposition that two peoples of differing cultural and linguistic backgrounds could live in harmony together and thrive.
This is my Canada.
Less than five years later that notion was extended geographically from coast to coast, and a bare 20 years later a rail line connected one coast with another thus binding the country from sea to sea with bonds of steel. In less than 20 years a great miracle was accomplished with political and engineering ramifications of tremendous consequence.
Barely ten years ago we celebrated our centennial. That was the year of hope, jubilation and thanksgiving. What happened to the thrill of 1967, the high spirits and the expectation felt at that time? Just ten years later, where have they gone? Where did we go wrong? I submit we went wrong in 1968. We did not lose the way. We all have our vision of Canada and our dreams. The way was lost for us by this government. It was lost for us economically, constitutionally, and in parliament itself. It has been lost for us through the degradation of respect for law and the will to work. These last ten years have done untold damage to our country. I can do no more than sketch in some of the highlights.
In that period the national debt has doubled from $20 billion to more than $40 billion. The size of the public service has almost doubled. The budget increases are almost incredible. It is hard to believe that from a budget of $10 billion, more or less, in 1968, the budget has grown until, in 1977, it is $42 billion. It has quadrupled.
It is instructive to note the failure of the government in the economic field. In terms of promised growth, there has been under performance; in terms of exports, under performance; in terms of foreign direct investment, under performance. The figures are revealing. In 1971 direct foreign investment in Canada totalled $925 million. By 1975 it had fallen to $630 million. By 1976 foreign countries had reduced the value of their holdings by nearly $400 million showing their lack of confidence in this country.
As I have shown, there has been over-performance in government spending. A record job has been done on inflation.

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
There has been over-performance in areas which leave lasting, tell-tale marks on the economy, and under performance where it would count. In the area of employment opportunities there has been under performance. When it comes to providing proper incentives for investment, there has been under performance.
There is another element which concerns me greatly and it is one which has contributed to the disunity of this country and to the falling off in morale. It is the degradation of our institutions, including the institution in which we now speak. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made one speech in this House since October of last year, I think it was. His policy pronouncements are made either in another parliament in another country, in the Press Club across the road, or somewhere out in Saskatoon or elsewhere on the prairies, but not in this Chamber. He is totally lacking in regard for this place. His attitude is one of arrogance. Although not here at the time, I suppose I figure among those he has called nobodies. Members across the floor do not even recognize that they are nobodies, too, in his eyes. I have suggested that they come across to this side of the House and watch the Prime Mini ^er when he is performing. Hon. members over there see the back of his head. I see the disdain on his face. I have witnessed the profanity used by the Prime Minister in this House. It is true he said he regretted it, but what he regretted was that it got on the record. And when he was taxed about it he did not apologize. He just expressed regret and said he hoped he had not caused any inconvenience. And then, when the matter was picked up again he used even more unacceptable profanity.


John (Moody) Roberts: If you carry on in such a sanctimonious way you will have to join the NDP.


Donald W. Munro: I was proud to be elected to this Chamber in 1972 because I thought I was going to an institution which had a constructive role to play in the development of Canada. What did I find? I found in those four and a half years a government which has no regard for this institution and which has driven our country deeper and deeper into the morass. There are so many instances of abuse, misuse, and arrogance on the part of this government with respect to this House. One can cite the use of public transportation to transport domestic help to this country until it was brought to the attention of the public by the press; then it ceased. In fact the domestic help had to pay part of its way back.
Respect for law has also been downgraded as a result of the activities of this government. It in turn has had its adverse effect on morale and the desire for unity in this country. How can there be unity when this institution has been downgraded and no one respects it, because the government itself has no respect for it? That is our great problem. If we had a core in this parliament of ours which people in Canada respected, we would have a core around which to rally and we would have unity. It is the flight from that which has contributed enormously to the disunity which we are observing in this country today.

As for respect for law, Mr. Speaker, do you remember the judges who were telephoned? I remember one incident which never got on the record and I am determined to put it on the record now. It occurred on June 3, 1976, an interview of the Prime Minister by Gordon Henderson on the Global television network. This was at the time when the constitutionality of the AIB was being tested and the Prime Minister said that the Supreme Court would not decide the Anti-Inflation Act was unconstitutional. He then said, "Why do you ask that question?" The interviewer replied that that was the question that had been put to it, so the Prime Minister replied, "Well, I'm telling you what the Supreme Court is going to decide". The interviewer said; "You are confident then, Sir?" You could not guess the reply, Mr. Speaker. It was, "I phoned a few judges". Then there were titters and there was laughter. That is no laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. Even if it was said in jest it is no laughing matter to degrade, not just this institution but the Supreme Court of this country. It is absolutely incredible that that should happen, but since it has happened it is not so incredible that we should be suffering as we are from disunity and a sagging morale.
Another comment made by a minister which I feel cannot go unchallenged was this-I cannot remember the exact date-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his alloted time has expired. He can continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: I will terminate my remarks with this instance, Mr. Speaker. This was a comment made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) which I caught over the airwaves. He complained that French Canadians have been denied the opportunity to share in the development and shaping of Canada. That is not only mischievous, it is misleading, and is a monstrous distortion of history and the current situation. It just should not stand unchallenged. On hearing this I drew up a list of large corporate institutions, and 16 out of the first 50 of these largest institutions in Canada have their headquarters in the province of Quebec.
We all give due honour to our French speaking forebears who discovered the western regions of our country, whose names are remembered out there, some of whom were martyred. They were saints from that generation. All are revered. That comment by the Minister of National Health and Welfare deserves to go down in history, I think, as one of the most deplorable comments that could be made.
I have many, many other comments to make on this matter since I am deeply distressed at what the government has done to my country and the vision I had of my country. However, I do maintain it and I will go on doing my utmost to make sure that this vision will become a reality.
May 19, 1977


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I was preparing a few notes and thought I might come on a little later, but I am pleased indeed to enter into this debate and to make some remarks to my colleagues in the House is an attempt to bridge the two matters which are raised in the resolution before us, namely, economic policy and national unity. 1 am going to do so in the search for some perspective.
I am going to begin with the suggestion that all regions of Canada have such fundamental economic problems that they need each other in a new way, perhaps in a way they have not needed each other since Confederation; and that it is this convergence of need and difficulty which each region faces which gives us all the possibility of rebalancing Confederation at the level of economic structure and basic economic policy. I include Ontario in this description of the fundamental economic problems facing regions of Canada. I do so particularly because it is often assumed that Ontario has benefited the most from Confederation; that Ontario is so rich and strong that it is this province which is called upon to make concessions, to show some leadership, to concede certain things in order to hold the country together. What I want to fit into my remarks is the notion that Ontario too is in deep economic trouble and in relative industrial decline.
We can cope with this, but to do so Ontario needs all the other regions of Canada in striving for a new economic balance. This is one of the hopeful things which will bring about a new set of compromises suited to our needs, just as the compromises made at confederation established economic destinies, as it were, or vocations for the various regions of our country 110 years ago. This will therefore be is my thesis.
I am going to focus on the prairie provinces and suggest that the grievances of the prairie provinces can be regarded as frustrated industrialism. These grievances can be accommodated. Accommodating them would be more than simple justice for the prairie provinces. It would be more than fulfilment in the economic sense for prairie potentials. Accommodating those grievances would help solve Ontario's pending and present economic problems. Therefore there can be a basis for unity in industrial policy.
The grievances of the prairie provinces with respect to industrial policy come at the same time as Quebec's pre-occupation with language, culture, and a political sovereignty thought to be necessary to protect those objectives. In a sense, therefore, the confederation compromises are coming unstuck. What were they? In a broad sense, as expressed partly in the national policy of Sir John A. Macdonald, they may be summarized as this: in the central part of Canada there would be built a strong industrial heartland. My point is that that heartland is eroding and losing its strength in a relative sense. In the west there would be created a resources vocation. The prairie provinces would be filled up with immigrants and would be linked to the other regions of Canada via railway. The industrial heartland would be protected by a tariff system. The national railway network would be protected by moving
Economic Situation
goods behind that tariff barrier to the east and to the west, exchanging the products of each region.
The confederation compromises included for Quebec measures which were thought to be sufficient to protect cultural, linguistic, educational, and legal interests. Those are now being challenged as indequate. I will not say that they are being rejected. The prairie provinces are rejecting the vocation of a resources area which was laid out for them in the confederation compromises. Ontario by a series of economic development is no longer the confident secure industrial heartland. Transportation policy is challenged and tariffs are no longer significant to protect it.
I should like to review the evolution of the western economy to support my thesis. The western economy began with wheat. It is based on wheat, minerals, cattle, forests, oil and gas, all moved in bulk as basically raw materials with freight rates which reinforce that vocation for western Canada. They are freight rates which support the movement of raw materials as opposed to processed materials. The clearest example is rape-seed, and it is true in the sense of cattle as opposed to meat. Rapeseed moves to Vancouver and over to Japan at the Crowsnest Pass rates which are very low rates, indeed. They encourage the export of seed. Crushing takes place in Japan and employment takes place in Japan. In a sense those freight rates confirm the west as an exporter of raw materials. The movement of those products to eastern Canada is four or five times more expensive through the transportation system. This economic bias is frequently expressed in hostility to freight rates. What is being frustrated, however, is the further processing of the product in the prairie region. What is being frustrated is the value added, better jobs, higher incomes and more opportunities because the policy system locks the region into an earlier regional destiny.
The prairie provinces feel ready for the next stage of economic development which is further processing and industrialism. They are seeking not only a rearrangement of the transportation rates but a negotiation on tariffs in the United States. These negotiations must be carried on by Ottawa. The negotiations would seek to lower the rapid escalation of tariffs in the United States against the import of processed products. Look for example at the natural gas which is produced in Alberta. It can be exported without tariff to the United States. Ethylene, which is made from natural gas, can be exported without tariff. Ethylene is a building block in a long series of plastic industries and other industries. The United States will take that basic block without putting any tariff wall against it. If the west wishes to proceed to the next stage of industrialism, which would be polyethylene of considerably greater value in terms of incomes and balance of payments, it faces a 20 per cent tariff. If it went to the next derivative which is polyvinylchloride, the tariff would escalate again. How can industrialism come to the west if we do not negotiate downward the escalating tariffs of the United States? Thus, there is not only transportation. There are tariff negotiations and the question of assured markets in Canada for those processed products. One cannot build further processing based solely on exports.

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
What are we prepared to do in Central Canada to accept processed goods from the prairie provinces? Will we buy meat or will we not? We may buy it if we change the freight rates. Will we buy polyethylene, or will we insist on making it only in Sarnia? Ontario and Quebec therefore have a question to ask themselves with respect to national unity as reflected in the economic policy influencing prairie attitudes. They have to ask themselves whether they are prepared to see a different vocation for the prairie provinces than the one laid out 110 years ago, and reinforced by national policies over which we have control. I am thinking of assurances which may not be of the same kind, but in spirit they are similar to the assurances which were given to the western crude oil market in eastern Canada when it was a question of assuring the development of that industry. Assured markets went only to the crude oil stage. Are we now prepared to alter transportation and other mixes of policies so that industrialism can come to western Canada? If we are not, we are not working at the question of national unity reflected in basic economic policy.
Ontario is in such economic difficulty that it is perhaps prepared to look at that question in a new light. What are its economic difficulties? I do not want to speak in a gloomy way this evening, but there is cause for concern. We hear it said with validity that the central industrial heartland is no longer competitive with the products of the Third World and the United States, which is our principal market. For various reasons we have always been less productive in the sense of value of production per worker, value of production per man hour, and value of production per unit of capital employed.
However one measures productivity, it is generally accepted that Canadian manufacturing is about 20 per cent less productive than U.S. manufacturing. Not all our industries are less productive. Some are more productive. However, on average, it is true to say we are less productive. According to a Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce study which I have before me, our labour productivity is perhaps 18 per cent lower, as measured in 1972 terms. When one combines the productivity of labour with that of capital the picture becomes even worse. For example, according to figures for 1972, the rubber and plastics industry in Canada is almost 27 per cent less productive; the furniture industry 27 per cent less productive; knitting mills 32 per cent less productive; printing and publishing 41 per cent less productive, and so on. It is thus unfair to speak only of the differences in labour productivity, of our productivity levels being 18 per cent lower. When you combine labour with management, whose function it is to use capital and labour in efficient combinations you see that we are 38 per cent less productive on the average in the manufac-turiel section. Therefore one can see that there is a real problem in how we employ capital in this country and manage our industries.
Our wage costs are often higher than in the United States. Money used as capital costs Canadians between 15 per cent and 20 per cent more than it costs Americans. Construction

costs are higher in this country because of severe weather and other conditions.


Mr. Gillies:: And inadequate federal policies.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: As one looks at the total picture, it becomes increasingly obvious that this so-called strong industrial heartland has entered a new phase of non-competitiveness and stready erosion. We have not yet felt the impact of manufactured goods produced in Third World countries. They will sweep over our remaining tariff barriers. In addition, we face non-tariff barriers in our best market. Those kinds of barriers have been erected to protect that market against products of the kind we will allow duty-free entry to Canada, because of our desire to help transfer economic resources to the Third World. Therefore the future of this industrial heartland of which I speak is not bright.
Why do I say that the future of this industrial heartland is tied to the future of western Canada? It seems to me Ontario needs an industrializing western Canada to which it can sell the products of its higher technology. Ontario needs an assured Canadian market for its higher technology products, exactly in the same way as it needed a somewhat assured market in the past to which to sell the products of its standard technology. We can only face foreign competition if we develop our higher technological capabilities; we can only develop these capabilities if there is a market to which we can sell the products of our higher technology. We cannot export all such products; we need a central economic base, or a market for them in this country. Surely an industrialized west will provide us with such a market. For example, it could use a control technology for processing. In exchange, we should accept the products which the west will want to sell to us. By so doing we would not only use our transport system efficiently but, by helping other regions, help to foster national unity. By all this I am suggesting that we need to examine again national economic policies. We must admit we are in deep trouble and need an industrialized west, as much as 100 years ago we needed the primary resources of western Canada.
I am emphasizing Ontario's difficulties, not because I wish to highlight our present difficulties, but because I wish to suggest that if Ontario understands where its own interests lie it will seek a new relationship with western Canada. Our best prospects for hope lie in western Canada. That is where a good deal of our industrial future lies.
I urge hon. members to examine what the Science Council has to say about technological sovereignty, for they will note some startling statements. For example, a summary of a paper presented at a seminar reads in part:
The paper presents the argument that Canadian secondary manufacturing is trapped in an evolutionary cul-de-sac. Past and extant policies have promoted modest industrialization along with technological underdevelopment and dependency.
The Science Council says that we are trapped partly because we are technologically dependent on others for innovation. Therefore, we must restructure industrial policies in Canada to
May 19, 1977

escape from this trap. I suggest we should look again at western Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue, with the unanimous consent of the House. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, having already made my principal point. Let me continue speaking on industrial policy. It seems to me that we, at the political level, are again called on to make the sort of choice Sir John A. Macdonald made in this House 100 years ago. Perhaps we have depended too much on bureaucratic systems, depended on them to improve our economic performance. That course, I suggest, is no longer acceptable in this country. We need a new economic design, so to speak, rather than merely better performance under existing structures. But producing a new economic design is very difficult politically. It might mean choosing to help those industries in Canada which have some promise of life. We would have to specialize, and help to consolidate some industries. Perhaps government procurement policies would have to support those industries which promise to stay alive, and in trade we must stop acting as boy scouts. That is to say, Marshall support mainly for those industries which are critical for the success of this country.
Mr. Speaker, I did not dwell on the question of Quebec, serious though that is. I wanted to talk about economic policies in relation to unity. What is happening in Quebec is not the only matter of crucial concern to parliament, for we face the challenge of regional disparities. These questions confront us, as they did 100 years ago. All these difficulties, together with the difficulties Ontario faces, must be foremost in our minds today. I feel confident, as I am sure others do, that we will be as creative as the Fathers of Confederation were, and possibly future generations may look upon our generation as a founding one if we understand all our country's problems and come to grips with them.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to follow the erudite member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) in any debate, but I want to say that I listened with interest to his learned comments on ethylene and polyvinylchloride and the complaints he made about the economic policies which have bound this country into its present state, and I would like him to sit there and think about what administration over the years has been principally responsible for those policies about which he now complains.
Disillusionment and discontent with the terms of Confederation are not a recent phenomenon, nor have they been confined exclusively to any part of this great nation. Nova Scotia, for example, has been a province which has, in the 110 years since our nation was formed, reflected the views of the most bitter
Economic Situation
opponents of Confederation as well as the convictions of some of its most prominent advocates.
A look at contemporary history readily reveals that whenever nations begin to slide into an economic recession or encounter difficulties related to a diminution of common will and resolve, there are various regions or parts of these nations that inevitably begin expressing their feelings as to whether or not they might be better off as independent entities. Perhaps the best example of this is to be found in a nation from which we have received much of our common heritage, the United Kingdom.
When Britain was a dynamic force in world affairs with a strong, vibrant economy, a favourable balance of trade, and was a leader in technology, there was little talk of Welsh or Scottish nationalism. We are seeing now in this country, in times of adversity, the same type of situation which is prevalent in the United Kingdom where national unity is strained and where the sum of the parts of the nation appears greater than the whole. The motion, therefore, of my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), is a very timely indictment-and a very necessary one-of the government which, by its economic mismanagement, has contributed greatly to the lack of spirit and the disunity in our country.
Since this is the House of Commons and since we are the politicians in it, we all must share some of the responsibility. I know that this probably will not be a popular statement as far as some Liberals are concerned. I am sure they feel that since they have been in control of this nation's destiny for most of the past 50 years, with the authority to make most of the key decisions which have brought us to this crisis, they should be exonerated from any responsibility for it, because that is the way they think and operate, at least recently. Certainly it can never be said that in recent years the Liberal party has ever failed to place the party ahead of the country. Any suggestion that this is not the case, particularly in recent years, will not meet the test of reality.
Can you imagine, Sir, it being said of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), as it was of some great Prime Ministers in our past-Sir John Thompson, for example, from Nova Scotia-that "he won't even consider whether a thing is good for the party until he is quite sure it is good for the country"?
When the present Prime Minister inherited the leadership of the Liberal party and our country, no one could deny that he acquired problems which have always characterized Canada: difficulties with transportation, problems in satisfying competing regional interests, and so on. He also inherited inflationary trends and a rather high, for those times, unemployment rate. Then, as now, relations with the United States were always an important priority for Canada on the international scene. Canadians have watched and listened to this Prime Minister since the heady days of Expo and have been assured at various times that our traditional problems were well under control. Inflation had been wrestled to the ground, unemployment had been solved, trade deficits had been overcome, the United

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
States and Canada had had a fantastic breakthrough in their relationship, and regional development was under control by virtue of the creation of the great new Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which was going to solve most of the problems of disparity in our country.
Canadians were also told that separatism was dead in this nation, and that latest piece of good news came just about a year ago. Unfortunately, all of these assurances, together with many other statements related to the economy and transportation, were and are demonstrably false, and that is part of the reason for the necessity of debating in this House the sorry state into which our nation has fallen. A little honesty in the past and fewer cliff-top orations would have served this nation much better.
The Atlantic region, like our sister province of Quebec, has suffered from long periods of chronic recession Whenever the regional disparity gap between ourselves and the rest of the country seemed to be narrowed and prosperity was on the way, some problem or other caused the region to have its growth potential blunted and its aspirations once more destroyed. As in other parts of the country, people in eastern Canada are conscious that our efforts to reach our destiny as a great nation are losing their impetus. We are all trying desperately to recapture that sense of purpose which will help us, as history unfolds, to realize our destiny as a truly great nation, and we are confident that, as the competence of governments improves, some of the misleading and untruthful predictions which have been mouthed in recent years may turn out to be true.
It was, after all, a great Liberal Prime Minister from Quebec who said that the twentieth century belongs to Canada. Well, time is running out on this century, and on a far different type of Liberal administration than the one led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for us to realize this cherished goal.
The immediate focus of attention in Canada today on the issue of national unity is on La Belle Province, and rightfully so. We in the maritimes are greatly concerned about the course of action now being taken by the Parti Quebecois, but we are, as we always have been, proud of our great sister province and of the excellence it has brought to our country in many spheres of activity: in the theatre, the arts, fashion, in sports, and particularly in making it possible for Canada to speak to the international community in two of the world's great languages.
On a lighter note, it is heartening that despite all the rampant Quebec nationalism and current talk of separation, even those zealots in the Parti Quebecois have not decided to change the name of the greatest hockey team in the world, the Montreal Canadiens, to les Quebecois de Montreal, so all is not lost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Separatism, or independence, is not a new phenomenon in this country, nor is it peculiar to the province of Quebec. In 1867, 17 of the 18 federal candidates in Nova Scotia ran against Confederation and, what is more, they were

elected. But now no Nova Scotian premier or member of Parliament would ever come to a conference on Confederation, in this, the second century of it, with any suggestion that our province of Nova Scotia would or should ever separate, and so it will be in the future with the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: During the past century Nova Scotia has had many eloquent and able supporters of Confederation, including three prime ministers, and had the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) become the fourth Nova Scotian to become Prime Minister, our country today would be well on its way back to true unity and prosperity, because the characteristic of Nova Scotians in Confederation has always been their ability to accept adversity for the common good of the country and to work toward improving their lot and that of their nation.
That philosophy has extended from the early days of Confederation to the present time and has been echoed again and again by people like Angus L. MacDonald, that great Nova Scotian premier and federal cabinet minister, and George Nowlan, another distinguished cabinet minister and great son of our province, who pointed out in many a speech in this place that there were more than bonds of sentiment which bound this country together. He reminded us that we had a private railway and a national railway to span this continent, and a private broadcasting system and a public broadcasting system in the same way. George Nowlan reminded us as well that we could go through our national institutions, examine any one of them, and find that we have made a unique nation, one in which we could take pride instead of one for which we sometimes apologize. He admonished us to stop talking about gloom and doom and to stop taking out our livers, propping them up on our knees and examining then to see whether we had cirrhosis. His advice is as applicable now as it was then.
Our nation is a unique one, and one of which we can all be proud. Its territorial integrity can never be negotiated; however, the position we find ourselves in today is full of ironies. We see the various regions of our country chafing under a government with delusions of adequacy and under the accompanying illusion that central government planning can tinker with the economy, change policies on an ad hoc basis, and apply general measures affecting different and unique regions where specific ones are needed instead.
Jacques Parizeau, the Quebec Minister of Finance, said of his own government's economic approach that he preferred a scalpel to an axe. Our country is too fragile and too unique to be governed with the heavy-handed, uniform policies characterized by this government. We need to be molded into a force collectively, not forced into a collective mold.
In the maritimes there is no antipathy or bitterness to any other part of Canada. There is, rather, the desire not to be a burden, to help and to share in creating a great country, to develop our own resources, fisheries, forests, agriculture, mines and other industries which have shown in the past that they are viable in our own particular economic climate. We can do it, but not under the policies followed by this government, a
May 19, 1977

government which is demonstrating bankruptcy, not only in the area of policy development, but rather in an economic sense as well. It is leading our nation to the point where we are perilously close to not being able to have the financial resources to finance the great capital projects that will be needed to assure the type of sound development and construction of infrastructures and capital works projects of the type that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) had begun to put into place for this country when he was Prime Minister.
Canadians in the Atlantic Region and in Quebec remember the commitment that he had toward regional development; the steps he had begun to implement to develop the north; the first steps toward plans for a national power grid; his concept of councils of resource ministers and his determination to get rid of hyphenated Canadianism. People remember his commitment to his country. No one could ever say of the right hon. member for Prince Albert that he had any greater priorities than the welfare of his country; with him, politics came second and Canada came first.
We need a renewal of that spirit to get on with the consideration of the ends, not the argument over the jurisdictional means, toward development of our nation. Waste and incompetence in managing our country are a disgrace and a blight on our national psyche.
Consider the sorry state of some of the basic areas of administration and development under this government, such as the position in which the dredging industry now finds itself; a situation concerning which the cabinet had ample warning years ago had they chosen to act.
Consider the millions wasted in hare-brained schemes relating to employment programs-such as when the National Employment Service was disbanded and bifurcated into a Manpower and UIC system in the name of the national manpower strategy-which once more is being changed after hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted on this administrative abortion.
Consider the monster airports which no one-particularly the industry and the people affected-wanted. Probably between Calgary and Mirabel in the last few years several hundreds of millions of dollars of unnecessary expense has been incurred with negative results as far as the public and the airline industry are concerned. Consider another example, the grandiose public works schemes in Hull which are dislocating thousands of workers and creating more problems, as usual, than they solve. Then there is the miserable and expensive failure in our prison system.
All these things and many other equally foolish projects are causing Canadians to lose heart and to lose pride in their country. They realize that the funds which were wasted, if wisely invested in the province of Quebec, as well as eastern Canada, in sound developments, in housing, in transportation, could have made a great difference in the outlook and in the prosperity of this part of our nation.
Economic Situation
Our neighbours to the south are attracting Canadian capital and Canadian talent because they are doing much better as a nation than we are. They are more competitive, more productive and, to our shame, more patriotic. In the process, in some areas, they are even becoming bilingual. Spanish is the second language now in cities like Miami, and in parts of Louisiana French is being actively taught and the use of it is being encouraged.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, if the government of the United States of America and its people decided to have a bilingual nation, they could do it. On the record of their performance compared to the sorry group of incompetents that are leading this country, they would probably overtake us in this field as well, before very many years had passed.
Why is our country in such a sorry state? Mr. Speaker, the main reason is that our government for some years has become obsessed and exclusively preoccupied with its own political future; far more so than with the future of the country. It is very ironic that the bastion of its power in past years is the region of Canada that is causing it the most concern and which is showing the most ingratitude today. There is something ironic in that, and it is perfectly understandable when one considers that not long ago the Prime Minister went to the province of Quebec and made savage mockery of the then Premier, Robert Bourassa.
We, as Conservatives, must bear the blame to some extent because after all we have not provided a provincial federalist party to which the people of Quebec could turn. We must therefore share the responsibility for the fact that people of Quebec, in an attempt to get rid of a corrupt and incompetent government, had to turn to an administration which, while committed to providing good and efficient government, also had a philosophic commitment to divorcing this beautiful province from the rest of us. We are not without blame either.
The remedies for Canada's problems are not simple. It took many years to bring this prosperous and happy nation to the state in which it now finds itself, and it will take some years before some of the scars can be removed.
Encouraging reduction of government powers at all levels is far more timely and more needed than transfers of power from one level of government to another. We need to restore to the various partners in Confederation, the feeling of purpose and of being masters in their own houses. We do not need any further encroachments upon the lives of our people by governments, federal, provincial, or municipal.
We need, as well as encouraging a feeling of independence and pride in our people, a re-assessment of those government programs which were supposed to have some effect in reducing regional disparities. It is becoming obvious, on the basis of independent studies by competent people and agencies, that the regional development program conceived by this government in 1969, is not working. Transfer payments have helped slow growth regions far more than has DREE acting by itself and, often, at cross purposes with other government departments. Regional development has not made much of a dent, if any, in our slow growth regions.

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
Pride in national unity is not entirely a matter of economics. Our young people, and people generally, must be persuaded to work and not to emulate the Prime Minister's philosophy of exercising their right not to work, as he once expressed it.
Instead of frittering money away on grandiose and useless projects, which in many cases do not meet with the public need or approval, we must, particularly in those areas of Canada where unemployment is highest, get on with the job of constructing power grids, opening mines, building docks, wharves, grain elevators for storage, and all the practical things that can stand us in good stead in future and help us develop our economic muscle.
Let us also, as members of this House of Commons and Senate, begin to work toward restoring a sense of respect for this place and ourselves as elected representatives of our people. Let us devote more of our energies while we are here toward the business of the country and less toward our own, and in the process consider some of the needed changes in our constitution as outlined in part by the distinguished hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe this afternoon.
Let us encourage our people by every means possible, perhaps by subsidizing travel at some periods of the year, if necessary on public transportation, to become better acquainted with our nation and the many ethnic groups in it and the many beautiful regions that many people have never seen. In this way we will not only foster pride in our country but will dispel many of the stereotyped impressions, based on lack of personal contact, that plague our country and cause tensions.
Recently in Toronto a man who had come to this country after the war from Poland approached me, and on the subject of national unity he asked, "What do you say when people make a point of saying to you that they are English or French?" While I was hesitating, not quite certain of his meaning, he broke into a broad grin and said, "I tell them 'Good for you-what part of England or France are you from?' " Then he said, "This is what is wrong with our country. People are not willing to be Canadians-they want to be one sort or another of a particular kind of Canadian."
National unity will never be truly achieved until we are proud to be Canadians first, and while not forgetting our heritage, are not working toward imposing it or flaunting it in the face of others who share origins of which they are just as proud.
Let us remember that it is not where we have been or from whence we came that is primarily important: it is where we are going, what sort of a heritage we can create, and what sort of a future we will leave for our children. National unity is terribly hard to define. Perhaps one picturesque way of trying to do so is to recall the legendary exchange that is supposed to have taken place between Hilter and Churchill some years ago, when their countries were at war. Adolph Hilter declared that "the German Reich was bound together by chains, but that the British Empire was held together only by moonbeams." To which Churchill replied, "Yes, that may be true, but have you ever tried to cut a moonbeam?"

I would prefer to think that the various parts and regions of this country will never be bound entirely together by mere physical bonds alone whether rail, road or pipeline, however important they may seem to be, but will be held together as well by common bonds that are as beautiful and as intangible and everlasting as moonbeams-the concepts, ideals and desires of all in this country to be Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, before going on to a discussion of the topic before us this evening I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) for what I thought was an extremely thoughtful presentation about one aspect of the problem of Canadian unity and how it relates to the evolution of economic policy. There are certain things I strongly disagree with, but his was a very thoughtful presentation, and those who are not present this evening should read it.
I certainly think that the motion before us today on the government's responsibility for the present economic disorder in Canada and the disastrous consequences on the spirit and unity of the country, is an important one, and I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) for introducing it. In beginning what I have to say in general support of this motion, I want to state that I recognize there are, of course, international considerations that have stimulated a good deal of economic disorder throughout the world. However, there is little doubt that the economic mismanagement of the fiscal, monetary, and commercial policies of this country has to be laid primarily at the door of the present government.
As a social democrat I am troubled at the failure of the government not only to produce more needed goods and services for Canada, but also at its general failure to redistribute income as between the lowest 20 per cent on the income scale as against the highest. The amount of unemployment, both measured and hidden, is now the highest since the depression.
Let us first look at the distribution of income. It is a sad but true fact that under this government the poorest 20 per cent of Canadians share only 4.4 per cent of Canada's economic pie, which is technically called our national income or gross national product. On the other end of our income spectrum, the wealthiest 20 per cent of Canadians share 42.2 per cent of it.
These figures have remained almost the same despite the continuous introduction of new income transfer programs and the expansion of some older ones. It is despairing that, between 1969 and 1974, the family income of the poorest 20 per cent of Canadians fell by 7 per cent. This does not say much for the old Trudeau concept of building a just society in Canada.
It is a myth for federal Liberals to be claiming that they are, through their policies, increasingly redistributing away from the rich to the poor. The fact is that these so-called transfer payments, many of which were initiated by the CCF and the NDP, have not led to a reduction in the inequality of income in
May 19, 1977

this country but rather they have held that inequality virtually steady.
There is increasing evidence that Canada's tax system is less progressive now than it was ten years ago. The poor do benefit to some extent from transfer of income through the tax system, but the rich benefit even more. This latter point has been recently documented in a study done by the National Council of Welfare report called the "Hidden Welfare System."
Professor Irwin Gillespie's studies at Carleton University, and Gillespie is an acknowledged authority on how incomes are distributed in Canada, have pointed out that the total public sector does restribute income, but its redistribution is away from the middle and upper middle classes to both extremes of the income scale, to the poorest and the richest.
The net gains to the poor are twice as large as the gains to the upper middle classes, but the gains to a family in the richest income class are largest of all, some three times larger than the gains to the poorest family. In short, as Gillespie shows, the increasing contribution of middle and upper middle income Canadians generates the major gains to rich Canadians; each rich family gained three times more than each poor family and six times more than each middle income family.
It is distressing to realize that because of the loopholes allowed to the rich by this government, and because of the larger negative and regressive impact of federal and provincial sales taxes, as well as property taxes on the poor and low income earners, I repeat it is distressing to realize that the increase of transfer payments and higher taxes have left the poor in this country proportionately worse off in the middle of the 1970's than they were at the end of the 1960's.
It is equally distressing, if not more so, to see clear cut evidence, which the media in this country rarely focuses on, that the relative improvement of the rich has, for the most part, been at the expense of the middle class. Something is obviously wrong with the economic system and the management of it by this government.
Two of the serious implications of what I am saying about distribution of income refer to two groups in our society. The first is the one parent family headed by women. The second is the poor kids that exist in Canada. Let us discuss the question of one parent families headed by women.
In 1974, according to the last official statistics I have seen,
300,000	Canadian families had only one parent. In 261,230 of them, the parent is the mother. This has occurred of course because of the fivefold increase in divorces between 1964 and 1974, as well as because of desertion and deaths. Between 1966 and 1971, the number of single parent families increased at three times the rate of two parent families. The pressures on the women who are heads of these families is almost unbelievable, since studies show that poverty affects 53 per cent of all one parent families.
These pressures particularly affect women on their own. In 1973 the survey of consumer finances discovered that 59.6 per cent of single parent women lived in poverty. This compares
Economic Situation
with a national average of 12.7 per cent of all families and only 14.1 per cent for single parent males. The reason is obvious. Single men can get a job far more easily than single women, who can seldom get a job paying enough to support their children. Instead, they are forced onto welfare.
In 1974 almost 40 per cent of all Canadian women were working. They made up over 34 per cent of the Canadian labour force. Their earnings, though based on a 1973 Statistics Canada figure, were such that 45.9 per cent of all women heads of families earned less than $2.50 per hour. At the same time, only 11.2 per cent of male family heads earned that little. Of the over 631,000 children of single parent families in Canada, approximately 143,000 are pre-schoolers. Yet in 1974 there were only 50,000 daycare places available in Canada. Now what about the poor children?
The "Poor Kids" report by the National Council of Welfare on children in poverty in Canada, published in March, 1975, showed that there are more than one and a half million poor children in Canada.
I remember my leader asking me to do a short resume on behalf of our party over the CBC on this. I received ten letters saying it was not true. I sent each of those people who corresponded with me a copy of the report. Except for one person, each of them wrote back saying that they were shocked to see a verification of the poverty in that report.
As the report revealed, poor children are more likely than middle class children to be born prematurely, to be less fit, to have lower IQ ratings, and to underachieve in the school system. It goes without saying that poor children are less well represented in court. One of the striking things about this study is that it reveals that 60 per cent of all poor children in Canada live in Ontario or Quebec.
Let us look at unemployment under this government. Of course we know this is one of our most serious problems. If you count the official figure, which is over 900,000, along with the unofficial figure for the number of hidden unemployed, sometimes referred to as "discouraged workers" you arrive at a figure which is closer to 1,200,000. There is little doubt that with a growth rate in the economy projected at between 3.5 per cent and 4 per cent this year, the national unemployment rate this winter will be as high as 8.5 per cent or 9 per cent. Indeed, it will be much higher still except for a factor referred to as a decline in the participation rate in the labour force, which occurs when there are no jobs available in the economy. In such a situation the percentage of people working and looking for work automatically goes down. This is very true of the Atlantic region. Thus, the official unemployment rate as put out by Statistics Canada misstates the under-utilization of human beings in our economy.
Not only are we failing to produce many billions of dollars worth of needed goods and services which could have been produced had the unemployment rate been, say, 4 per cent, but one must also take into account the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in the form of taxation of governments at all

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
levels, plus the enormous unemployment insurance pay-outs which are presently necessary. The high unemployment is one of the major reasons why the budgetary deficit is so great.
I know that at the present time there is an attempt being made to rationalize the situation in many parts of the establishment by saying that unemployment is not as hard on people as it was in the thirties. This is little comfort to people who have to bring up families and maintain a standard of living in the seventies. It is said that, given the present rates of unemployment insurance benefits and other social programs, it is mainly the housewives, the young adults and people over 55 who are affected, not primary breadwinners. In other words, it is claimed that the composition of the unemployed has changed and that this makes a significant difference. To my mind, when government spokesmen use an argument of this kind- I recall the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) and the former minister of manpower and immigration, as well as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), resorting to it-it is no more than an attempt to rationalize a serious situation. None of us in this House would judge our standard of living, except that we are now getting large salaries, on any other basis but on family income. In other words, if you were a lawyer before you came here you would be judging your standard of living on the income you received as a lawyer and on the income which might be coming from other members of the family. And if this goes for that profession, what must it be like for the average Canadian?
The point I am trying to make is that we have to judge the seriousness of the unemployment among women, housewives, young adults and so on, by what it does to family incomes, rather than using the rationalization that it is not such a serious problem because it falls on the categories of people I have mentioned. We recall what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration said on one occasion about the changes in eligibility for unemployment insurance. It might have been a slip of the tongue, but it was very significant nevertheless. He said it was only housewives and "kids" who would be affected.
We know that unemployment among our youth is very serious, and attention has been called to it in a special way by figures recently released by Statistics Canada. Although I am supporting this motion put forward by the official opposition I was startled to read recently in the Ottawa Citizen about a dialogue which was supposed to have taken place between the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and a student at Medicine Hat, Alberta, on this question of student unemployment. The student was asking the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, according to this article, about a guaranteed income proposal he had endorsed during the leadership race last year. The Leader of the Official Opposition told the student he no longer favoured the proposal because recent abuses of unemployment insurance had convinced him it might prove too strong a disincentive to work. According to this report, he added, "The natural instinct to work is not as strong among young Canadians as I had thought." That is not exactly a new view. Nor is it supported by the facts.

While three out of every eight unemployment insurance recipients are under the age of 25, fully half of Canada's unemployed are in that age bracket. As beneficiaries of jobless pay, young people are actually under-represented. There is nothing mysterious about that. It is just that even the eight weeks of steady work needed to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits are hard to come by when job seekers outnumber jobs by almost 20 to one.
In the past two years the number of unemployed young people has grown from 258,000 to 387,000-from 9.6 per cent of those between 15 and 54 years of age in the labour force to a figure of 14 per cent. Some, including the present Minister of Manpower and Immigration, have tried to pin the blame on the education system. The hon. gentleman told a recent conference:
It is time for us in Canada to reorient our educational systems so that young people get the education and training which will ensure them employment.
Unfortunately the minister failed to explain what kind of education and training would enable the 778,000 then unemployed to fit into the 41,000 jobs which were then vacant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Andrew Hogan: In conclusion I should like to make a few comments on the issue of national unity. I thought I would have a little more time to spend on that question.
To the extent that the performance, or lack of performance, of the economy has intensified the Quebec separatist movement, the present government must be held responsible for the unemployment rate of some 10 per cent which exists in that province. At least 40 per cent of the young people in Quebec are suffering the effects of unemployment generated in large part by the failure of the federal government's economic policy. It cannot be blamed on the Parti Quebecois.
The government has certainly mismanaged the national economy and we, in the Atlantic region, together with our fellow citizens in Quebec, share the legacy, as I have already noted, in the form of extraordinarily high unemployment. It is little wonder that a tenured, separatist, professional elite at the University of Montreal and other universities in the province, as well as teachers at high school level, find willing ears among young Quebec students as they advocate their separatist ideas. After all, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) comes from that province, and he was telling us last year that separatism was dead. Some death! No wonder we are in trouble as a nation.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to speak the full 20 minutes, but the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) also has to get in his speech tonight so I
May 19, 1977

will keep my remarks to not more than ten minutes to give him at least a few minutes in which to say a few words.
I should like to congratulate the mover of this motion who, I am sorry, is not here at this point, on the speech he made today. It was a speech that contained a great deal of moderation and thought. Many other speeches have been made along the same line, and in general I think we have been looking for solutions to the problems confronting us.
At a time when the economy has been growing at the rate of 3 to 4 per cent over the last eight or ten years as opposed to growth of perhaps 2 per cent over the last century, when we are fourth or fifth lowest in terms of rate of inflation among OECD countries, when we have created by far the largest number of jobs of any country among OECD countries in the last five to six years, and when we weathered best the recession compared with other OECD countries, it seems strange that there should be such concern and malaise in the country today.
Under normal circumstances, Mr. Speaker, our achievements might be considered a roaring success, but these are not normal circumstances. These are not normal times but very complex times. In order to solve our problems we must look at the future very differently from the way we looked ahead in former times. We must find different solutions because the problems are different.
Most of us in this House grew up and were educated under a regime which told us there were no such things as shortages- if only we could let ourselves go we could have everything in Canada. We were told we had all the resources necessary, and in such great abundance around us that we could consume, consume, consume. That has been the modus vivendi of our society. Then in the past three or four years a very important change came about. Instead of the notion of cheap and abundant energy, we have now reached a point where we are facing shortages of energy. All of a sudden we have a totally new concept; instead of the concept of abundance we have the concept of shortage.
In the last few days we had a report published by the workshop on alternate energy sources which told us that as early as 1985 the world will experience a very serious shortage of oil. By the end of the century this shortage will be such that we will probably have to convert to other energy supplies, and automobiles in their present form will no longer exist. This is a major problem which will require some very serious thought and radical change.
We are also told that in the next 15 years Canada will need $180 billion for energy capital in today's dollars. This means that every family unit in the country will be required to pay out something like $30,000, almost the equivalent of the cost of a home in today's dollars. Last week we had a magnificent report by Mr. Justice Berger which told us about the problems of the north, both environmental and social, which this kind of energy development could cause. We have been told by the President of the United States, and by our own energy minister, that we must change our ways, that we must learn to conserve, that we must move away from a consumption type
Economic Situation
economy. We must embark upon a wholly new lifestyle. As I say, these are not the times we have known in the past.
Another problem facing us is inflation. Inflation is worldwide and not confined to Canada or to one or two countries here and there. With almost no exception there seems to be a basic inflation rate of 5 per cent no matter what one does. This 5 per cent basic inflation rate was discussed at the economic summit and seems to be an insuperable problem.
Unemployment is also a word-wide problem. Even with a 3 to 4 per cent growth rate there is massive unemployment, not just in Canada but all over the industrial world. Despite more than a 20 per cent increase in jobs in this country between 1971 and 1975, twice the rate of any other country in the OECD group, we have serious unemployment in Canada. Consumer demand is growing at a rate of 5 to 6 per cent a year, despite the energy shortage. In the last few months $2.4 billion was pumped into the economy in terms of demand money. Despite the last budget and indexing, we still have massive unemployment.
Unemployment is a structural problem, not a problem which can be solved by increasing money supply and consumer demand. If you have a 4.6 per cent unemployment rate in Alberta but a 17.4 per cent unemployment rate in Newfoundland and you increase consumer demand, this will mean that most of the benefit will go to Alberta with only a slight lowering of the unemployment rate in Newfoundland. In other words, it is a structural problem which requires a structural answer.
I should like to deal with the regional approach because I think this is the direction in which we should go. For example, I am pleased at the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow the act to function differently in the Atlantic provinces from the way the act functions in Toronto.
Young people and women who enter the labour force also face a serious employment problem. During the 1950's about
60,000	young people were leaving schools, universities and so on and entering the labour market annually. Today this figure is around 250,000 a year and is rising, and we are told that the situation will not improve until well into the 1990's. How can we solve this kind of problem?
The thing that bothers me a great deal about the situation is that we are virtually setting up two classes of Canadians. One class of Canadian is employed in the work force permanently. The other class, which I think consists mostly of young people, may very well never be part of the work force. I do not think we can solve this problem by increasing demand or even by government projects. Rather we must look at the total work force and at the amount of work that can gainfully be done, and then somewhere along the line there must be a concept of work sharing, some way in which young people can plug into the labour market and older people can retire earlier. We have to look at new ideas to solve this problem.
In conclusion, these are unique times. I would love to develop that notion, but these are very, very different times,

May 19, 1977
Economic Situation
and the solutions are not going to be the standard ones we hear talked about in this House. We must move in new directions and do a lot of new thinking before we come to a successful solution to the problems we have. We must change our lifestyle significantly in the next four or five years.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) for giving up some of his time to allow me to have a word or two at the end of this important debate today. I am pleased and proud to have the opportunity to be the closing speaker in this debate because I think it is an important one. The parliament of Canada must get involved in an understanding and a discussion of the issues, which have to be the most important issues that have faced Canada since Confederation.
I have been alarmed and distressed, since the election of Mr. Levesque in the province of Quebec, that this parliament has been moribund in not dealing or discussing with any sort of depth the real issues which are facing the nation. If we do not start to face them in the federal parliament of Canada, we will lead to the destruction of the nation we all cherish so much. The party which 1 have the honour of representing today has done a major service in introducing a motion which asks parliamentarians to look at issues which are important in Canada today. 1 am referring mainly to the important issue of separation. I am sorry the motion today was not dealt with in a more direct manner.
What has been the fundamental relationship between the development of separatism in the province of Quebec and the operation of the economic policy of this nation as a whole? Historically you will not find any examples where separatism in a country has risen except in response to a very strong differentiation in levels of economic performance.
If you look at the evolution issue in Great Britain today, the problem areas for the British are Scotland and Wales. There have been major differences in levels of economic performance there. If you look at France, Brittany is the area which has been concerned about the operation of the country as a whole. It has been an area of deprivation. The areas where federalism has really worked are areas where there have not been major differentiations in levels of economic performance. If you look at Canada and analyse the economic performance in the province of Quebec, as related to economic performance in other areas of this country, the reality is that the province of Quebec has had a much poorer economic performance than the rest of the country as a whole.
In the province of Quebec the level of unemployment has been consistently high and the rate of investment has been consistently low. The question one has to ask is: why? The national government has the responsibility for economic performance. It has the responsibility for doing something about the differentiation in regional rates of development. It has failed. The issue is very important and must be made clear to the people of the province of Quebec. They have been given a song by the premier of Quebec that they can have political independence and the same standard of living which they have at the present time. It is a song which is very hard to resist. To

the terrible criticism of all of us in the Parliament of Canada, it is going unanswered.
The program being offered by the premier of Quebec is going to be irresistible to many of the people in that province because it is based on some very real facts. The people who happen to be members of parliament in Canada at this time will be looked on by their children and grandchildren as having not even responded to these issues. If anyone canvasses around Canada, they will find out that the respect the people of Canada have for their members of parliament has gone down. The reason is very clear. We are not living up to our responsibilities. We are not debating the real issues in the House of Commons of Canada today. We are not raising the questions about which the people of Canada care. They care about keeping this country together. They want this country kept together, and we do not talk about it here. We do not debate it here.
We had an opportunity today to come to grips with this issue. I have great respect for the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell). He did not direct himself to this issue. He spoke about the west, in a debate which ought to be on whether or not this country is going to stay together. He spoke about tariffs. That is not the issue. The issue is: why has not the federal Government of Canada been able to provide for the people of Quebec an economic opportunity equivalent to that enjoyed by the rest of the people of Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It has not been better in the Atlantic provinces, and they are not leaving Canada.


James McPhail Gillies: The statistics are very clear. They show the people of the province of Quebec have been faced with an unemployment rate which has been consistently 20 per cent higher than the rest of Canada. Why is that so when they have the resource base they possess? To mention the Atlantic provinces is irrelevant. It is also unimportant in this context if you look at the resource base in those areas. The important issue to the people of the province of Quebec is whether they are going to stay in Confederation. I do not care whether you are Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Creditiste. That is irrelevant to me. I would like to see this country stay together. That is what I care about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: I do not care about those other things. The people of Quebec know their economic performance has been low. It is our responsibility to have an important debate to show them, if they separate and if they vote for Mr. Levesque, that their performance will not be improved. They have to be shown that the reasons for their low economic performance are not endemic to Confederation.
If they decide to go with Mr. Levesque in the province of Quebec, which is a market of six million people instead of 22 million people, with a concern about investment being slowed down because of uncertainty, and a concern about nationalization of asbestos, their standard of living is going to be much less than if they stay within Confederation. Nobody in this
May 19, 1977

parliament or in this country is telling the people of Quebec that story. As federal politicians we are going to find out, because we did not tell them that story-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest pleasure I would have allowed the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) some of my time tonight because I will not need seven minutes. I will try to follow on the same theme as the hon. member for Don Valley has raised this evening, which is Canadian unity.
The reason I am on my feet tonight is in regard to the problems we are facing in Canada with hundreds of thousands of people requesting that the WHL hockey finals be televised. We have had very little success with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in resolving this problem until today. The hockey finals could be a great step toward Canadian unity. This matter has nothing to do with French, English, or anything else. People in Quebec, in Manitoba, and in the rest of Canada want to see the hockey finals. We have been running into a blank wall, and the matter has now reached the floor of the House of Commons. It has been brought up time and time again over the last number of weeks, and today it took three members of parliament to raise this issue before we could get any action on why CBC will not televise the WHL finals. One of the reasons given is that they show too much sport. It is said that the WHA games are not on the same level as those of the NHL. I do not agree. Today the WHA is on the same level as the NHL. Since hundreds of thousands of people are demanding the televising of this particular hockey final, the least the CBC can do is comply with their wishes.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This government does not care.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As I said earlier, three members of parliament raised the question in the House, I being one of them, but we got absolutely no answers from the three ministers we questioned. I pursued the question this afternoon in the Stand-
Adjournment Debate
ing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts. The President of the CBC, Mr. A. Johnston, was there. Since I raised this question in committee this afternoon, several things have happened. I received three telephone calls from the CBC this evening. Apparently they are prepared to show a couple of these final games live. I am repeating what I have been told by CBC officials. Incidentally, I am pleased to note the presence in the House of the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) who answers for the CBC. I hope he will confirm what the CBC liaison officer in the House of Commons told me this evening. I am told that the fifth game can be shown live, if that game can be scheduled for the afternoon.
If the WHA cannot schedule that game for the afternoon, the CBC will tape the game and show it after the news on Sunday night. The CBC has also informed me that the sixth game can be taped and shown on Tuesday night, May 24, after the late night news. That tapes game will also be shown in Quebec.
The CBC has presented the WHA with an alternative proposal. The CBC told the WHA that if Tuesday's game could be moved to Thursday, the CBC would be able to cover that game live, and broadcast it live in Manitoba and Quebec, and I presume right across Canada. The CBC also says that, if a seventh game is necessary, if it is played on the afternoon of Saturday, May 28, it could be televised live on the English and French networks.
Apparently we have made progress since this afternoon as a result of previous representations in the House, letters, telephone calls and so on. I hope the minister will confirm what I have just placed on record with regard to the CBC's providing coverage of the WHA finals.


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the hon. member who reminds me of a barnyard cock who firmly believes the sun rises every day because he crows.
The hon. member raised this question today in the House, and he also raised it in committee this afternoon. But the matter was raised by others long before the hon. member showed any interest in it. It was raised by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos), and by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). The fact is that such interventions in relation to this question did not begin this afternoon. They began last week. I myself called the parliamentary liaison officer to the CBC on Friday, and there have been continuing contacts between my office and the CBC with respect to this issue for several days. The results which the hon. member has proudly proclaimed as coming from his interventions are actually the results of interventions made by members on this side of the House long before he showed any interest in the matter.
The point I would like to make is that in terms of the intervention of ministers in relation to these matters it is not the Secretary of State who has the power to intervene with the CBC or to direct it to do this or that in terms of its internal management, its day-to-day decisions or its programming. The

May 19, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Secretary of State is a link between hon. members of this House and the CBC, and as such 1 do bring to the attention of the CBC the complaints which are presented to me by hon. members of this House and the concerns which they express. That is what I have done in this case, and I am very happy to be able to indicate to the House that the interventions which
were made by the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) and my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), have been successful.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.07 p.m.

Friday, May 20, 1977