1977-07-05

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, July 4, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cullen that Bill C-27, an act to establish the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Canada Employment and Immigration Advisory Council, to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971, and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate a great deal has been said about the problem of unemployment. It has been very interesting to listen to people quote statistics on the large number of unemployed. If a person is unemployed, it does not really make much difference to him if all his neighbours are unemployed, or if there are a million people or a million and a half people unemployed in Canada. For him, unemployment means a total change in his standard of living and the way in which he relates to his community.
Many members are too young, and some have poor memories, but the remarks made last night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) everyone in Canada should take very seriously. During the last depression, one afternoon a young fellow came to my father's farm and we hired him to help with the hay and milking. I remember his being paid $25 a month, which was probably $10 more than he would have had from a neighbour, since my father was fortunate enough to have a government job in 1935. When war was declared, I enlisted in the air force. I remember walking down one of the tunnels in the asylum for the insane at St. Thomas where they trained all the Commonwealth technicians for our war effort. I remember passing a guy and saying "Hi". Although this guy was a wing commander and I was an AC-2, he was the same man who had worked for us for $25 a month on the farm and was damned glad to get it.
[DOT] (mo)
I also remember others who, because they were veterans, were moved into northern Ontario and given land you could not have grown anything on if you had been the late J.C. They were put on that land as a favour because they were veterans. I remember one of these veterans in particular, my father-inlaw, who had been a successful businessman in Windsor and had moved to the farm at a time when you could not get enough food to feed the children. Yet in less than 10 years he was running the major employment branch of Hill-Clark and Francis, one of the largest woodworking factories in North America at that time, being responsible for about 400 employees.
It seems to me that we are doing the same sort of thing again. It is possible today to get a job digging ditches, if you want to dig ditches. You can get a job picking tobacco or tending to the crop before it is picked. It is possible to get a transient type of job. But we have a very highly skilled, highly trained and highly motivated group of young Canadians, many of them products of the baby boom following the last war, who are now looking for work. Although we made an effort to train them, they find it impossible now to get any employment. What a terrible waste. We have educated them to enter a society which is incapable of providing them with gainful employment.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said last night, we will end this before long by having a world confrontation, by having a war. This is all society is capable of doing. As sure as I am standing here, we have learned nothing in the last 50 years. We have already had two major wars to end unemployment, and it looks as if we will have another one very shortly. Such a war could break out anywhere. I am not a prophet and cannot pick the spot, but this time it will likely be in Africa.
It seems to me that after the last war we believed we were smart enough to be able to control our own society and economy and no longer would we have to settle unemployment problems by war, by killing off a few people and dumping production in the ocean or some place because there was not enough money to buy it. No longer should we talk about the Rothschilds or the Carnegies or other well known families which may have played a very large role so far as the last war is concerned. We should realize there were many economies which just did not have enough money in the system to make it possible to purchase the goods they were capable of producing. We are again in that position, not only so far as food supplies are concerned but other commodities as well.
I remember the very homey remarks of the late leader of the Social Credit party, Real Caouette. He used to talk on televi-

July 5, 1977
Employment and Immigration
sion about the need for sidewalks in a certain community. He pointed out that we had the people, that we obviously had the sand, cement and the water, and that we had the cement machines to make the cement. All we needed was the will to put it all together and we would have sidewalks. But if any of the ingredients are missing, whether it be the manpower, the water, the cement or the sand, it is pretty hard to make sidewalks.
Something is missing today, Mr. Speaker, since we are not able to build houses or to provide an adequate living for Canadians although this country has resources in abundance. But we will be able to do so if there is a war. If we get mad enough at somebody else, we will find a way. We will have the will, we will provide the money, and we will realize our immense potential.
Let me tell the House what happened at the beginning of the last war in regard to something we need very badly today. Canada has one of the longest coastlines in the world. There is an abundance of fish off our shores. We have some oil and gas off our shores. There is immense potential in the sea. We are a trading nation, and therefore we need the sea as a highway to move our goods to market. But we do not have any ships. The same was true at the beginning of the last war. We built the liberty ships and a merchant navy which grew to be third largest in the world. Then, right after the war, C.D. Howe sold it all to Onassis, and Onassis died a very wealthy man. So we learnt nothing from that; we still do not have any ships.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Jackie got it all.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend says Jackie got it. It is a very odd situation when the wife of a president ends up owning a Greek merchant navy. Perhaps this is an indication of the times we live in. But one thing we could do is build ourselves another merchant navy. I was very interested in accompanying other members of the House to a NATO meeting very recently where they talked about how limited were supplies and about how long they would last before we would have to replace them. Does it not amuse members of parliament; does it not amuse the nation-


Mr. Alexander:: I am interested in the hon. member's tours throughout the world, and particularly his recent visit to NATO; but I thought we were dealing with Bill C-27, amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I hope my good friend will desist from recounting that interesting trip and will get back to reality, namely, Bill C-27.


William Arnold Peters: Perhaps I am taking a circuitous route, but I was trying to say that when we went to NATO they indicated that we would have to move supplies to Europe, and that most of them would have to be moved by boat. Surely, we and the rest of the country can see us having to hire a Panamanian, Liberian or Onassis fleet to take our goods from this country to the areas in need. The point I am making, for the information of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), is that there are measures we could take to end the unemploy-

ment problem in Canada, and if we do that the minister will not try to cut down the benefits which we pay to our unemployed.
It seems to me that the honorable member for Hamilton West has not been able to participate in this debate except to say, "Me, too. Yes, Mr. Minister, you have cut it down a little bit, so I will support it". That is no answer. The answer must be to provide employment so that jobs are made available for people in this country. I think it is damned important for us to put the problem in the right perspective; that is, we have the trained people and the resources in this country, yet we are still incapable of providing the jobs and the benefits that should flow from them. The production lost as a result of strikes has always been pointed out. Sure, we have strikes in this country.


An hon. Member:: A hell of a lot of them.


William Arnold Peters: That may be true. But the loss in production as a result of unemployment is far greater than the loss in production as a result of strikes. Nobody ever talks about that. The hon. member who made the comment a while ago is a Liberal; therefore, he should be interested in a Liberal way in facing the problems of the country. That means providing employment and the government giving leadership. All the government is saying is that they cannot get the money, and therefore have to cut back on the benefits paid to the unemployed.
I said last night, in the few moments I had to speak, that no matter how good this minister may be, he is not capable of handling this department in the way proposed. Immigration is a major problem in this country. The province of Quebec is saying that they want a say in matters of immigration. So immigration is very important. But if it is so important, why do we tack it on to the tail end of the employment structure in the nation, when we have never had as many problems in that area as now? Surely, if the government were serious, it would break up this department, take immigration out of it, as well as some ancillary functions, and leave employment and unemployment to the minister who should be working in close co-operation with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour not only to provide benefits for the unemployed but also to provide jobs for them.
The minister refers to young people as bums, and to housewives as creating problems in short-term employment. I heard that when I was a kid. I heard that all the people walking up and down the road were bums. They were bums in the sense that they were hobos or gypsies travelling from place to place. Many young people know today that you can travel from coast to coast in this country and still be unable to find employment.
What is the government's answer? It is to reduce payments to those who are in the very worst circumstances. Let me say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Hamilton West who does not seem to understand this problem, that it is very much like the gun legislation. It depends to a great extent on where you come from and what your aspirations are. If you live in downtown Toronto, it is quite possible to visit 1,000 employers
July 5, 1977

in a month and ask for 1,000 jobs; but I suppose that 50 per cent of members here represent ridings with communities where there is only one industry. In such communities it is impossible to get a job unless someone leaves his job or dies. The only way to solve the problem in such cases-and it is a reasonably simple way of solving the unemployment problem-is to set up an additional industry. In my community there have been two major bankruptcies recently, resulting in the loss of about 1,000 jobs, which meant that approximately one-third of the whole labour force was affected.
Unless another one-third of the labour force leave their jobs, there is no possibility in the near future for the unemployed one-third who have been laid off, because of the bankruptcies, to find employment in that community. They can either leave the area or they can stay there and hope that someone, somewhere will be able to provide them with a job. Many of these people enjoy the dubious benefits of short-term assistance from the federal government, the dubious benefits of the Canada Youth Program or of Canada Works. These benefits are dubious because they are obviously only a stop-gap measure. They do not provide these people with training or allow them to get ahead in any chosen profession. They do not do anything but supply them with sufficient income to maintain themselves and their families for a short period of time.
I cannot help but think that if you were to give that kind of donation to a young businessman-in my area it amounts to about $200,000-he would probably set up a business which would employ 50 or 60 people, which would provide permanent jobs and which would be expansionary in nature, thus creating additional jobs in the future. The kinds of jobs that are provided in these types of programs are temporary, mundane jobs that do nothing for a person's morale or future opportunities.
Unemployment insurance has always been the scapegoat of the Liberal party. They have used unemployment insurance since the day it was proposed by Woodsworth to Mackenzie King. Mackenzie King did not only see it as a benefit for the people, but also a benefit for the Liberal party-and it certainly has been used as that. I remember when they brought into the program, for political reasons, the fishermen from the east coast. They had no chance of being employed year-round because they could only fish part of the year. The rest of the year they were subsidized by the unemployment insurance fund.
The next time there was an election, the bushworkers were brought in. They are seasonal workers in the forest industry. They became indicators in the systems. Every time there has been difficulty, unemployment insurance has been changed and tampered with. That is what is happening this time. The minister had no intention of going beyond 12 weeks until the hon. member for Hamilton West made a big fuss. That big fuss resulted in the minister's own backbenchers raising a hue and cry and demanding that those in less advantageous areas be given a temporary advantage. The scheme the government
Employment and Immigration
has come up with is probably the worst possible scheme it could have developed. There are something like 54 districts-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman. A point of order was raised earlier by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander). At that time I did not have the bill before me, but I have now. The amendment before the House is as follows:
That Bill C-27 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for the purpose of reconsidering clauses 29 and 30 thereof.
Citation 165(9) of Beauchesne's reads:
After an amendment has been moved and seconded, the question on the amendment is proposed, and any member who speaks after that question has been proposed speaks to it and not to the main question.
Therefore, I ask the hon. member to refer to clauses 29 and 30.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is what I was trying to tell you earlier.


William Arnold Peters: The hon. member had a much more valid point of order then than he has now, because I am speaking about-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are questioning the Chair. I didn't stand up.


Mr. Darling:: He didn't say anything.


Mr. Paproski:: Don't you dare question the Chair, Arnold.


William Arnold Peters: I am not questioning the Chair. I am suggesting that I am in order. If I reflected on the decision of the Chair in any way, I apologize and I withdraw those remarks. I felt that the hon. member for Hamilton West was not paying very much attention to what I was saying, or he would have known that I was in order at the time.
Perhaps some hon. members do not know the problems we already have with regard to the computer. Since it has been introduced, the computer has had to take into consideration a number of factors which are not necessarily related to the amount of the contributions or to the pay-out of benefits which takes place in the day to day operations of the act. In addition, there are other factors such as the national unemployment level as ascertained by Statistics Canada, Canada Manpower, and so forth. The national figure is a very dubious one, but it is inserted into the computer and that figure is used despite all the other factors involved. Now there is another factor. The regional factor will also be fed into the computer and each case will be calculated according to region. That is so complicated that nobody will know whether calculations are being done correctly or not.
Besides the 10 to 14-week requirement, there will be 54 independent areas. All this will be a nightmare for anyone trying to ascertain whether he is getting what he is entitled to. Also, appeals will be difficult. Instead of using all these complicated factors, it might be wise to go back to the system where claimants came face to face with the people who made the decisions with regard to claims. Rather than referring matters to district offices, or conducting appeals of various
7292

July 5, 1977
Employment and Immigration
kinds, including the involvement of members of parliament, would it not be much more simple for a person to make a claim face to face with the person who is going to make the decision?
Anyone who had anything to do with the changes which took place on at least two previous occasions will know that these latest changes will cause untold difficulty as far as the computer is concerned. In addition, the minister says we are going to apply this program over a period of three years, in varying degrees, and that at the end of the third year, unless parliament makes a change-and we can rest assured that it will make a change-we will go to the 14-week entrance requirement. Operating the system with a computer is going to be very confusing. Let me use an example so the minister will know what we are talking about. An unemployed person in Gaspe goes to Sarnia where there is a high employment rate. In Sarnia a person will have to work 14 weeks, and the rate will be different. Perhaps that person from Gaspe lives next door to someone from the local area. His benefits will have to be calculated in a totally different way than his neighbour's. There will be considerable difference in the length of time for which he will receive benefits. He will probably receive benefits when his neighbour will not be able to do so.
The minister shakes his head, but that is a fact. That is the way it will work. The minister wants mobility. That means people will be moving around the country. They will be moving from my area, where there is 15 per cent unemployment, to the constituency of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), where there may be a low rate of unemployment. People will be getting rates different from their neighbours'. Benefits will be calculated in a different manner. The length of time benefits can be received will be different in different areas, and the amount of benefits will also be calculated differently in different areas.
People in the department who have been involved with this subject for a long time are very good at changing one thing to solve another, but in doing so they often create about three new problems. The minister has to listen to them because this is complicated legislation and he has other problems to deal with which are just as complicated. Each person has an idea about how a particular problem can be solved. The minister seems willing to incorporate all this into the legislation. How much more simple it would be for us to discuss in this House the problem of how to create employment.
Surely, even the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling), who is making some noises, could give this parliament very good advice on how to provide employment. Indeed, most members of the House could offer ideas on how to provide full employment for this country. Surely, we are not going to wait until a general says that the only way to solve unemployment is to declare war, or a general somewhere else says, "For the good of the people, we will take the country over", as happened yesterday in Pakistan. And not only the generals, but the admirals. We had to get rid of one because I

understand he told the government that war is inevitable and we should prepare for it. He is right. War is as inevitable as the fact that the sun is going to set tonight and rise tomorrow-unless we can find a better economic system to provide employment for the people.
The war may take a very unusual turn because it may come from the people we have educated. They may bite the hand that fed them in the cradle because they have been trained in the stupid universities we have in this country. They are stupid; there is no doubt about that. We have business schools, but they cannot train people to start a business. Who starts a business in this country? The man who never went to college but who just got out and did it. The college man would not start a business because he has studied Adam Smith and knows the theory that it would not work today.
This stupid clause which will create a calamity for people in underprivileged areas of the country will pass because the government has the numbers-not because they are right. They have the numbers, and they have friends in other places to assist them. Surely, no one in this House would agree that changing the Unemployment Insurance Act is the best way to solve the problem. It can only be solved by providing work for the people now seeking unemployment insurance.
Not long ago I inquired at the Manpower centre in my town about the number of women in the area who were unemployed. Something like 150 women were registered for employment at that time. The manager of the office told me the same thing that the leader of my party has been saying for a long time, namely, that there are probably more hidden unemployed in this country than there are registered unemployed. He suggested that there might be 300 women looking for work, not just the 150 who were registered. When K-Mart opened a store in a shopping centre in the area, 300 people applied for employment in one day. I am told that altogether 1,200 people applied for the 75 part-time jobs paying the minimum wage. The government and the Conservatives say that people do not want to work, but these 1,200 people would have liked to try. Maybe they would not have liked the jobs, and maybe they would not have stayed. I cannot tell that. They did apply for employment, however, and employment was not available.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we send this bill back so that consideration can be given to this clause.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate which apparently will be carried on indefinitely, since I had stated my views at other stages of the discussion. However, I wonder today whether it would not be advisable to ask hon. members to come to an agreement without monopolizing the time of the House. We realize, Mr. Speaker, that a war of attrition has been launched. The government has decided to stand pat. It was probably deceived by its officials, because we know that in the end they are the ones who do the work and direct the minister in his decisions. I think that at the outset the minister meant well, even if the bill gave rise to long discussions and several changes.
July 5, 1977

He brought in some minor changes to the bill after it had been considered at length in committee, he decided to rewrite the whole bill if necessary to bring in other changes: but I think what this bill needs is a radical overhaul. We are dealing with the superficial, and the civil servants-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It might be useful to remind the hon. member that the discussion is on the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and more precisely on clauses 29 and 30 of the bill, and not on the bill generally.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. You intervened a moment ago but other speakers before me have had more time. Of course, the Chair can always call members to order on this amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, an amendment dealing with clauses 29 and 30, but I think that if we are to understand this amendment to clauses 29 and 30 it is necessary to speak a little about the bill to see what brought on this discussion. It is all very well to restrict the debate without talking about the core of the matter.
The Chair wants us to try to pluck the bird without knowing specifically what kind of bird we are dealing with. Furthermore, I must say that I am not prepared to accept these matters of restrictions. I simply want to talk about the motions put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre providing some amendments because the minister tells us that he increased the qualifying period and reduced the benefit period. Then, he is telling us that those who will benefit most from the new system are the regions with a high unemployment rate. Let us see. Having cut down at both ends, the minister talks about the regions with the highest level of unemployment. So I am justified in fighting back because there is a 30 per cent unemployment rate in my area, Mr. Speaker.
I was furious when I heard people talking about 12 weeks, and rightly so. This was changed from 10 to 14 weeks but it is not yet in proportion with the unemployment rate in our area at all, Mr. Speaker, especially when the benefit period is reduced to 30 or 32 weeks. What is the result of these amendments? It means that the unemployment insurance fund will save more money and that the Liberal government will go on levying taxes as they have been doing for 15 years, while transferring the responsibility on to the provinces because after 30 or 32 weeks, the guy will not be able to get unemployment benefits and he will still be without work. Then he will fall under the responsibility of the province.
The Liberal government is so apt at shifting the responsibility on the provinces that we would not dare talk about it at the present time. Finally, however, the provinces will be forced to care for him through welfare. They will have to replace the federal government which has the funds, which taxed the workers for this unemployment insurance fund and now that they have been taxed to the hilt the government turns off the
Employment and Immigration
tap, keeps the funds and tells them to go to their provincial governments or to refer to welfare services in their province.
This is all we will end up with, in view of these amendments. And people are surprised. They say here that the efforts of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) to introduce the notion of regional disparities into our unemployment insurance scheme are far from gaining the support of all hon. members in the opposition, and I am sure that if hon. members on the government side could speak their mind and have their say, they would show that they are not happy about them either. They are not more stupid than we are, but they are not allowed to say what they want. They are simply sitting there, waiting for this war of attrition to end.
It is most unfortunate indeed to have a system of government which operates like this, for I feel that all together, we in this House certainly represent the larger number of Canadians and want them to obtain a fair deal and compensation for all the taxes they are paying, but that is not what is happening today. We need not wonder why none of the provinces are happy with the federal administration. None of them are happy because the federal government is getting too much for what it is willing to give back. The proof is right here, in the number of weeks and the arrangements for paying unemployment insurance benefits.
Mr. Speaker, in the beginning, I was rather pleased with this work because the idea was to reunite the two services, but I now realize that this reunification will double the number of public servants and that we shall have twice as many well-paid public servants while the unemployed will receive nothing, and that twice as many public servants will benefit from the taxes paid by the workers to protect themselves. Of course, the public servants are well protected! The trouble today is that we have a public service government. There is now one public servant for every four people; if we go on like this, tomorrow there will be one public servant for every two residents in Canada. Let us go on, everything is fine, but during that time, people are starving. It is a good thing that part of the population is working, but in a few years, I believe there will be more people out of work than people who are working, and that those who work will get discouraged and will put an end to this whole system because today, those who earn $400 a week give $175 in taxes to the federal government. This is what hurts and it is expensive. I therefore believe that we should draw the attention of the government to this subject. It is very well to say that wage increases are accepted, but I believe that the government accepts them because it is profitable.
We are now reducing the number of weeks to get rid of the high level of unemployed. There is one point that I would like to make. It is true that there are unemployed people with a good education, I admit this, but what have we done in this regard? I would like to give an example of the unemployment problem at the higher level. I now have a list of young people aged from 20 to 25, technicians who have a degree in electronics. Mr. Speaker, these technicians would like to work. The employer is there and is trying to give them work. He wants to
80018-59Vi

Employment and Immigration
do so, but as soon as he is discovered, he would have to pay a $500 fine to the Quebec Construction Board, even though he would like to hire people who are much more competent than the old employees who got their trade card because of sympathy. Today, these young people are not directly under the jurisdiction of the federal government, but I believe that the federal government should, as much as possible, bring pressure to bear in this case because the situation is disastrous. These young people go to the Quebec Construction Board for a trade card. They have a trade. They have degrees. But the union leaders control the situation and the young people are told: We have enough people, we do not need to hire anyone else or still, you do not have any experience. They are told to go and gain experience when they cannot even get a working permit.
Mr. Speaker, I was using that example simply to indicate to the minister that that malaise exists. When he goes to discuss this with Quebec's manpower minister-I already suggested this on several occasions unsuccessfully-perhaps he will get better results. But it is a bad thing. And do not forget that those who have had the Quebec construction Board working permit for 25 or 30 years work six months a year and rest the other six. That is what I call unemployment with luxury. Those people earn $12, $13 or $14 an hour during six months, and then tell themselves they are going to pay everything in taxes, so they are better off not going to work. Those are the people on unemployment insurance.
Those are the kind of problems that need to be considered, Mr. Speaker. We must try to solve them to find the way to get ourselves out of that slump and allow our young people to enter the labour market before they decide to take the ultimate way out-revolution. I did say the ultimate way out because if you saw all the young people who come to my office you would realize that they are pretty close to revolution. When you consider that a young man cannot even get a simple labourer's working permit-I did say "a simple labourer's working permit"-without being fined! But when will we stop stifling people with all those fines left and right and telling people: You are not allowed to go here, you are not allowed to go there, you are not allowed to do that! Instead they are being told: Apply for social welfare. Mr. Speaker, as long as we will have bills like the one which is now before us, that will not solve the real problem. No. I call them public servants' bills to increase highly paid public servants and let the others starve.
I would like this discussion to end as soon as possible but I urge the government to act. It should be able to do something to bring about some changes in this area. We have come up with some suggestions and drawn its attention on these points. We are saying that the present work week is not consistent with the unemployment rates in our region or elsewhere. We should absolutely do our best to help those who are drawing unemployment benefits while working. That smacks of patronage! I believe we could reach a consensus by having officials draft omnibus bills, while government members are sitting still, waiting for the debate to come to an end.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I hope an effort will be made-for we are sensible people-to cut this debate short so we will not

have to spend the whole month of July in this House for nothing, while the minister keeps saying that he will not budge an inch. I am only asking the minister to think about it and make a final effort to bring this discussion to a close.


Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, like some other members, it was not my intention to speak on this bill. However, in view of the economic situation in my constituency and the maritime region generally, I feel I have an obligation to my constituents and the people of that area to make this House realize that we are still a part of confederation even though the CBC on Dominion Day failed to realize it. Nevertheless, my remarks will be brief. They will be to the point and, in some cases, very pointed. The bill has some valid propositions. However, they are so veiled they do not appear as being valid. There are other points and questions in the bill that are questionable, particularly in view of the serious unemployment rate and the economic situation in this country, especially in my constituency and the maritime region generally.
Considering all the present circumstances, the economic situation and the unemployment situation, I suggest that the motion to have this bill set over for some months is proper. The bill should be considered, and the whole organization of the Manpower department, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the allied bureaucracy related thereto should be considered. They should come up with something that is based on a positive policy of employment, which is a more positive and logical direction.
We should be talking about employment, not providing unemployment benefits. That is where the philosophy of this bill and its predecessors are wrong and out of place. The government should study unemployment insurance benefits, social assistance benefits, welfare benefits and welfare assistance in total and come up with a co-ordinated scheme to provide employment. Instead of unemployment, welfare and like social programs, we should be considering items like this. A special employment fund should be set up to provide for the carrying out of worth-while and necessary federally-funded and operated projects which would create employment in times of recession, depression and in slow growth areas such as the maritimes. In my own area of the maritime provinces, I speak of two items. I have spoken about these to other members of the House. I mentioned one that would provide employment and reduce the number of people on unemployment insurance.
As the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) stated, it is jobs that are important. 1 remind the government of the Chignecto Canal, a promise of confederation that has never been carried out. There have been 12 engineering studies paid for by the federal government, and three royal commissions. Not a sod of earth has been turned except the one by a member of parliament several years ago. Another project is Fundy tidal power. Why can that not be done? From an engineering point of view it is feasible. If projects like these
July 5, 1977

were carried out, those areas could get on their feet and be self sufficient. As well as providing improvements for the area, they would provide employment. We would not have to talk about unemployment insurance benefits.
We do not want to be a have-not area in the maritimes. I am sure the people in portions of Quebec feel the same way. If an employment fund were set up for projects such as those, to be built in times of economic depression and unemployment, people could be put to work. There would not be the same need for welfare, which is another matter. 1 will get to that later. If an employment fund for those types of projects were set up by the federal government, the cost of funding would be negligible. In addition to the improvements, the people in those areas would be paying income tax rather than collecting unemployment insurance benefits. Federal expenditures would negative one another in the long run. They would bring the maritime region and other slow growth areas up to the standard of the rest of the country.
I have a second suggestion. I put these suggestions in a very clear and helpful form in the hope that the government will do something about them. I listened to an American station. We get those down our way once in a while. Thank goodness we do, because the CBC does not do that hot a job. They tell me they do not have enough mobile equipment. The government should take steps to encourage and promote "workfare" instead of welfare. It should provide jobs and put people to work. There are many federal projects that could be started and completed during times of high unemployment.
There are good reasons for this motion. Items such as those mentioned could be considered during the layover period. A new bill could be prepared to provide those things that are logical, positive and sensible. If these suggestions were accepted, the bureaucratic population of Manpower, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and all the other allied departments under the minister could be reduced. Those public servants who would have to find other jobs would be more productive to themselves and to society in general. If projects such as I have mentioned were put into place, the whole system would be productive, people would be more productive and this country would not be in the economic doldrums in which it finds itself time after time.
The Chignecto Canal was a promise of confederation. I suggest it could be carried out if an employment fund were set up. I have brought this matter to the attention of the minister. He has been decent and fair. I hope he will discuss it with his cabinet colleagues. This is the type of thing that will create employment and provide long-term benefits for the whole maritime region. Like projects must be carried out in Quebec and other areas of slow growth. I hope the minister has listened to what I had to say and that his cabinet colleagues will take cognizance of what has been said here today.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I did not have an opportunity to speak on the principle of the bill on second reading. Nor did I have an opportunity to attend the committee meetings which went into depth with regard to the problems contained in Bill C-27. However, after hearing the hon.
Employment and Immigration
member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who speaks in a very folksy and earthy way, talk about the problems confronting us as a result of unemployment and directly related to the Unemployment Insurance Act, I felt it incumbent upon me to say something.
The hon. member for Timiskaming, in relating the clauses that would be referred back by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for study, indicated that in his constituency a plant was intended to be opened. More than 300 women who otherwise would not have been looking for employment applied for employment. He stressed the principle that it is not only the 900,000 people who are unemployed at the moment; it is the number of hidden unemployed which is of major concern. Some economists have set that figure at between one million and V/i million. Therefore, it behooves all of us to direct our attention not only to Bill C-27 but to the larger question of employment.
I recall our leader speaking about a visit to Abbotsford, British Columbia-a beautiful province. In Abbotsford there was an employment notice to the effect that McDonald's hamburger chain was to open a new hamburger stand in the area. Believe it or not, there was a line-up a block long for people applying for the menial jobs which are related to the operation of a hamburger business. This underlines the situation we are facing.
It is rather striking that today we should be considering the question of national unity, the question of Quebec. We shall hear the leaders of all parties set forth their ideas on this subject. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that according to a survey carried out by the Toronto Star it is not the language issue which divides Quebec from the rest of Canada, but economic and employment issues. This is why it is so important we should tackle these aspects. According to the comments I read in the Star report, one of the sources of dissatisfaction in Quebec is that most of the English newspapers there are pussyfooting, wishy-washy and gutless.


John R. Rodriguez: Liberal.


John Gilbert: Those are three adjectives which might well be applied by them to our Liberal friends in the government, and also to our Conservative friends. The main thrust of this bill deserves all those adjectives. One of the great things about debate in this House is that out of the clash of ideas comes wisdom. We started out with the idea that the minor attachment period would be increased from 8 weeks to 12 weeks.
I can still recall the opening speech of the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), the theme of which was: The Liberals have stolen our thunder. I recall the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the spokesman for the Tory party on manpower and immigration, saying-in Montreal, I think it was-that if he had his way, it would not be 8 weeks, 12 weeks or 14 weeks, but 20 weeks. So it was good to find the House engaged in a solid debate on second reading, because in the course of that debate we heard from members of the Liberal

July 5, 1977
Employment and Immigration party more representative of the maritime provinces and Quebec, and we also heard from members of the Conservative party summing up the reaction from their constituencies to the proposed changes. I am sure the members from the maritimes impressed on the minister the need for changes in the bill and were somewhat ashamed of the opening statements of the hon. member for Elamilton West and of the statements made by the hon. member for Provencher.
It is important that we debate this bill, and debate it thoroughly. I would not call the minister incompetent. 1 think he is competent, and I think he is sincere. I believe he is well aware of the difficulties. I have known him since 1968, and he has given me that impression. But he is caught within the web of the Liberal party and the cabinet, so his main endeavour is not to solve unemployment but to penalize the unemployed. This is unfortunate. I doubt whether he is deserving of the adjectives "wishy-washy" or "gutless", but he is caught in an unfortunate position. Coming from the city of Sarnia, he must be getting representations similar to those the rest of us are receiving with respect to unemployment.
Let me speak for a few moments about my experiences in my riding of Broadview, in Toronto, which I am sure is representative of a great many ridings across the country. It embraces many nationalities and economic groups; it is really a microcosm of the country at large. The main ethnic component is English, representing between 40 and 45 per cent of the population. When I first began to represent the riding, the figure was in the region of 65 per cent. Next in order of number come the Greeks and Macedonians, then the Chinese and the Italians. So the constituency is very representative of the country at large.
I operate a constituency clinic which I attend every Saturday morning. For weeks, months, years almost, I have not had people coming to me with the sole pre-occupation of finding employment. In the last six months there has been a dramatic change in my work at the constituency clinic. Every week five or six people ask me to help obtain employment for them. For my part, I do not believe a politican should be looked upon as one who obtains employment for persons. I believe he should be looked upon as one who is concerned with national issues and who directs his attention and resources to dealing with them. He should not be seeking employment for his constituents, especially since there are other agencies which have been set up to do so. The Department of Manpower and Immigration, for instance, is playing an effective role in this area.
As I say, five or six people come to my office every weekend seeking employment. Their ages range from 16 to 65, but the largest group is in the 16 to 25 age bracket. It is discouraging to find men in the prime of their working life telling me they have served in the armed forces, that they have worked hard, that they have been laid off, and that they have done their best to find employment but without success. It is disheartening to hear them tell me of their family responsibilities, their need to buy food, clothing, to keep up rent payments, and so on. It is equally disappointing to hear young people between the ages of 16 and 25, many of them with university education, telling me

they have looked for work and that employers have told them they are overqualified. In other words, all their years of study in high school and university counts for naught.
There are the semi-skilled and the unskilled. The government has attempted in some way to update the skills of many of these people, which is to its credit. Within the bill there are provisions for retraining and upgrading some of our workers. It is necessary to do so. These people are faced with a major worry; that is, having finished their courses and being retrained, there is no employment for them. This has a psychological impact on the way they apply themselves to their studies and skills. It has a tremendous impact, as well, on their general well-being if they cannot find employment.
On third reading, the minister's speech related directly to the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to refer back to committee for study clauses 29 and 30 of this bill. One of the objectives of the minister is to streamline and improve the unemployment insurance program in order to make it more responsive to economic circumstances. He said the unemployment insurance benefits structure will be simplified and made more equitable. Every time I receive a phone call from someone who has an unemployment insurance problem, I feel very uneasy because of the complexity of the act and its provisions. Usually I have to depend on my riding secretary to assist me with regard to these complexities.
The minister said he is going to make it more equitable, and he set forth a very complex scheme dividing Canada into 54 regions. He also referred to a formula which will be known as the variable entrance requirement. Depending on the region, that requirement will be from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. This is the government's response to the cries and howls of the members within its party, the members of the New Democratic Party and the maritime members of the Progressive Conservative party. That formula is not workable. It is neither fair nor equitable to the workers in the maritimes, in British Columbia, in Northern Ontario or in any area of Canada.
Originally, the bill was from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. Now the minister wants the change to be from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. Canada has a very mobile work force. There is the difficulty of a young person working for a period of time in the maritimes where unemployment is very high. If that person decides to better his position by coming to Ontario he will be faced with a 14-week requirement. That problem will be multiplied in the various areas across this country. Therefore, the New Democratic Party considers the changes are difficult to administer and are so unfair to workers that they are not worth supporting.
With regard to the riding of Broadview, when you have unemployment you are faced with racial tensions, which is a very bad thing. When you have full employment, there is an easing of those tensions and there is no ill-feeling among the different races and nationalities, as there is when they are competing for employment; there are tensions between the people who are working and those who are not working. Some
July 5, 1977

unacceptable adjectives are imposed upon the non-working by the working. This may be because of feelings of resentment, jealousy, or what have you. Therefore, it is very necessary to devise a program which is fair, reasonable and equitable in order to reduce racial tensions and also to reduce the tensions which exist between the working and non-working across this country.
When we had unemployment problems in the past, we faced that problem by having wars. Many members, most notably the hon. member for Timiskaming, enumerated some of the results of trying to solve the unemployment problem by having wars. Wars kill off the flower of our communities, the young men and women. This is one of the effects of trying to solve the unemployment situation by having wars. There is an attempt to solve unemployment by giving massive credits to corporations in the hope that these moneys will be used by the corporations to reduce the level of unemployment.
We have regional development programs, we have major tax concessions to corporations with regard to depreciation allowances and with regard to accelerated depreciation allowances, and we have programs to generate employment in depressed areas. The result of the regional development programs set forth by the minister of that department, who is a sincere, concerned and devoted Canadian, is an unemployment figure of 900,000 which was supplied by the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The more accurate figure is between one million and 1.5 million.
The government has to take a new approach with regard to unemployment if we are to reduce it from 8 per cent and 9 per cent to 3 per cent. The figure should be 3 per cent, because that would take care of the people who shift from one job to another. The Liberal government and the opposition parties as well have a duty to provide full employment. We can talk all we want about freedom of religion, speech and assembly, but we must talk about some of the things which are closer to all Canadians. 1 am referring to the right to work and full employment. Also, there is the right of a person to develop his highest potential. There is the right to medicare and decent housing. These are the rights we should be stressing. The right to education has been included. These are things we should be stressing. I imagine that foremost is the right to work.
When I read the minister's statement on third reading regarding development by the government of the work sharing principle, it seemed to me there had been a cop-out in regard to full employment in Canada. When we get these work sharing principles in place, Mr. Speaker, we will find there are many people still unemployed. Many of the tensions that 1 spoke of a few minutes ago will still exist, and this will not bring about a good result.
What we should be debating now is a bill having to do with full employment. The bill should include some of the measures the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) put forward, as well as some of those put forward by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), the members of the New Democrat-
Employment and Immigration
ic Party, as well as some of our Liberal and Conservative friends-because full employment involves us all. The major concern in this country is employment, and we should be directing our minds to employment rather than to Bill C-27 which deals with unemployment.
When 1 come to think of it, Mr. Speaker, employment for even 10 to 14 weeks is a national disgrace. When the UI bill was first presented to the House, it was never the intention of the government of the day to speak of unemployment in terms of 900,000 people but, rather, in terms of only 3 per cent- workers in the work force changing from one job to another who needed interim help during that changeover period. Neither was it the intention of the government to speak of 10 to 14 weeks' employment in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. I think we should keep in mind that our goal should be full employment, and that the minimum unemployment rate should be 3 per cent.
If I may be a little folksy for a moment, I recall when Bryce Mackasey was minister of manpower and immigration in 1971 and we were dealing with the eight-week requirement. Most members had received a tremendous amount of mail from teachers across the country because they were not included within the UI provisions previous to that 1971 amendment. I, myself, and many others argued that they should be included since unemployment affects all areas of the economy. During the last few years teachers have had a hard time obtaining employment. Our universities and teaching colleges are still turning out teachers who are unable to find work owing to general economic conditions. It was, therefore, a good thing that Bryce Mackasey had the wisdom and the foresight to include the teaching profession within the provisions of the act. Some teachers are now reaping the benefit of the changes which we brought about in 1971. Unemployment affects all- university graduates, the semi-skilled and the unskilled. No one is left untouched by the scourge of unemployment.
We need government measures that will depart from the old methods of tax allowances and job training programs and move to job creating programs which will meet the immediate needs of the unemployed. I am sure the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) will have no difficulty directing his mind to some of the major work programs which are necessary across this country. I have just returned from a convention in Winnipeg where I heard about some of the concerns delegates had in their areas, such as lack of transportation, housing, shortage of recreational facilities, home insulation, and some of the specific matters mentioned by the hon. member for Moncton and others. It is not sufficient for the minister to talk of streamlining and improving the unemployment insurance program so as to make it more responsive to economic conditions. We do not need amendments to the UI bill; we need a major thrust toward creating direct employment throughout this country.
The minister spoke eloquently and with sincerity about improving the quality of employment-related services of the federal government for all Canadians. This is why we have been talking about integrating the UIC and Manpower and

July 5, 1977
Employment and Immigration
Immigration. It is very important that we have a direct handle on these particular departments. I am sure that from his brief experience within his ministry, the minister has become aware of the multiplicity of problems not only with the UIC but with Manpower and Immigration. I rather admire the minister's capacity to absorb all the stresses and strains in those three departments, because they are tremendous. But he could make it much easier both for himself and for most Canadians if he brought forward employment-creating measures which would help to eliminate the need for improvements in the field of unemployment insurance and in manpower and immigration.
Your Honour may have noticed, as I have, that many people now look upon immigration with a jaundiced eye. At one time immigration was regarded as a necessary step in the development of this country. When I think of the contribution made to the growth of this country by immigrants over the last 50 years-I include the contribution of my parents and, I am sure, the parents of most members here-it has been fantastic. However, we are now reaching the point where people are looking on immigration policies with suspicion and distrust. We are encountering major difficulties with the amendments to the immigration bill in committee, and I think the whole cause of this is unemployment. If we can solve unemployment, this would ease tensions in regard to immigration. We would continue to have a flow of people into this country of all races and nationalities who would contribute to and enjoy the benefits of the resources of this country, and not only among ourselves but with the world at large.
In closing, I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to give full consideration to the motion to refer back, moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in order to review clauses 29 and 30 of the bill. I ask him to do so, not in the light only of improving the 10-week to 14-week formula, but to review it in the context of the larger problem of unemployment and to come back with measures to meet this problem. If he did that, he would receive the grateful thanks of all Canadians and the admiration and respect of members of the House, as well as their support.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), to refer clauses 29 and 30 back to the Standing Committee on Manpower and Immigration. When we completed the study of Bill C-27 in committee, I took it upon myself to form a package of the minutes of the committee hearings on the bill and the second reading speeches, which I sent out to every premier in Canada and every major trade union in the country, asking them to look them over and to give me their opinions, because I thought that was the kind of job an effective opposition should do. The answers have started to come in, and I want to bring to the attention of the House the first response which I received today. It is very fortunate that it came in today. It was from Mr. Richard Hatfield, premier of the province of New Brunswick. He said:
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
(Mr. Gilbert.]
Thank you for your letter of May 9 in which you invited our comments on Bill C-27. As you are no doubt aware, the province has already expressed its opposition to two key portions of the bill, and those have since been modified in response to overwhelming general objection. There are a number of other aspects of the bill which we view with some concern, so I have asked my officials to prepare a brief on these items.
He has done that and submitted to me his brief on what took place in committee. It is certainly an eye-opener. When I think of all the nabobs the government has at its disposal, all the so-called experts, we in this corner in the House are limited in terms of number and expertise; but surely, with some ingenuity, one could get the opinions of responsible people like the premier of New Brunswick. The comments that are made are rather revealing. They may have some application to what will be debated later today and tomorrow in the House. The first thing that the premier notes-I think it is very important and that the minister and members should be aware of it-is as follows:
It is characteristic of federal Manpower programs that their implementation or change has considerable impact on provincial programs. While the province appreciates that the federal authorities must change their priorities and programs in response to changing labour market conditions, it can only add to provincial frustration to be presented, without prior consultation, with a plethora of curtailments, terminations, initiations, and modifications in such program areas as unemployment insurance, vocational training, and job creation.
While it is true the bill presently before you is one concerning which there was prior notification to the province, there was no prior consultation-that is, there was monologue, but not dialogue.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: He says, further:
As noted, we have voiced our concern about the most serious aspects of the bill and changes have been made. We do not feel, however, that these changes are yet totally adequate.
What is very important with respect to the minor attachment period or the qualifying period is what he says next:
To begin with, they are, and appear to be, ad hoc adjustments made in response to general opposition.
We have made that comment in the debate on this bill. First, the minister brought in Bill C-27 based on his comprehensive review on the unemployment insurance program, which moves the qualifying period from 8 weeks to 12 weeks. Apart from the shortcomings of the comprehensive review, which we pointed out extensively last night, the minister got a lot of flak from the backbenchers in his party. Suddenly he discovered light, like St. Paul on the way to Damascus. Suddenly he was struck, and discovered that there are regions in Canada where unemployment is much more serious than in others. This great enlightenment has come upon him suddenly. Do you know why it came? It came because of the threatened embarrassment by his backbenchers. Members from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec objected to some measures in the bill and threatened the minister with the embarrassment of their voting against this bill. As Mr. Hatfield pointed out, quite correctly, the minister came in with ad hoc amendments to the bill. Mr. Hatfield went on to say:
They do not form part of an integrated yet flexible over-all goal regarding UIC. Secondly, the time constraint on the amendments completely negates the advantage of tying benefit and entrance regulations to regional labour market condi-
July 5, 1977

tions. To suggest that the 14-week rule will apply across the board in three years is tantamount to saying that in three years no more consideration will be given to regional conditions. This is a position totally unacceptable to the province.
The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) was very gentle when he said the official opposition has been pussyfooting around. It has capitulated and broken faith with its colleagues from the eastern parts of this country. Here is Premier Hatfield pointing out very important opposition. But the Conservatives are quick to jump in and pat themselves on the back, such as in the bumbling performance the other night when the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) took all the credit for this monstrosity of a bill which is being perpetrated on the people of Canada. The hon. member knows full well that, under the bill, at the end of three years the qualifying period will be 14 weeks. Here is a Conservative premier pointing out the serious shortcomings of such a provision.
Will regional disparities disappear in three years, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House? Nothing in the government's previous action or policies indicates to me that they intend to eliminate serious regional disparities in the country. They say, in the bill, that after three years regionality will no longer be a consideration. That is a condemnation of the minister's approach to this problem. What they brought in with this superimposition of 54 regions and the 10 weeks' to 14 weeks' sliding scale is just a measure to get them off the horns of a dilemma. It was to save the government the embarrassment of having its own backbenchers voting against it. I am glad that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) just came in.


Mr. Breau:: I have been here all morning.


John R. Rodriguez: I was just reading a letter from his premier. The government was looking for a way to get off the horns of a dilemma, and the minister and his nabobs came up with an ad hoc approach. The premier's letter points out other problems he had with the committee minutes I sent him, and with Bill C-27 in the form it now is. Premier Hatfield does not share my political philosophy, but I certainly admire his honesty and sincerity. I think he is a genuine conservative and I admire that. He is genuine and he levels with people. I admire that, too. When we deal with other problems at third reading of this bill I will read other parts of Premier Hatfield's letter with respect to work sharing, and so forth.
With reference to the qualifying period, our motion to send this bill back to the committee is a wise move. The minister and his nabobs are now hearing very constructive debate and constructive propositions with respect to the most serious problem facing Canada at the moment, namely, unemployment. What good is it to wrap ourselves in the flag and say that we have one country, if we still have 1 'h million unemployed? We should be trying to serve the basic needs of our people. The hon. member for Broadview pointed out that the right to work is a very basic and fundamental right of every Canadian. That was also pointed out in the committee. Many
Employment and Immigration
groups and individuals came before the committee. I cannot think of a group which put the whole problem in a nutshell better than the United Auto Workers. Since the Conservatives are famous for quoting corporate sector briefs, I feel it is important that I quote what I consider to be an excellent synopsis of the whole question. I quote from the UAW brief as follows:
Our society is characterized by a lack of job security. Jobs are dependent on the ups and downs of the market and the decisions of corporations geared to profit-maximization. At present the rate of unemployment in Canada is at a rate higher than at any time since the great depression and even the government acknowledges it will continue to get worse. As of March, 1977, Canada has a higher unemployment rate than any other industrialized country. As quick as the government was to restrain our wages in October, 1975, in the name of a national emergency, no such crisis is apparently recognized by the government today.
We want jobs; we need jobs; the right to a job should be as basic as any civil rights (if not more so). The failure of the government and our social system to guarantee this right forces us to depend on unemployment insurance. The government, in Bill C-27, is attempting to further erode even this secondary right to unemployment insurance, and it offers as compensation for this certain reorganizational changes in the manpower programs.
That is one of the most excellent presentations we experienced in the committee's consideration of Bill C-27. There is no question that we have a problem in creating employment opportunities. There are certain policy directions this government must follow. There is work to be done. There are many job opportunities to be seized.
The other day I read about our trade relationship with Japan. In that study it was noted that 96 per cent of our exports to Japan are raw materials. On the other side of the trade picture, 95 per cent of our imports from Japan are manufactured products, primarily cars, cameras and electronic equipment. That, in a nutshell, is a microcosm of the problem. We have been allowed to develop a hinterland economy. Our people rip raw materials from the ground, cut trees down, and ship them out. In the area I represent, the predominant industry is mining. Our men and women take raw materials out of the ground. These raw materials are put into a semi-processed state-nickel pellets: we call them nickel matte. We ship those nickel pellets to Pittsburgh. Falconbridge ships its raw material to Norway.
We are badly in need of government policies which would make it uneconomic for resource companies to ship raw materials out of this country. There should be measures to encourage the processing of raw materials in Canada to finished products. There is no reason in the world why this government should permit a great country like Canada, with its fantastic resources, to be raped by multinational mining companies. Canada is not only being raped; it even pays mining companies to depreciate our resources. As our former leader, David Lewis, often used to say, there can be no rape if there is consent-and that is often what happens.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
7300

July 5, 1977
Business of the House AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move under the provisions of Standing Order 43 a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I have discussed it with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and with the leader of the government. I hope the House will accept it, because it is important to allow as many members as possible to speak in the next two days in the debate on national unity. I think there is agreement on that point at least. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That on Tuesday, July 5, 1977 and Wednesday, July 6, 1977, the ordinary time of daily adjournment shall be deemed to be 11 p.m. and 7 p.m. respectively.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such motion can be presented at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
[ Translation]


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we do not agree with those hours, we want the usual schedule.


Walter David Baker: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Baker, Grenville-Carleton) which was agreed to on the following division.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the mover of the motion suggested, I agreed to the motion, and I do so on behalf of my party. But I think there should be an understanding that the hour tonight between ten o'clock and eleven o'clock shall be devoted entirely to the national unity debate and not to late show questions.


Walter David Baker: That is agreeable to us, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43-


Mr. Speaker:: Messrs.
Joyal	Marchand	PortelanceKaplan	Marshall	PoulinKcmpling	Martin	RailtonKnowles	Masniuk	Raines(Winnipeg	Mazankowski	ReidNorth Centre)	McCain	RitchieKnowles	McCleave	Roberts(Norfolk-Haldimand)	McGrath	RobinsonKorchinski	Mclsaac	RocheLajoie	McKenzie	RodriguezLalonde	McKinnon	RompkeyLanders	McRae	RoyLang	Milne	(Laval)Langlois	Mitges	RynardLapointe	Muir	Sauve (Mrs.)La Salle	Munro	SavardLavoie	(Esquimalt-Saanich)	ScottLawrence	Murta	SharpLefebvre	Neil	SkoreykoLessard	Nicholson (Miss)	StanburyLoiselle	Nowlan	Stanfield(Chambly)	Oberle	StevensLumley	O'Connell	SymesMacDonald	Orlikow	Tessier(Cardigan)	Ouellet	TowersMacdonald	Paproski	Trudeau(Rosedale)	Parent	TrudelMacDonald (Miss)	Patterson	Turner(Kingston and the	Pearsall	WagnerIslands)	Pelletier	WatsonMacEachcn	Penner	WhelanMacFarlane	Peters	WhitewayMacKay	Philbrook	WhittakerMalone	Pigott (Mrs.)	WisePinard
NAYS Messrs.	Young-169.Allard	Dionne	LambertCaouette	(Kamouraska)	(Bellechasse)(Villeneuve)	Gauthier	LapriseCaouette	(Roberval)	Rondeau-8.
(Temiscamingue)


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and it arises out of the report yesterday by the National Energy Board about the possible construction of the Alcan gas line and the fact that the Canadian gas will be brought up, if it ever is, along the Dempster highway, a proposal about which we know nothing in terms of economic costs or environmental conditions. Given that recommendation, is the Prime Minister asking for the preparation or development of a study of the implications of the Dempster pipeline on native rights, economic and capital costs, environment and so on, so that the information will be made available to the Canadian people and in particular to the cabinet before they reach a decision so we will not find that the Canadian gas is locked in forever?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: 1 will gladly examine the suggestion of the hon. member. I must confess that the report, which is very voluminous and was only put in our hands last night, has not yet been studied by cabinet.


ALCAN PIPELINE-SUGGESTION PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES BE ASKED TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DECISION
James McPhail Gillies: Is the Prime Minister going to ask the President of the United States to extend the time in which the decision is made, given the fact that there are so many unknown factors about the Dempster line? I understand the president has the right to take until the end of December. Will the Canadian government request that he do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I rather think that if the President of the United States wants to seek a delay, he will do so under his own steam. He may be in touch with us as to the likelihood of our making an announcement before September 1. I am sure there will be some communication between the two administrations, but I repeat that I have no thorough knowledge of the report which was brought down last night and I have not studied its implications in so far as talking to the President of the United States is concerned.


ALCAN PIPELINE-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON BACKSTOPPING OF CONSTRUCTION
James McPhail Gillies: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask him whether in fact there has been any communication between his department and his counterpart in the United States about the reality and reliability of the U.S. government backstopping the Alcan pipeline as was recommended by the National Energy Board?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I do not know of any specific discussions. There were general discussions in the sense of considering it at one time. As the hon. member knows, I have had some general discussions with the special adviser to the president, but they were of a general nature dealing with the various options that Canada had. I do not recall any specific exchange of views with respect to any backstopping.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday's recommendations raise new questions about the future of the Yukon territory. If the NEB report is accepted by the government and by cabinet, the Yukon will have an area of substantial development without the ability which provinces have to funnel the funds in the best interests of the region. Will the Prime
80018-60%

July 5, 1977
Oral Questions
Minister now take the initiative and begin the process of bringing that territory to full provincial status?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, you will recognize that the question is hypothetical.


MEASURES TO AID COMMUNITIES IF MACKENZIE VALLEY PIPELINE NOT BUILT
Douglas Charles Neil: 1 have another question for the Prime Minister and it arises as a result of the NEB decision. It has to do with the future of many small businesses and individuals in the Mackenzie Valley who built up their businesses with government encouragement in the expectation of a pipeline going through.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Charles Neil: I am thinking specifically of the town of Inuvik which spent several million dollars on infrastructure at the instance of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government has prepared an alternative northern development program in the event that there is no pipeline development in the Valley?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I realize that members on the other side want to express some views on what their preferences are as to the pipeline and what should be done by the government in certain circumstances. That is why the House leader has committed the government to a debate in the House on this subject. The hon. member is asking questions about what would happen if the government does such and so. I repeat that we only received the report last night, we have not studied it, and therefore the questions asked of the government are premature. If they are representations, we will take them into account.


ALCAN PIPELINE-SUGGESTION PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES BE REQUESTED TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR DECISION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister which arises from his answer given to the hon. member for Don Valley. The Prime Minister, I say with respect as one says around here, seems to have missed the point of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Not unusual.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the information that the NEB had on the social and environmental aspects of the Alcan route was, to say the least, limited and since the government's Department

of the Environment and the Lysyk study are looking at precisely these matters, from the point of view of Canadian interest would the Prime Minister get in touch with President Carter to request an extension of the September 1 deadline to which he referred?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, Dean Lysyk's study is supposed to be brought to the government on August 1. We would contemplate making it public as soon thereafter as possible. The deadline of the end of August which we have imposed on ourselves is still reachable. If we find it cannot be reached, I would consider suggestions from the leader of the NDP.


ALCAN PIPELINE-PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR LYSYK INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Since the time allocated for the kind of survey and hearings undertaken by the Lysyk inquiry, if my memory serves me correctly, amounts to about six weeks, which is considerably less than that taken by the Berger inquiry to cover similar kinds of considerations, does the Prime Minister not think it appropriate to extend the term of the Lysyk inquiry, say, by two to three months, so that an adequate job can be done, and therefore, related to that, request of President Carter that he put off the September 1 deadline in the full knowledge that President Carter himself knows he can do that and has at least until December 1 ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the leader of the NDP would be better advised to wait until he sees the Lysyk report. Perhaps it will be satisfactory to him and to the House. If it is not, then he can make his representations at that point.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY AS BASIS FOR DECISION
John Edward Broadbent: Representations at that point in terms of a predetermined debate time by the government would be a little futile. I would like to ask my last supplementary of the Prime Minister and ask him if he would confirm that the government will reach its final decision on the pipeline on the basis of a public opinion survey which the government party has commissioned and a copy of which I have here, labelled "Super Rush, Secret" to be completed and turned in with the results by yesterday. Is that going to be the real basis of the government's decision on which route to take for the pipeline?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Personally, I have not seen this question quoted by the hon. member nor the questionnaire in which it would be contained. Perhaps it is a survey put out by some supporters of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
July 5, 1977


FINANCE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
As reported in Le Devoir of June 28, the Islamic Development Bank makes interest-free loans, or loans at administration cost only. Did the minister contact that bank to see how it operates, so as to apply the same method in Canada? If so, is the minister prepared to use it in the near future?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, if the minister is unaware, could he ask his department to undertake a study precisely to apply such interest-free loans, as is done in other countries, contrary to what his party has said for a number of years, namely that it was not done elsewhere?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, 1 am prepared to review the hon. member's question.

Oral Questions


POSSIBILITY OF COMMITMENT TO ALCAN PIPELINE PRIOR TO ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF DEMPSTER PIPELINE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree, but there was no indication in the report that such a review could be carried out by September 1 or, alternatively, by December 1. Is it the minister's view that a commitment to the Alcan proposal-which would in the future rely very heavily, according to the NEB, on the Dempster link-should be made before an adequate environmental assessment can be completed on that portion to which I have just referred, namely, the Dempster link? In other words, is it the position of the government that a commitment to the Alcan route can be made before an adequate environmental assessment?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has confirmed that his question was based on what is anticipated in the NEB report. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that we have not as yet had a chance to study all the implications of that report. We look forward to doing so in the very near future.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that the minister has misunderstood me. I will make my question perfectly clear. Regardless of the National Energy Board report, is it the government's position that a commitment to Alcan can be made before an environmental assessment of the Dempster link is completed?


DEMPSTER PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF COMPLETING ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I will direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the emphasis placed by the National Energy Board upon the importance of the Dempster link in the Alcan proposal, and in view of the fact that there has been no environmental study prepared or commissioned on this important 600-mile corridor, will the minister advise whether the government, logically through the Department of the Environment, has the capacity to complete an adequate environmental assessment prior to September 1 ? Alternatively, is the minister of the view that the proponents would have the capacity to complete that review before September 1?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to relay that question to the Minister of the Environment. I am not in a position to give a precise answer to the question, but if the hon. member would look at the report of the National Energy Board, he would find that the kinds of questions he just asked are anticipated in that report.


An hon. Member:: Yes or no.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I made it very clear that these are questions which the government is considering at the present time. We have not taken a decision on these matters.


An hon. Member:: You never do.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the Secretary of State for External Affairs my question is for the Prime Minister. It has to do with the anticipated final report of the International Joint Commission with reference to the Garrison Diversion project which is expected later this month. Would the Prime Minister assure the House that this final report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that the committee can take a very critical and close look at the final recommendations of the IJC?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take notice of the question, and I will be happy to see that it is answered.

July 5, 1977
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


SUGGESTED MANDATORY STANDARDS FOR RUSTPROOFING OF AUTOMOBILES
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It has to do with the terrible rip-off Canadian consumers have been subjected to over the last few years with regard to rusting of automobiles. I fully concur with the actions of the minister today in this regard. An authorized official of the National Research Council said yesterday that rustless cars could be built. He said, and I quote:
There are no technical limitations to the production of a vehicle which would be free from corrosive failure for its normal mechanical life.
In view of this statement by an authorized official of the National Research Council is the minister now ready to make rustproof standards for automobiles made in Canada or imported into Canada mandatory and not voluntary?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his encouragement. I, too, noticed in the newspaper this morning mention of the report of the National Research Council. I have requested a copy of the report. I have heard Dr. Cohen of that institution express views similar to those quoted. Thursday and Friday I will be meeting with my provincial colleagues at a federal-provincial conference of consumer ministers at which time we are going to consider the proposed anti-rust code which I introduced previously. I am hopeful my provincial colleagues will concur with my views. I am encouraged by their comments to date, and I hope there will be some agreement coming from them and general support from the automobile industry.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Robert Stanbury (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the government giving consideration to recognition of the new military regime in Pakistan, and will the Prime Minister consider expressing to the president of Pakistan the concern of Canadians for the personal safety of the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan and for the early restoration of a parliamentary democracy in that country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member certainly expresses the feelings of the government in general, but in this particular case I was just informed of the coup a few minutes ago, and I have not yet been informed as to the steps which might have been taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will inquire.


ALCAN PIPELINE-PROPOSAL UNITED STATES ASSUME EXPORT COMMITMENTS WHEN LINE COMPLETED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that Canada exports one trillion cubic feet of gas per year, which is 40 per cent of our total production and which means that we are exporting cheap gas, and in view of the fact that after a period of 20 years we will be purchasing very expensive gas from the Arctic, I want to ask the minister if, in the course of negotiations with the United States government regarding the proposed Alcan route, it is the government's intention to suggest to the United States that when that line is completed the Americans take over some of Canada's export commitments to the United States so that a larger amount of gas may be retained for the use of Canadians at reasonable prices?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, this is the same kind of question the hon. member's leader was asking a few moments ago. It is based on a series of hypotheses. It has been made very clear that the government has not yet taken a decision with respect to the Alcan route, although that was the recommendation of the National Energy Board. There are a number of implications of the NEB recommendations with respect to conditions and terms imposed on the applicant and the United States, and
1	think it would be quite premature for me to express any view on that at this time.


MEASURES TO ENSURE INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION NOT GREATER THAN TWO PER CENT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I hope, however, that the minister will keep that in mind.
In view of the fact that conserving energy is one of the alleged goals of the government and that the minister has set a
2	per cent increase in our energy consumption as the goal for 1985, and in view of the fact that the National Energy Board report tabled yesterday says that from 1985 to 1990 our increase in consumption will be 3.5 per cent, does the minister agree with that estimate? If he does, what steps is he going to take to change the situation so that we will reach the 2 per cent goal which he has told the House is his objective?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the higher figure. I made it quite clear that in total energy terms I think we should be able to get our rate of growth down to the lower figure. I think the hon. member should recognize that a number of different assumptions are built into the NEB report. The board had a slightly lower figure, for example, in its oil report, which was just recently received. I believe that my figure is attainable, given the support of the provinces and the aware-
July 5, 1977________________COMMONS
ness and the support of the Canadian people for getting our energy consumption down to very close to a zero rate of growth by 1985.


NORTHERN PIPELINE-DATE OF DEBATE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is directed either to the Prime Minister or to the President of the Privy Council, the government House Leader. In view of the fact that both hon. gentlemen have stated there will be an opportunity for the House to have a debate first of all on the National Energy Board report and second, that when the government has made a decision with respect to the matter it will be submitted to the House for discussion and a vote, I want to ask the government what timetable they have in mind. Since the Lysyk report will not come in until the end of the month I assume the debate on energy will take place in August. When does the government intend to give the House an opportunity to debate and approve or disapprove the Alcan route recommended by the National Energy Board?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I expect that we will recall the House early in August in order to have the views of the House after all relevant reports have been tabled. Hopefully that will be the first week in August. There is no commitment on my part at any time that any particular decision would be put before the House for ratification at that time. What I have said is that it would be inconceivable that a project of this magnitude could be undertaken without legislative action by the House.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the difference between the pension paid to miners in Cape Breton and pensions paid to miners in the rest of Nova Scotia, and in view of representations that have been made to the minister as well as to the Minister of Mines in Nova Scotia, I wonder if the minister could tell the House whether he is taking a serious look at the situation in order to reduce this disparity in a single province?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to have another look at the situation, but I should like to remind the hon. member and the House that some time ago DEVCO studied the problem and improved the Cape Breton miners' pension plan considerably. I am quite willing to take up the matter again with
DEBATES	7305
Oral Questions
DEVCO's management and to report to the hon. member what has been decided, but once again I believe we have done quite a lot to improve the lot of Cape Breton miners.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent decision of the Canadian Labour Relations Board in splitting along linguistic lines national bargaining units of the CBC, I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell the House if this splitting along linguistic lines is an affirmation and full extension of bilingualism or is it the beginning of the conversion of the government to deux nations? Also, in view of the precedent that this creates for other national bargaining units, what action if any does the Prime Minister intend to take?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware that the hon. member is referring to a specific case. If he is, it would be before a quasi-judicial body and I do not think it would be appropriate for him or for me to comment. If he is talking about principles in general, I must say that on this point I agree with the preamble that the hon. member made. We do not intend to see the country split on linguistic or racial lines.


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister very much for that answer in part. I can understand now why he does not have his tie tied too tightly because he is a very slippery character, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Very, very slippery. The interesting thing and ironic thing, Mr. Speaker, and the paradoxical thing, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, if you could restrain yourself-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -as well as the Prime Minister ever restrains himself in giving information to this House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I should like to draw to the Prime Minister's attention, Mr. Speaker, especially ironically, paradoxically, on the Canada Day-

July 5, 1977
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Resign.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will resign the day you want to resign and I will fight the election right now, lover boy.
Mr. Speaker, the interesting point of this is that this decision, that is not now pending before a judicial body but is an actual decision of the Canadian Labour Relations Board and is now in effect, came out ironically on the weekend that we celebrated Canada Day, July 1, Dominion, the first, you name it-it fits everybody-


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The question is this, Mr. Speaker: Because I asked two ministers of the Crown yesterday about this decision, neither of whom knew anything-they did not know- they did not have a-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would put his question forthwith.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Never, Mr. Speaker, in the history of parliamentary democracy on July 5 have I seen you so anxious to rule me out of order. My question is this. Since two ministers of the Crown yesterday did not know what I was talking about in terms of a decision of the Canadian Labour Relations Board that splits national bargaining units along linguistic lines-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The Prime Minister does not know it today and you, Mr. Speaker, do not know it today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Oh, no. Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary to the Prime Minister on something that is so fundamental that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will sit if you let me have a supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: No, no!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You can say oh, ho, no but I want the Speaker to tell me to sit in my place and tell me that I do not have a supplementary to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If the Speaker says this to me 1 will sit in my place and then rise at three o'clock and badger this House and the Chair and the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Where is your leader?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are you going to order me out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are you prepared to tell me I do not have a supplementary to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Who is the shame? The shame is the Chair and you people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If he wants to carry me out he can. This place has become Mickey Mouse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


RESOURCES
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, and since this question concerns energy, mines and resources, 1 direct it to that minister. Could the minister tell the House what stand the government is taking in the matter of federal-provincial jurisdiction over the waters lying between Vancouver Island and the mainland, and even more particularly over the resources on and under the seabed of those waters? Is he able to say where this matter stands before the courts? Is the government seeking yet another confrontation with yet another province?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could give the hon. member
July 5, 1977

a full and detailed exposition of the position at the present time. This has been under examination by the government. As the hon. member must know, there have been discussions with the United States and with the provinces of Canada. The best I can do right now is pass on the hon. member's representations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and draw it to his attention.


Donald W. Munro: I am absolutely staggered, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: -that the minister should bring the United States and the Secretary of State for External Affairs into a matter relating to waters between Vancouver Island and the mainland. It has nothing whatever to do with the United States. I wonder how the minister can rationalize a claim by the federal government over inorganic seabed resources as well as claims over resources under the seabed in waters lying between Vancouver Island and the mainland? Does he advocate that the Island separate from the mainland in order to create an 11th province? Is that Canadian unity?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member probably understands, there have been discussions with the United States with respect to boundary questions, involving the moving of fish and involving mineral resources on the seabed.


Donald W. Munro: I am talking about the waters between Vancouver Island and the mainland.


Alastair William Gillespie: If I misunderstood him with respect to his question and the area he is concerned with, I apologize and will refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Transport arises out of the user fee or rentals to be charged at Calgary airport. Does the minister intend to intervene personally in the dispute concerning increased rental charges which MOT intends to impose on the seven airlines which will use the facilities of the airport? If so, when will he hold such meetings and with what parties?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, several persons who want the facilities at the airport have asked to see me. I have agreed to see them later this week but cannot give the hon. member the exact time.
Oral Questions FINANCE


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON ADOPTION OF ECONOMIC TARGETS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance relating to the meeting of the OECD nations in Paris. Will Canada comply with the OECD request that in future economic goals shall be established by every country in order to better control inflation and unemployment, which is what the meeting in Paris recommended?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that was not the recommendation. The hon. gentleman will see when he examines the communique that some countries adopted the concept of targets. I, in indicating what we see as the weakness of that particular approach, indicated we would continue the stabilization policies of the past.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Your leader has arrived.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who just indicated that he feels the establishment of targets is not desirable for Canada. He is reported as saying that he feels such goals are not advisable because people may lose confidence in the government if the goals are not attained. Will the minister say if that is a correct report of what he said in Europe? Second, would he explain the statement more fully because, surely, if the goals are not attained that is exactly what the public should do-have no further confidence in the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out to the hon. gentleman previously in the debate on this question, and as I pointed out to the OECD meetings, many aspects of economic performance in Canada are going to be subject to variables which no government, irrespective of political complexion, will be able to control. Therefore to hold out to the public a pretention that, for example, the impact of increases in foreign food prices or other impacts of that kind can be controlled by the government is to create an expectation which no government can fulfil and which we think it would be unwise to hold out in the first place.


TOURISM
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister, who is supposed to be supporting tourism strongly, aware that charter flights bringing tourists from the United States to Victoria, B.C., are not permitted to bring more than

July 5, 1977
Oral Questions
117 passengers at a time, by an edict of the customs services? One company, "Ports of Call" from Denver now flying in charter groups on Convair 190s, is being forced to turn away customers while it flies in 117 passengers and 33 empty seats on each flight. Is the minister aware that his work is being cancelled out in this fashion?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister confer with the Minister of National Revenue to see if she can make additional customs officers available, and will he also confer with the Minister of Transport, to convince him that he should make space available for customs use at the airport? Perhaps he could get these two ministers to play on the same team he is on.
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are all playing on the same team, and all's well for the time being, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST THAT NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE SERVE DAWSON REGION BEFORE UNITED STATES
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As the prime reason invoked by the government to justify the construction of a pipeline in northern Canada to transport, eventually, Canadian gas to the southern areas of the country, as no oil company will be interested in exploration without being sure that any new gas can be brought down to markets in southern Canada, can the minister tell the House whether the government will require the Foothills consortium to commit itself to building the pipeline that will transport Canadian gas from the Mackenzie Delta to the Foothills network near Danson, when Canadian government requests it to do so, before awarding it the contract for the transportation of American oil from Alaska to southern United States?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, that important aspect of the National Energy Board's decision rendered yesterday and conveyed to the government will be examined closely in the weeks to come.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the unusual circumstances which arose earlier this afternoon, perhaps hon. members will agree to ending the question period after I recognize the hon. member for St. John's East and the Leader of the Opposition.


REQUEST FOR REPAIR OF AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. I wonder if the minister could put to use some of this country's sophisticated technology with which we can provide leadership in using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and putting satellites in space orbit to repair the antiquated air conditioning system of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, that sounds like an excellent suggestion.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I wonder if the Solicitor General can advise the House of Commons whether he or his officials are giving consideration to a review of the reporting relationship between the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and those provinces to whom their services are contracted.


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, I attended a meeting of attorneys general in Ottawa last week during which I discussed that very question with various attorneys general. Some told me they were entirely satisfied with their working relationship with the force, but one or two said the relationship could be improved. I, of course, am interested in seeing working relationships with the force improve.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rondeau:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. A few minutes ago, we voted against the motion moved by the House Leader of the Official Opposition to extend the hours for debate on the important issue of national unity, scheduled for today and tomorrow. We were somewhat amazed on this side of the House because last week, when we attended the House leaders' meeting to discuss the hours for that debate today and tomorrow, I myself suggested that there should be a time extension in order that a larger number of members could express their views, and I also looked for assurances that at least four spokesmen for our party could rise during that important debate. We could not secure that assurance, and moreover we were not consulted later concerning the hours for today's debate. This is why we felt compelled to vote against the motion and I would take this opportunity to submit respectfully that we often experience difficulties on this side of the House in having our objections recorded to motions under Standing Order 43, while on the government side the hon. member responsible for objections simply shakes his head.
July 5, 1977

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the national unity motion put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), since the Social Credit Party of Canada has suggested during House leaders' meetings that the debate should be extended by four hours in order that a larger number of members could speak on the question, and since no consultations were held with the Social Credit Party of Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That this House extend the July 6 sitting from 7 to 10 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the guise of a question of privilege the hon. member clearly put up a question for debate in another form. This certainly is not a genuine question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get involved in the Social Credit leadership problems or anything else. In view of the nature of the debate this afternoon, I apologize in part for perhaps over-extending some of my rhetoric. Because of the fundamental concern I have about the question, I will use the rules properly and not prolong this part of the afternoon. I will certainly put my question at ten o'clock and hopefully come back to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tomorrow for a solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the incompleteness of a letter tabled on June 30 by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). It is only today that I have had the opportunity from the Chair of getting a translation of it. I believe a copy of it is available for Your Honour.
I draw Your Honour's attention to words about half way down the letter which indicate the existence of certain copies of telegrams which are "annexed to the letter". My submission is simply this. If they are annexed to the letter and accompany the letter, they are part of the letter. If they are part of the letter, they should have been tabled with the letter. I make this point now in the hope that Your Honour will take this under consideration for 24 hours during which time I hope the minister will be in a position to table those telegrams. If not, I hope Your Honour will then be in a position to order the production of those documents.


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly would not want to interrupt the debate of the next two days to hear argument and try to settle a rather complex point of order of that nature. I am not clear on the precedents as to whether the requirements were adhered to in tabling the letter, whether quotations from it extend to any enclosures. I will have to examine that. Perhaps we can discuss the point on Thursday afternoon at three o'clock.
Statutory Instruments



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table two copies of a memorandum sent by my executive assistant, on October 11, 1972, to the commissioner of the RCMP, as well as an answer to this memorandum sent to my executive assistant, on October 26, 1972, by the assistant director general of the RCMP security service.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that document is in response to the second point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the past we have had some difficulty getting translations of some of these letters that are tabled. Certainly the point was validly raised by the hon. member opposite the other day in refusing permission to give unanimous consent to a matter that was not tabled in both official languages. May I ask if these are in both languages, and if not, why not?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, certainly to the satisfaction of the hon. member, I would tell him that the documents I tabled are copies of the original. The memorandum was drafted in English as was the answer to it, which means that the hon. member will have no problem to understand.


REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants) moved: that the Fourth Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 29, 1977, be concurred in.
He said: Mr. Speaker, may I tell the House very briefly the purpose of this motion. It is to provide for a lesser or smaller quorum over the summer so that we can keep up with our work, presuming we will be lucky enough to get out of here in the first place.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
July 5, 1977
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,406, 2,335, 2,558, 2,779 and 2,792.


DREE PROGRAMS IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	Is DREE aware that the 1976 APEC report Industrial Incentives Programs in the Atlantic Region comments that "it is simply hard to believe that the region requires nearly 300 incentives programs"?
2.	Has DREE taken any initiative to (a) coordinate (b) prevent duplication among the programs and, if so (i) in what way (ii) which programs?
3.	Is DREE satisfied that there is adequate coordination among industrial incentive programs in the Atlantic region and, if not (a) for what reasons (b) which programs is DREE dissatisfied with?
4.	Is DREE involved in any regular meetings which seek to coordinate two or more of the incentive programs, and is there any formal mechanism through which administrators of each program are notified of changes in other programs?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. DREE is aware of this statement but its own analysis suggests that the number of financial incentive programs in direct support of industrial development in the Atlantic region is but a fraction of the stated amount.
2.	As a matter of policy, DREE takes into consideration any assistance made available to applicants under the Regional Development Incentives Program by other departments, provincial governments, municipal or local bodies. This prevents duplication between programs and helps ensure that their application is coordinated. As a further coordination mechanism, larger and more complex cases are reviewed by the Incentives Advisory Board, composed of representatives of DREE and other federal departments.
3.	DREE believes that the policy and procedures outlined in the above answer to question 2 provide for an adequate level of coordination with other programs available in the Atlantic region.
4.	DREE is involved in regular meetings with officials of the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to coordinate the application of the Program for the Advancement of Industrial Technology (PAIT), the Program to Enhance Productivity (PEP), and the Industrial Design Assistance Program with the application of the Regional Development Incentives Act (RDIA). Through such arrangements DREE is kept informed of any changes in the provisions of these programs. DREE is also involved in regular meetings of the review boards which are involved in coordinating the application of RDIA with th'e incentive programs that are jointly funded with the provincial governments. These jointly-funded programs include the Industrial Assistance Program and the Service Sector Assistance Program in Prince Edward

Island, the Tourism Assistance Program, and the Pilot Programs in Kent county and northeastern New Brunswick in New Brunswick, and the Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation Limited and the Industrial Incentives Program administered by the Newfoundland and Labrador department of rural development. In addition, although it is not a jointly-funded program, DREE is represented at review meetings of the Rural Industries Program in Nova Scotia in order to coordinate the application of this program with RDIA.


FEDERAL EMPLOYEES CHARGED WITH POLICY-MAKING-DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Stevens: As of December 31 (a) 1968 (b) 1976, how many federal employees were charged with policy-making, or interpretation of policies, regulating the development and management of Indian and Northern affairs?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Indian Affairs: (a) 1968, 24; (b) 1976, 56. Northern Affairs: (a) 1968, 39; (b) 1976, 30.


GROS MORNE PARK
Mr. Marshall: What projects are being carried out and/or completed (a) under the original $5.3 million provided through the Gros Morne Subsidiary Agreement (b) under the new $8 million agreement extended to March 31, 1980 including (i) a list of capital works projects to be carried out this summer (ii) highways work (iii) fishing facilities and other works?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion: The reply from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) Projects initiated under the Canada-Newfoundland Gros Morne Park Area Development Subsidiary Agreement, signed on May 28, 1974: (1) Tourism Studies; (2) Regional Planning and Land Use Studies; (3) Inshore Sports Fishing Study; (4) Rocky Harbour Water and Sewer Systems; (5) Norris Point/ Neddy Harbour Water and Sewer Systems; (6) Cow Head Water and Sewer Systems; (7) Trout River Water and Sewer Systems; (8) Woody Point Water System Extension; (9) Solid Waste Disposal Study and construction: Norris Point-Rocky Harbour, Cow Head area, Woody Point area; (10) Access Road route 430 to Rocky Harbour; (11) Reconstruction and paving Norris Point to Rocky Harbour; (12) Highway 430 reconstruction St. Paul's to Shallow Bay; (13) Paving main road in Cow Head; (14) Bridge construction-Crousher's Gulch, (b) The amendment to this agreement, signed April 22, 1977, provides funding for the continuation and completion of the following projects, as originally identified by the agreement; (1) Tourism Studies; (2) Regional Planning and Land Use Studies; (3) Rocky Harbour Water and Sewer Systems;
(4)	Norris Point/Neddy Harbour Water and Sewer Systems;
(5)	Trout River Water and Sewer Systems; (6) Woody Point Water System Extension; (7) Solid Waste Disposal Study and construction: Norris Point-Rocky Harbour, Cow Head area,
July 5, 1977

Woody Point area. The Gros Morne Park Area Development Subsidiary Agreement is implemented under the direction of a federal-provincial management committee. Work to be carried out this summer will include continued activity towards completion of projects identified in section (b); in addition, the management committee will approve other projects on an on-going basis for implementation during the summer.


COST OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON WORKING CONDITIONS IN POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Rodriguez: What was the total cost of the Royal Commission on Working Conditions in the Post Office Department?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Total Cost: $78,960.


OPERATION FRIENDSHIP
Mr. Marshall: Did the Department of Veterans Affairs offer or give assistance to the various British agencies sponsoring Operation Friendship, in advising veterans who served in Britain in a military capacity, or granting special coupons offering savings on food, drink, accommodation on visiting the UK during the Royal Jubilee and (a) if so, in what manner (b) if not, for what reason?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No. (b) The department was not requested to do so.


William Ross Milne: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to refer briefly, as I have on a number of occasions, to certain unanswered questions. The first are questions concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its international program service, questions Nos. 67 and 68 and questions Nos. 70 to 75 inclusive. These questions have stood on the order paper both in this session and in the last session for approximately one year. They concern matters of possible information, documented in the questions, by the Department of External Affairs for the international service of CBC. After one year and after having raised this point of order a number of times, I think I am perfectly justified in asking why on earth these answers are being hidden both from the public and from parliament.
Finally, I wish to refer to question No. 1 on the order paper which has been there since the beginning of this session. It also goes back to the last session, making a total of a little over one and a half years. The question asks for something very simple, the amount of business received since April 20, 1968, when our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office, up until now by William Teron or any companies with which he is associated. That man, of course, is now the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Why does it take one and a half years or more to answer this very simple question. Surely, it should not be held back
National Unity
because the man is head of a government corporation. It should not be held back because he is a personal friend of the Prime Minister. This is information to which this House is entitled. I feel that the parliamentary secretary or the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who is peering through the curtains, might take notice of this fact, although I notice he is not paying much attention to what we are saying.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Does anybody?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It is obvious that those on the other side never pay much attention to anything. It is about time that someone in authority in the government did. If the ministers will not do that, the Prime Minister should. He supposedly has supreme authority in this country. He should tell these departments to answer the questions on the order paper and not stall with regard to giving information asked for by members of parliament on behalf of Canadian people for a year and a half and goodness knows how much longer. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to reply to this point of order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT BUSINESS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures.
He said: Mr. Speaker, whether one looks at the present world or back upon past history, one finds that the great eras of all peoples are always full of appeals to build or save the nation. We, Canadians, are now addressing ourselves to both tasks at the same time. We must build as well as preserve our country, and this twofold task, seldom seen in the life of nations, draws today public attention to the House and to this debate which I have the privilege to open.
But why such a debate, you will ask? Certainly not because we are divided on the issue of national unity. This country's unity has been the primary purpose of every Parliament, every government since Confederation. The national unity concept is not linked to any government nor any party in particular. I am confident that all hon. members will not allow anybody to question Canadian unity. However, I am aware of the fact that some members of Parliament as well as many Canadians have a feeling of frustration for not doing anything under the circumstances. They realize something is threatening their country and they wish to protect it. They want to participate,

National Unity
help, do something and they are wondering: What can I do to help preserve my country's unity? Let me know and I shall do it. This is how their frustrations, their uncertainty and possibly their concerns are expressed.
Because I understand these feelings and hope to mitigate them, 1 shall not deal too much today with our purposes, since we basically agree on those. Instead, I shall insist on the progress achieved by Canadians and on the new measures the government is implementing so that Canadians may commit themselves even more to national unity.
Before looking down the roads immediately ahead, Mr. Speaker, let us briefly assess those roads which Canadians and all their governments have taken-and not taken-in the seven months past. Since November 15, Canadians have been confronted with the most dramatic choice they have had to make in their history as a nation. And in these seven months, we've come a long way toward that choice. We've made news in Canada-and much of it, Mr. Speaker, has been good news.
Good news, as those sitting in the press gallery know, is very often what doesn't happen. Like the good news that Canadians did not panic; that their governments did not become paralyzed; that the country did not, as it might have, become caught in an upward spiral of racial or regional hostility. That has been very good news indeed.
But perhaps the best news of all, is what did happen. Slowly, with understandable hesitation, millions of Canadians have come to accept the choices which we now face as an unparalleled-and perhaps even overdue-opportunity: to shape for ourselves, with our own hands, a Canada that is more truly ours, more truly itself.
My paramount goal in these past six months has been to help Canadians to define the decisions they now must make. I have told Quebeckers that finally they will actually have to choose whether they want to remain, or not to remain, Canadians as well as Quebeckers. And the fact this choice finally must be made, and not perpetually talked about only, is a good thing for Quebeckers. And for the whole country.
But non-Quebeckers will strongly influence the decision that Quebec has to make. That is why I have been telling non-Quebeckers that they themselves face a fundamental choice as well. Fundamental-though unfortunately not as simple as marking a ballot "yes" or "no". The choice is this: Do you, or do you not, want to live in a Canada with a French-speaking community-now of six million people-who have spoken French for nearly four centuries; who will continue to speak French; and who will continue to live as a community? Because if you do, if English-speaking Canadians accept to have a Canada-with all its solitudes and heartbreaks and misunderstandings, and yes, with all its glorious human wealth, enough to stretch to a limitless future-if you want to have such a Canada, it will have to be a Canada based on genuine acceptance of a newly dynamic, competitive and self-
[Mr. Trudeau.)
July 5, 1977
assertive French-speaking community, centered on but not confined to Quebec.
To choose such a Canada does not mean that everyone will have to speak French. It does not even mean that everyone must love eating their corn flakes out of those famous bilingual cereal boxes. Quite frankly, it means something far more difficult than that. It means that English-speaking Canadians will have to open their hearts, to open their minds, in order to understand that French Canadians still do not feel treated as fully equal partners in their own country, or even in the province where they form a majority.
And it means that if the Francophones are to remain part of this country as first-class citizens with a fair share of the power and a fair crack at the opportunity; but without having to give up their language and culture then this will require certain accommodations by the English-speaking majority, accommodations like sharing more power with French Canadians in business, professions and private organizations; like greater willingness on the part of provincial governments, and local communities and school boards to provide for Frenchspeaking minorities.
And greater acceptance for language equality in federal institutions. So French as well as English-speaking Canadians can say: "This is our government. It speaks our language. And all of Canada is our country. We can grow here."
So it has been my first priority since November 15 to tell these things to Canadians, because these are among the crucial choices they now face. Another priority as a Government since November 15 has been to make continued progress on two essential fronts. The first, as I have just indicated, is our official languages policy.

Thanks to the support of all parties in this House and the cooperation of federal civil servants, for some years the government of Canada has been increasingly capable of providing services to its citizens in their own language and to enable more French Canadians to work in the federal public service. The proportion of Francophone civil servants has now reached 26.9 per cent, that is about the same percentage as the French-speaking population of Canada. In the administrative category, the French-speaking proportion has risen from 13.4 per cent in 1971 to 19.7 per cent now. Similar progress has also taken place in the armed forces, and the French presence has increased throughout the country, thanks to the radio and TV networks.
This evolution took place without any prejudice to the rights of English Canadians to speak and hear English spoken, to prosper and find success in life in their language. Conversely, the recognition of the two official languages in no way meant the setting up of two official cultures, one English the other French.
The men and women who built Canada belonged to different cultures, and we want to preserve this diversity. Our policy aims at promoting a strongly multicultural Canada, a Canada where everybody is a first class citizen. Why then have English
July 5, 1977

and French as the official languages? Because almost all Canadians, whatever their cultural backgrounds, speak either one of these two languages; and because nearly one Canadian out of five, approximately 18 per cent, Mr. Speaker, speaks only French.
In view of the progress accomplished in federal institutions the government thinks that from now on it is not only possible but desirable to enter into a new phase of our linguistic policy, a stage in which the emphasis will be less and less on crash language courses for civil servants and increasingly on the teaching of the two official languages to the children in schools-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course the implementation of the language policy has given rise to certain mistakes and certain problems, but the government wants to correct the situation. The government has just tabled a working paper on the official languages. This paper shows clearly that the equality between the two official languages of Canada is not the responsibility of the public service alone, or even of the federal government alone. Moreover, the language issue is not restricted to Quebec and a few square miles more on this side of the Ottawa River. The language issue, as I believe that an increasing number of Canadians have come to realize in the last few years, is national in scope. Since the election of a separatist government in Quebec, it has become more obvious that the manner in which we will solve the language problem will have far-reaching consequences for all Canadians and the future of our children.
Our paper shows clearly that the provinces will have an important role to play in solving language problems, because under our federal system, they have many responsibilities in this area, especially as concerns education. But, in the long run, it will be the Canadian citizen and his attitude towards the linguistic equality of his fellow citizens that will be the decisive factor.
Today 1 wish only to call the House's attention to what the policy paper says about one subject, about Canada's official language minorities, that is, the one million or so Frenchspeaking Canadians living in the nine provinces with Anglophone majorities and the somewhat smaller number of Englishspeaking Canadians living in Quebec.
Why do I single out our official language minorities today? Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, because there are two roads to separation in this country-two dangers we must avoid if we want to preserve the unity of Canada. The first danger would result if a clear majority of Quebeckers were to become so dissatisfied with their present lot and future prospects as Canadians that they freely voted by a clear majority to separate. But, there is a second way which is perhaps more dangerous and certainly more insidious, that separation could occur over a longer period of time perhaps, but with equal
National Unity
Finality. That is the separation by attrition which would eventually result if we were to drift progressively into a Canada composed of two linguistically distinct territories: a Quebec, speaking only French; and the rest of Canada, speaking only English. To some that might superficially seem a functional, friction-free solution to our language problems, but it would not be a solution at all. It would weaken Canada; it would give us less and less in common; it would one day break us apart. A Canada of two language ghettos existing side by side is not acceptable to this government nor, I believe, to this House.
The federal government believes that the 1971 Victoria Charter proposals for language guarantees in provincial legislatures, provincial courts and provincial government head offices would provide a good departure point for building a sound constitutional base for minority rights. The federal government is also ready to discuss with the provinces ways in which it can assist them to provide more education in the minority official language. We are willing to consider ways and means, up to and including new constitutional provisions, to enable the federal government to assume direct constitutional responsibility for education of official language minority groups.
To be sure, I agree wholeheartedly with the proposition that the level of rights the nine other provinces accord their linguistic minorities should more closely resemble the level of rights Quebec has traditionally accorded its official language minority. But, I say this should be accomplished by building up French in the other provinces and not by knocking down English in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that the question of unity is not confined to the issue of language, nor confined geographically to the province of Quebec. 1 said earlier that more linguistic equality for French-speaking Canadians will require certain accommodations by Englishspeaking Canadians. But, why should English-speaking Canadians make such accommodations? Frankly, they will do so only if they feel that confederation is worth it to them and only if they feel that they too are benefitting from the federal system and that is it meeting their aspirations.
In the case of most English-speaking Canadians, this feeling has less to do with language programs than with how successfully we fight inflation and high unemployment; with the quality of our social programs, with transportation and resource development and with many other policies. The Altantic region must feel we are making progress in overcoming stubborn regional economic disparities; that we are helping to develop to the fullest offshore resources; and assisting to control the inequities of high energy costs. The westerner must have, and feel he has, a greater voice in national decision-making and a greater role in national power-sharing; must feel that our transportation system will take better account of the need for an equitable freight rate structure and efficient movement of agricultural commodities; and that our international trade negotiators are making every reasonable effort to favor more processed exports. For that matter, the Quebecker will judge his federal government not only by whether it speaks two

July 5, 1977
National Unity
languages, but also by how well it meets his other concerns as a worker, a farmer or a businessman.

Therefore, the second front on which it is imperative to act is to ensure that the federal system better meets the needs of the average Canadian, whether he lives in Quebec or any other part of this country. The unity of this country will be improved when every Canadian, no matter where he lives or what his language is, will be able to say: "Those people in parliament are working for me, they are looking after my problems. They are preparing a better future for my children here in Canada in this united country that is mine."
And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the best service a member of parliament can do his country is to ensure that his constituents realize that that hon. member is truly vital to their development, their fulfillment, so that the citizens in every part of this country will be able to recognize through their federal member of parliament that they are effectively being run by the government of Canada, that their government is not only the provincial government which is a provincial level government but that their government is first and above all the government of Canada, the government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted quite modestly to congratulate the members of this House who for the most part play this role with great courage in a vast country and who because of their very heavy program in Ottawa cannot be in every area and every constituency as much as they would want to.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that over the months I have written to the provincial premiers to seek from them an understanding whereby the taxpayers of Canada would be in a position to know which government was spending their money. Thus they could democratically decide whether the spending was well or not well done. To this effect, I am seeking agreements between the federal government and every provincial government in order to give sufficient knowledge to the citizen, through publicity and other means, so that he would know where the money is coming from, either from the federal government or elsewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have already signed such an agreement with the province of Manitoba; and 1 hope that other provincial governments who are anxious to work and build for the unity of Canada will also be anxious to make sure that in this way the federal presence, the reality of the federal parliament, be made known in every part of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I just pointed out how important it is for the unity of this country to look properly after the business of this

country. But it does not mean that I am for the status quo- far from it. As I stated unequivocally on several occasions, the government of Canada is committed to considering together with the people of Canada the possibility of bringing in basic in-depth changes to its directions, to federal institutions and to the constitution. It is to this matter of utmost importance that 1 now come.
We Canadians have reached our maturity as North American people. We do not alter our institutions or our constitution under the whim of the moment, as the Parisian designer who is eager to launch his new spring collection. We must get used to the idea that we have launched into a venture which will not end in a few weeks or months. The main reason is that no change, no redistribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces, nor any other step could reinforce national unity, unless those changes really derive from understanding and brotherhood.
This is why, though specific proposals for institutional changes will be effective at a given moment, my first concern since November 15 has been to help Canadians reconsider their behaviour, analyze their feelings and face the decisions and the direction that will soon have to be taken with openness and generosity but also with deeply felt honesty. Indeed I have been able to see that it is exactly what some Canadians have already begun to do.

Since November 15 millions of Canadians, English and French speaking, easterners and westerners, people from southern Canada and from northern Canada, have not only been awakening to the realities of Canada; what is even better, they have embraced the present situation not as a defeat for Canada but as a great challenge, a great opportunity for building a better Canada, not only for Quebeckers but for all of us.
To those who are impatient, I say this is a great deal of progress for the country to have made in seven months. To those who are uncertain or worried, I would report that I have heard more constructive, stimulating thinking about Canada by ordinary Canadians in these past seven months than in all the rest of my life. So in a sense, Mr. Speaker, we are coming at last face to face with our national summons, the task of nation building and nation saving.
Because Canadians are accepting this challenge, I believe that we can now begin to enter a new phase of discussion, of choice, a new phase in the examination of fundamental change in our Canadian system of federalism. This fact was underlined by our recent appointment of the former deputy minister of justice as the government's special constitutional adviser. We have already begun a far-reaching review of our federal system and constitution. We will, of course, also pay close attention to the views of the provincial premiers. As my letter to them last January said, we are quite willing to discuss with the premiers the whole gamut of Canada's constitutional arrangements. We are willing to discuss, in other words, the most profound reforms and fundamental changes in any and all aspects of our federal system from A to Z.
July 5, 1977

In fact, there is only one set of formulae which we are not willing to discuss-those which commence from the premise that Canada is or could be anything other than a unified country.
Some hon. [Members: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: During the crucial months ahead we will need wide input, wide involvement, by the people of Canada. The debate on fundamental change must not be confined to closed rooms, or to privileged elites, whether of politicians or bureaucrats, or of academics or intellectuals, though all these people have much to contribute. The government wishes to enable individual Canadians and their non-governmental organizations to play a more informed role in the national re-examination of the federal system, as well as to participate more effectively in other activities favouring the enhancement of Canadian unity.
[ Translation]
In the last few months, and I am very proud to say so, the groups and individuals who have expressed their wish to do their part are so numerous that it is difficult to count them, let alone meet them. To be efficient, these private organizations sometimes need information and support services; they should also, if necessary, have the benefit of advice. On the other hand, the great majority of Canadians express their views and are being influenced by others by way of a wider and more diffuse forum than by the established structures, namely public opinion. That is why the government believes it is necessary to offer people a new way to participate, through groups of men and women who would focus attention on new ideas and different points of view while listening very carefully to what the public has to say. Thus, all Canadians, and not only a small number, would be better informed and in a position to play a more decisive role.

I have decided to entrust this work to a new national task force on Canadian unity, which will serve for an initial period of one year. The mandate of the task force will be to support, encourage and publicize the efforts of the general public, and particularly of non-governmental organizations, to enhance Canadian unity; to contribute to the knowledge and general awareness of the public its own initiatives and views concerning Canadian unity; and to help to develop processes for strengthening Canadian unity and provide a source of advice to the government on unity issues.
I am delighted to announce that the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, whom the House will presently recognize sitting in Your Honour's gallery-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the Hon. John Robarts-
National Unity


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -have agreed to serve as co-chairmen of the task force on Canadian unity. Mr. Pepin and Mr. Robarts have already given so much to their country. Both of them have just completed important public tasks, Mr. Pepin at the Anti-Inflation Board, Mr. Robarts in his study of metro government in Toronto. The fact that they have agreed to head the task force on Canadian unity so soon afterwards is a testimony to their dedication to public affairs and to their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad to see that the whole House joins me in paying tribute to their dedication. I am also delighted that four other distinguished Canadians will serve as regional members of the task force-Mr. Richard Cashin of St. John's, Newfoundland-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -Dr. John Evans of Toronto-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -Mrs. Muriel Kovitz of Calgary-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and Mayor Ross Marks of Hundred Mile House, B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to add that a fifth regional member, a French speaking Quebecker, will be added to this list very soon.


An hon. Member:: Will it be Rene?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be happy to have any suggestions made the the leader of the NDP, but he would have to be quick because we expect to name this person very soon.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege of opening this debate. I should add that I will have to leave tomorrow before it is concluded to meet Chancellor Schmidt of Germany who is arriving in Canada through Vancouver. I apologize to hon. members for not being here to hear every one of them speak in this debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but members will understand that the debate was postponed from last week to this week for the convenience of some members of the House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You can always read Hansard.

July 5, 1977
National Unity


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will read Hansard, as the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) knows 1 do with passion and regularity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a debate in which we above all wish to hear the ideas, and perhaps the visions, which inspire private members of the House on both sides. For this reason-and also because of my own views about Canada's unity are familiar to the House-I thought it would be appropriate if instead of "orating" I gave the House a report on the priorities which the government has followed since November 15, as well as the new means it is providing to enhance the national debate Canadians will carry on in the months ahead.
But let us make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker. In this House and in every province in this country we are fighting to preserve a great and precious country. The most effective weapon we have is understanding. Debates, task forces, language programs, constitutional proposals-all these will be to little avail unless we have the ability to summon understanding and generosity towards each other's aspirations, as individuals, as members of cultural and regional communities-and as Canadians.
That is the message I have sought to carry these past six months. That is the message which hon. members must carry this summer at every opportunity and to every part of the country, to all our constituencies, to the service clubs, to church halls and legion halls, to the farms, factories and street corners, the message that Canada will not be fractured, the message that we will preserve the unity of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know that the task for Canada will not be easy, but was it easy for the Canadians who settled a sometimes harsh land? Was it easy for the Fathers of Confederation or for the early explorers who penetrated to all corners of this unknown continent? No, the task of creating and recreating Canada has never been easy. But now the task is ours, and the task shall be accomplished.
After all, the odds were much greater against those earlier Canadians who built from scrach this unexpected and even unlikely nation, a nation which, politically, socially and economically, is now one of the freest and most advanced in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Where they built with their hands and their heads, conquering nature, devising vast transportation systems, we must now build with our hearts. We must now decide how we want to live together and better govern ourselves so that our children may live in a Canada which is truly united and truly itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in light of his very glowing references to the role and the importance of individual members of parliament and the job we have to do that, if I might presume to speak on behalf of the other refurbished "nobodies" in the House of Commons, we appreciate his new recognition of our status and our role-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We're somebodies now.


Charles Joseph Clark: -and we intend to give him and his colleagues an opportunity to put their faith in parliament to work a little later.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Naturally, I welcome this debate which my colleagues and I have sought for a long time. The Prime Minister spoke about good news and bad news, and clearly one of the pieces of bad news is that this debate in the only forum which can serve to unite this country has been so long in coming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 am pleased that we have been able to get a little more time. But still the debate is too brief, the resolution is too limited and the scheduling of this debate, on a summer day after we were supposed to have risen, is far too late in terms of the importance of the subject which we are discussing today. I want to say to the Prime Minister that this should have been the first place to which he came to discuss national unity, not somewhere else. I suggest to him that more Canadians would read Hansard with "passion" if there was an opportunity for this House to become engaged, at a critical time, in debates of urgent importance to the country and not be cast off as a group of nobodies.
This parliament must play a continuing, creative role in helping work out the problems which face the country. I shall be proposing an amendment at the end of my remarks to allow parliament to play precisely that role in advancing and maintaining the unity of the country.
The Prime Minister's speech was too limited by his preoccupation with language policy as a means to resolve the basic problems facing this country. I heard the Prime Minister speak about the importance of other issues, as I have heard him speak before and as I have seen in his recent writings. But the fact remains that language policy has been the preoccupation of this Prime Minister and of this government too exclusively. This has created some of the serious problems which exist in this country, because we have failed to assign the same priority to questions such as regional disparity and western alienation as we have assigned to the Prime Minister's particular approach to language policy.
July 5, 1977

Most serious of all is the fact that this debate comes too late and this sign of some action by the Prime Minister comes too late. The election, in the province of Quebec, of a Parti Quebecois government was nearly eight months ago, and today is the first time the government has brought this question to the House of Commons. As the Prime Minister said, he has taken other actions. He has established a secretariat. There have been some television spectaculars. On the lawns of Parliament Hill the other day there was a $3.5 million birthday party.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I thought it was great, and so did everybody else.


Charles Joseph Clark: The question is not whether the whip of the government party had fun; the question is whether that event helped to unify Canadians and whether it will have any lasting effect. By way of action there has also been a statement by the government on language rights, a statement which, depending on whom we listen to and when we hear him, might be federal policy or might not be federal policy. The statement was one upon which, in any event, only the provinces can act. Only the provinces can implement some of the measures suggested in that statement.
My colleagues and I applauded the Prime Minister when he said that the better way to deal with the question of minority language rights in the country is to build up the rights of French-speaking Canadians in other parts of Canada, rather than break down the rights of English-speaking Canadians in the province of Quebec. We agree with that, but we think it probably would have been of more comfort to those Canadians who are most acutely concerned now about their status-the English language minority in the province of Quebec-if the Prime Minister had given at least the minimum guarantee that I have given and that others have given, that if there is a violation by any legislation in the province of Quebec of the constitutional rights of the English language minority, that question will go to the courts of the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now we have a blue-ribbon inquiry-a task force. I want to take this opportunity publicly and early not simply to express my appreciation to the distinguished Canadians who have agreed to serve on this task force, but also to wish them well in the efforts they are undertaking. What concerns me is not the personnel of this task force, but the idea that a new means was necessary when a traditional means exists and is underused, to wit, the parliament of Canada. The Canadians appointed to this task force are distinguished. They have had excellent careers in the public service at various levels in Canada, but with the exception of the mayor of Hundred Mile House none of them is an elected person. They are given a mandate to report, not to this parliament but only to the government of Canada, which can hide, doctor or do nothing at all with the recommendations they bring in.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
National Unity


Charles Joseph Clark: The terms of reference which have been accorded them are terms of reference which we will want to examine in some detail to ensure that this task force is allowed the largest amplitude to study all of the questions which pertain to national unity, and not simply those questions which the Prime Minister, during his career in this House and before, has felt have been at the centre of national unity.
During the past eight months of relative inactivity by the Prime Minister of Canada, it is important to note that the premier of Quebec, Mr. Rene Levesque, has not been at all so reticent. Nor, in all modesty, have I or have the leaders of other parties in the House of Commons been reticent in terms of putting forward some of the specific changes we think must be contemplated in developing a new and viable federalism. However, we are only opposition parties. We are only members of an unconsulted parliament. We have the opportunity to propose, but we do not have the opportunity to act. Only governments have the power to act, and some governments have acted. The government of the province of New Brunswick, three days ago, proclaimed the last sections of an official languages act for that province.
The government of the province of Ontario, with the cooperation of all the parties in the provincial legislature, has accepted its moral obligation to the French-speaking citizens of Essex county and it has begun, in an effective way, a public discussion of some of the problems we are facing. The province of Quebec has certainly been acting. It has been acting with Bill No. 1 which is not the subject of hearings and is going before a committee. The government of Quebec has been acting with Bill No. 2 which will affect the conduct of the referendum when it comes. Most importantly, it has been acting with a relentless campaign of propaganda designed to shift the burden of proof to the federalists from the separatists, where the burden of proof belongs in this case.
Putting aside all the television spectaculars, the fact remains that in the months since the November 15 election the Prime Minister of Canada has failed to exercise the leadership that is his.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is what the polls show, is it?


Charles Joseph Clark: He has failed to call upon parliament to help him, although we want to help him and although we can.


Mr. Pelletier:: You don't want to help him.


Charles Joseph Clark: I assume that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) has enough influence in his caucus to be able to get on the speakers' list for this debate, and I look forward to hearing him. The Prime Minister has failed to call upon the premiers of the provinces of Canada to help him, although they want to help him and although they could help him in this present crisis.

July 5, 1977
National Unity


An hon. Member:: He needs help.


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 make it clear to the House that had that responsibility been mine and had I been prime minister of Canada during those days, one of my first acts would have been to seek the advice of parliament and then call together the premiers of Canada, the partners in this federal system of ours. If the premier of Quebec had not come to the first meeting, I am sure that after we made progress in that first meeting he would either have come to the subsequent meetings or suffered the consequences of abstention-the consequences that would be visited upon him by the electorate in the province of Quebec.
The sad fact is that the Prime Minister of Canada has not taken initiatives on behalf of Canada in this debate. Instead, he made one speech in Quebec City proposing to start from scratch; then under questioning he refused to say exactly what "scratch" was. Later, in March of this year, he said to the government of Quebec:

"Your turn, gentlemen!"

He invited the separatist government to take the initiative in redefining confederation. Mr. Speaker, they are doing that with a vengeance. They are doing that whilst this government sets up task forces. I can think of nothing more absurd than to ask a government that wants to divide this country to set the ground rules for uniting this country. If the Prime Minister had called in the premiers, or if he had consulted parliament, he would know that the problems of Canada are much broader than language, much broader than discontent in the province of Quebec. Any comprehensive program to create a sense of community in this country must look to other real problems as well.
First, we have to look to the problems of the economy because we are living now in an economy and a country that is operating very far below its potential. As well as creating unemployment, including unemployment in the constituency of the loud-voiced member from New Brunswick opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As well as creating unemployment, this economic slowdown has created serious discontent amongst people in Canada, some of whom voted against the federal system on November 15. There is no question at all that a weak economy stimulates division, and there is no question, by contrast, that a strong economy can let us build together toward common goals. If we are seriously concerned about uniting this country, that fact has to be a priority of any government of Canada.
The second fact is that there are serious regional disparities in this country which remain unresolved after a decade of government by the party opposite. In Atlantic Canada, despite the existence of DREE, the economy continues to lag because Atlantic development has been given none of the priority that

language development has been given in this country. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is now a second-fiddle ministry overruled by stronger departments.
The best recent example of this is the shocking announcement made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) that in 1976-77 the two major categories of government purchasing by the government of Canada-the purchasing for science and engineering and the purchasing for commercial supply-saw a marked decrease. In the case of commercial supply, purchases made from Atlantic Canada were cut in half. On the one hand, this government, dedicated through a department to regional economic expansion, was working through a stronger department to take away the economic means which would make that expansion possible.
In Western Canada there is a sense of grievance which grows over the fact that so little priority has been given to changes in freight rates, tariff policy and industrial development which could let that region realize its potential. The Prime Minister talks about those things now, as he talked about them when he was in trouble in the election period and at the WEOC conference. It has all been talk, however. The priority has not been given to the development of western Canada that has been given by this government to pushing their own particular language policy.
The point I want to make is that these grievances, these problems, are as real and as much a potential source of disunity as are the concerns in Quebec about the security of the Quebecois culture. Regrettably, through nearly a decade in office this government has virtually ignored these other priorities and has created in most of the country a sense that the government will not respond to their real problems.
The motion before the House reads as follows:
That members of this House dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada as a free and independent country organized on the basis of a federal form of government with two official languages and a diversity of cultures.
This is the third time in eight years that the present government has asked parliament to reaffirm the linguistic and cultural diversity that is a fact of life in our country. I have no objection to that in itself. But a statement about languages and cultures, or a statement about "a federal form of government" is completely inadequate to define what Canada is and what Canada means to our people. Implicit in the resolution and in the basic approach of this government for the past nine years is the concept that language and language policy will unify Canadians. In that respect the Prime Minister could not be more wrong.
In recent weeks we have had a spate of television advertisements celebrating our sense of Expo, our sense of centennial. We can all remember that atmosphere. There was a spontaneous enthusiasm about our future which was far removed from the forced gaiety which marked our approach to our one hundred and tenth birthday. We have fallen a long way back since 1967. We are, as a nation, much less united now than when this government came to office on a promise of unity. If we are serious about bringing the country together and establishing real harmony which lasts longer than a birthday party,
July 5, 1977

we must examine exactly what went wrong. To use the Prime Minister's words, we must "open our minds".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps there are members on the other side who can open their minds and their mouths at the same time, Mr. Speaker, but I would feel more confident that my message was getting through if they would allow me to express it. My message, and I say this in utmost seriousness, is this: We must be prepared to examine and change policies and approaches which have not worked, even if that means changing attitudes which some, including the Prime Minister, have come to regard as articles of faith.
I want to deal for a moment with the question of the official languages policy of the country. It behooves all of us who want an effective policy which will contribute to the unity of the country to be frank and honest about what we face. Of course, it has never been in question that we must have institutional bilingualism as a matter of justice and fairness in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Sir, I would appreciate the opportunity of being heard by some of my colleagues opposite. Perhaps those in the Liberal caucus who are not accustomed to hearing conflicting views might show us the courtesy of listening to them.


An hon. Member:: Is there no conflict on your side?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, bilingualism, or having two languages, by definition does not unite. It divides. It is a necessary goal, but it is not the glue: bilingualism is not the glue which will hold this country together.


An hon. Member:: Crazy glue.


Charles Joseph Clark: I say to my colleagues in the House of Commons, we must accept that fact realistically. We must recognize the importance of that policy, but we must look beyond the differences of language and culture for the values and goals which will draw us together as Canadians. We must seek to build Canadian unity, not on the basis of bilingualism or of language differences but despite bilingualism, which is an important, continuing part of the policy of this land.
Sir, let us examine this question calmly and carefully. Making our federal institutions bilingual is clearly, as anyone can see who would look, a source of serious problems in the country. The implementation of the program has in some ways been a disaster, including a disaster to good will. It has been dangerous and difficult, particularly in its effect on morale in the public service. Equally serious-and 1 underline this to Canadians in the House of Commons who may not have had the experience and opportunity 1 have had to travel extensively in provinces other than Quebec-is the fact that the many English Canadians whose inclination had been to accept this policy are now becoming disillusioned and resentful about it.
National Unity
The reason is that so little progress has been made in the teaching of French as a second language and so little sensitivity shown in the development of the official languages policy in this country.
I come to the question of schools. Children go through their provincial school systems without acquiring a working knowledge of French. Their parents know this is going to be a handicap to them. French is becoming not just an asset but a necessity for those seeking opportunity to progress fully in the federal public service. At the moment, that fact, unfortunately, is seen in two-thirds of the country not as an opportunity, but as a barrier to opportunity. For the Prime Minister to go to Saskatchewan, or anywhere else in Canada, and tell his audience they do not have to worry about learning to speak French does not, in that context, accord with reality as those parents see it or as seen through the eyes of parents looking to the future of their children.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Government hypocrisy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand, sir, that there are some members on the other side of the House who would sooner not hear this truth. But it is important that the House of Commons should be a place where truth can be spoken, no matter how unpopular it may be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I say the Prime Minister and government should not underestimate the resentment which exists in the country on that account. The policy of institutional bilingualism, essential as it is, will collapse unless the federal government provides the help, financial and otherwise, which will enable the provinces to produce bilingual people for bilingual federal institutions. The programs so far introduced by the federal government are hopelessly inadequate, given the size of the task. If the government does not act soon to make up for lost time, offer to the provinces encouragement, opportunity to parents who want to support the program and only ask that their children should be equipped to take part in it, the divisions in this country which the language policy has created will become too deep to heal.
We must also face the fact that increased use of French outside Quebec is, in itself, no answer to the problem in Quebec. Teaching French as a second language to Englishspeaking children is enriching for them and irrelevant to most Quebeckers. Providing education in their own language to French-speaking minorities is beyond the power of the federal government, as everybody in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada knows. At the moment, and for the foreseeable future, that problem is beyond solution by way of constitutional reform. The right of French Canadians to education in their own language may have existed once, but it was taken away by provincial legislation. It exists now in New Brunswick and there have been some changes in Ontario and Manitoba in

July 5, 1977
National Unity
recent years. But to speak of the right to French-language education outside Quebec as if it now exists is, for the most part, misleading.
[ Translation]
Quebeckers perceive this aspect of Canadian reality under its true light and it would be very vain to try to convince them that it is otherwise. If they have doubts about the future of their language and their culture within the boundaries of their province, they do know that their National Assembly, which represents a population more than 80 per cent French-speaking, will always be much more conscious and more capable to act to preserve the French language and culture than any other legislature, including the Parliament of Canada. To admit it is to acknowledge the evidence.
For some years the federal government has made a mistake trying to compete on that level with the Quebec government. Ottawa should have recognized that the Quebec government is the most able to preserve and promote the French language within the limits of that province. It is not without reason that our constitution has given to the provinces, with special reference to Quebec, all the powers which were available and which were then considered necessary, so that they could assume their responsibilities over all cultural questions. However, as new communications and cultural means developed, Ottawa has always refused to adjust, therefore to conclude arrangements within the spirit of the constitution. In fact, Ottawa has appropriated all powers and it has constantly undermined the undeniable rights of provinces in cultural areas. This trend will have to be changed and the sooner the better.

Sir, I ask the House of Commons, is it going to wreck the country if Saskatchewan gains some say in cablevision, or if Quebec does? Is it going to wreck the country if Alberta gets into pay television, or if the governments of the provinces are able to run non-commercial television free of the regulatory shackles the federal government has put on them? Of course it is not. Yet this is what we are led to believe by the federal government and all its creatures. The central government should rid itself of the idea that it should enjoy exclusive authority over culture in any respect. The federal government must be prepared to share jurisdiction in those areas.
To say, as the Prime Minister does, that they should cut both ways, that the provinces should share their jurisdiction with Ottawa, is hardly relevant since Ottawa has already bought its way into every field imaginable. There is hardly a field where the provinces enjoy apparently exclusive jurisdiction which the federal government has not bought into at some time over the past few years. If we are going to have a truth in labelling provision in terms of federal expenditures, as the Prime Minister was talking about, it might be useful for that label to include a designation of those programs which the provinces were forced to accept by Ottawa at disruption of their own priorities.
[Mr. Clark.)
If November 15 had never happened, I would be arguing here for a more regionally-based federalism. I advocated such an approach to our country's problems well before my election as leader of this party. The country is too big to be run entirely out of Ottawa. That is why we have a federal system, to combine a strong centre with strong parts. Precisely because they are closer to people, provincial governments are better able to respond to needs that differ in different parts of Canada. We could go through a long list indicating the truth of that statement.
What is at issue here is not just the future of one province, but the concept of our whole, large country. Of course we need a strong central government to establish economic policy and to meet other common needs. But we also need strong provincial governments, strong local governments and a strong private sector to meet needs and develop potentials that are not common across Canada. We are an uncommon country. We differ from place to place, from person to person.
The danger with national institutions is that they can become so centralized, so standardized, that they ignore or diminish the differences which give life to this country. We see that in the CBC which periodically must be wrenched back to the regional realities of Canada. We see it in the determination, until recently, to pretend that unemployment is the same problem in Alberta as it is in Newfoundland. We see it in too many other ways. What we must do is develop a situation in which it is possible for strong provincial governments to do what they do best, and possible for a strong federal government to do what it must do. It should be in that spirit that we approach the problem of redefining our constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My time is running out.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since there is a limitation in this debate, I do not want to intrude upon the time of private members of parliament by speaking at any greater length. I want to make the point that we have a possibility within this country. It has been demonstrated by the premiers of several of the provinces by their disposition and by their approach to federal-provincial affairs. We have the capacity in this country to achieve a number of changes by administrative arrangement now, without having to wait for constitutional change. That could be done tomorrow if there were an accord on the part of the Prime Minister of Canada and the premiers of the provinces to do so.
I make the point that while none of us would accept the idea of a constitutional special status, it has been the long-established principle of this country that it is possible for different provinces to have different administrative arrangements with the government of Canada. That is a field we should be examining much more carefully as we look for ways to make our federal system serve the needs of this country right now. That is essential, not simply to make the system work but to make it seem to work to those Canadians who now have some
July 5, 1977

doubts. We federalists have to cause Quebeckers to understand that their choice, as they go to referendum, is not between their perception of the status quo and the Pequiste formula. We have to make it clear that the choice is between what we, as supporters of confederation, advocate in Canada, and the changes that the Pequistes advocate which would take Quebec out of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As an excuse for not offering positive proposals for change, the Prime Minister has been saying over and over again that no proposal for evolution within confederation is going to change Mr. Rene Levesque's mind. Of course not. We are not trying to change Mr. Levesque's mind. We are, surely, trying to persuade the people of Quebec that the arrangements and relationships within confederation can evolve to meet the cultural and regional needs of all the partners. The only convincing way to do that is for this government to enlist parliament and the provinces in developing that approach. In Quebec, especially, the approach must be seen as representing the views not only of the federal government but of all the other provinces. Beyond the present constitution, beyond the Quebec referendum, lies the need to commit ourselves and address ourselves again to the task of constitutional change. As I have said, there are other changes that we can make without having to contemplate constitutional change. Constitutional change is only part of the answer, as institutional bilingualism is only part of the answer. Both are necessary to demonstrate to unhappy federalists everywhere that this system is capable of change, that there is a choice between separatism and the status quo.
We must recognize that it will not be laws that bring us together. As we have seen, unhappily, with the insensitive application of the Official Languages Act and the strange rigidity of the government on constitutional change, laws and legal questions can often drive people apart. What we had in 1967, what we had in 1867, was a determination to build together that did not rely on laws. We all came into this confederation because it served our interests. There is no question in my mind that we are all better off as citizens of a large land, full of potential; no question that it is in the interest of Quebeckers to share in the development of the Athabasca oil sands, and in the interest of Albertans to share in the growth generated at James Bay. We have here a potential to grow that is unparallelled in the world and which is best realized if we grow together.
Despite our efforts to define identity or to guarantee language rights, the real source of harmony in this country has been our ability to build it together. That potential is still here today, but we are not building toward it: we are drawing back and drawing apart. To use the langauge of the resolution, we need to dedicate ourselves anew to the concept of building together in this country. That means we must give as much priority in the next decade to economic and regional growth as we gave to language in the decade behind us.
National Unity
In the meantime, we have healing work to do. We must reform programs that have not worked. We must help Canadians from one region to learn more about their neighbours. We must restore respect for our common institutions. Commissions, birthday parties, and television speeches all have their role in that process, but the central role belongs to the only agency which represents all the people of Canada. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That the motion be amended by adding the following words at the end thereof;
"and as a means of actively and constructively affirming this dedication urge the establishment of a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on national unity to recommend such constitutional, economic and social measures as will allow the federal system to respond fully to the needs of all Canadians."


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a few years ago Canadians informed the government of Canada that the tax system was unequal and unfair. As a result, a royal commission was set up and certain recommendations were brought forward. Since then the tax system has become more unfair, more unequal. Some years later Canadians sent the government a message that the foreign ownership of our resources was causing trouble and that somehow or another we should be controlling our own economic destiny. Once again the government responded. It set up a royal commission on foreign ownership. The commission made recommendations and, once again, the government acted: it acted in such a way that Canadian industry is being gobbled up at an ever-increasing rate.
More recently, Mr. Speaker, the government learned that there is a serious problem of national unity. What did it do? It set up a task force on national unity. After eight months contemplating the results of the most dramatic provincial election in our history, the government put all its brains to work, all its political and emotional commitment to the future of our country, and produced the idea of setting up a task force. If the past performance of government task forces tells us anything about the future, we can expect greater disunity in the future, rather than a united Canada. I regret that this has been the response of the government to the country's most serious crisis this century.
When the right hon. gentleman became Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in 1968, he took over the government of a country which had lived through a period of genuine excitement. What took place in 1967 or 1969 was not a spurious, Pepsi-Cola kind of enthusiasm. What we saw in 1967 at the centenary celebrations was interesting architecture, much of which had come from Canadian architects, interesting cinema, much of which had come from Canadian directors making films for the first time, and imaginative music much of which had been written by Canadian composers. Beyond all this there was a sense among our people that the country was finally progressing toward a greater degree of self-acceptance, of awareness and independence as a nation.

July 5, 1977
National Unity
Since then, as has been pointed out many times, most recently by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), we have experienced one of the most alarming periods of disunity in the history of the nation. The Prime Minister, in his lecture today, trotted out two potential causes of discontent. One was economic and the other was cultural. I agree with him that much of the discontent in Canada has its roots in cultural and economic considerations. But I call on the right hon. gentleman to acknowledge that he has been Prime Minister for nine years and that the programs and policies having to do with cultural growth and economic growth are policies for which his government has been responsible. Throughout his speech I looked in vain for the slightest hint that the government might have failed somewhere. I looked for the slightest touch of modesty, the slightest acknowledgment of the fact that when the Prime Minister was elected there was not a separatist in any legislature in Canada, whereas today separatists form the government of Quebec.
The Prime Minister talked about the future as though the past decade did not exist. Yet it did exist. It was a decade of unrealized expectation for Canadians-lost expectations which had been raised in 1967 on a very solid foundation in both the cultural and economic fields. I suggest that the two areas the Prime Minister singled out are the correct ones. But there has been failure on his part, both in terms of analysis and in terms of implementing policies, which have led us specifically to the dilemma which faces us now.
Let me deal, first, with the nationalist question which is what the cultural question is all about. The Prime Minister has trotted out his old, 1968 nostrum, the Official Languages Act. Once again he implied that somehow or other, if this measure could gain acceptance across the land, the Quebec problem would go away. The right hon. gentleman's logic distresses me.
I would have thought that a man with Jesuit training would have understood things more clearly. Throughout the period since 1967 he has been trying to apply the principle of the Official Languages Act and to gain acceptance for it across Canada. And it is precisely in the same period that the forces of separatism have gained ground. So whatever else might be said in favour of the policy, it surely has not headed off the forces of separatism.
Cannot the Prime Minister draw a lesson from this? Surely it is a clue to him that if this country is to remain united, it will not do so on the basis of an official languages policy. That policy-and I repeat what has been said by my two predecessors as leaders of this party-was a good policy and we shall defend if. At any time the government makes dollar grants of a sensible character for language training in the civil service or, more effectively, for training our young people in the two languages at the school level, we shall support this policy. But I ask the Prime Minister to get over his illusion that the Official Languages Act is a motivating force in the achievement of national unity. It is not. I do not agree with the Prime Minister's conclusion that the national application of the principle of bilingualism will somehow bring about national unity.

Why do I say that? I say, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Prime Minister that the cultural problem is not a national problem. The cultural problem about language is in the province of Quebec. The Quebeckers, the Quebecois, and the vast majority of that province who speak French are sympathetic and desire that French-speaking minorities elsewhere in Canada have the same rights as English minorities do in Quebec. My party and I agree with that. That has not been the central source of their discontent with our federal union, which is a crucial point. Since the early sixties what we have seen emerge in the province of Quebec is a positive, exciting form of nationalism, a nationalism in which the people of that province-ordinary workers, factory workers, office workers or functionaries in a bureaucracy-have decided at long last in their history to become the cultural masters of their own house.
The tragedy of our time is that we have had a Prime Minister-I say this seriously-who intellectually and honestly opposes nationalism. But I say equally seriously that he is dead wrong when he says that all forms of nationalism must be negative. Therefore, he has not been able to show the kind of leadership to the province of Quebec that this country requires, because he has always seen nationalism as being inward-looking, negative, regressive and withdrawing.
In terms of the history of the province of Quebec up to the sixties, during the formative intellectual years of the Prime Minister's own life, I would suggest that he was right. Earlier forms of nationalism in his own province were precisely that: that is what it was all about. They wanted to go back to an earlier form of society. If the new nationalism which emerged in the 1960s in the province of Quebec had been like that, then the Prime Minister's action would have been correct. But 1 suggest that his diagnosis is wrong. He is intellectually rigid in his understanding of nationalism, and therefore he was unprepared to say to the young Quebecois, "I am with you". He could not say to Gilles Vigneault, to Monique Leyrac, or to a whole list of young French Canadian writers and singers, "You can be both a Quebecois nationalist and a Canadian".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The rest of Canada must understand that this Quebecker does not understand the positive force which is to work in his own province. He had to say to young Quebeckers in particular, "You must make a choice. You must decide to be a nationalist and a Quebecois, on the one hand, or a Canadian, and give up your nationalism, on the other hand". That has been a decisively negative aspect of the Prime Minister's leadership. One of the inevitable consequences of that response on the part of the Prime Minister has been to encourage the kind of negative development which he feared might occur.
While the Prime Minister is correct that there is a cultural aspect to our problem of disunity, he is wrong in pointing his finger to the problem of minorities, as important as they are in other provinces. A great example in this context would be
July 5, 1977

President Roosevelt. In the 1930s that great country to the south of us was going through immense problems and there were constitutional difficulties connected with those problems. But President Roosevelt showed moral leadership. He did not rigidly distinguish between what was a federal matter and what was a state matter in his country. He said there were certain areas to deal with problems federally. As a president, he did that and achieved constitutional changes as well. Beyond that, he went over state boundaries, as I am suggesting the Prime Minister should have done in terms of his attitude to his own people in the province of Quebec.
Instead of Rene Levesque saying that the language of work must be French in the province of Quebec, our Canadian Prime Minister should have said it. Instead of Rene Levesque saying that the majority of people in the province of Quebec are Francophone, and therefore must have a majority of the positions of power in the boards of directors, it should have been our federalist Prime Minister saying those things. I suggest to the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that he had better start taking up that kind of leadership in the province of Quebec and not leave it all to Rene Levesque, because if he does the ball game will be over.
In addition to the cultural question, respecting which I submit there has been a decisive failure of leadership in this country and no indication on the Prime Minister's part that he plans to change that in the future, there is the economic domain. There is a very important connection in the province of Quebec between the economic discontent of Quebeckers and the cultural resentment they feel toward Ottawa. It is not coincidence that the young, some 40 per cent of whom are under the age of 30 and committed to independence, feel the way they do.
In the last couple of years the province of Quebec has experienced 50 per cent of the new unemployment in Canada. The province of Quebec has a quarter of our population but a third of our unemployment. How does a young worker in Ste. Therese or in the Gaspe region, feel when he sees in Ottawa a government which rejects his cultural desires, and compounds, the problem by doing nothing about his human need for a job? That is the precise connection which is being made now by thousands of young Quebeckers all over that province. In real terms, 1 remind the Prime Minister that we are talking about 400,000 who are out of work in the province of Quebec, and a disproportionate number of them are young Quebeckers. Having failed the Quebec French-speaking population on cultural grounds, the grievance is compounded when their human desires to have a job are ignored.
Beyond the province of Quebec there are economic reasons for discontent in our land. Because the Prime Minister knows something about history, I ask him to remember that when this union came into being in 1867, it did so because the regions coming together thought they were all going to get equality of concern, if not absolute equality, by the national government. They expected approximate equality in their circumstances and their opportunities to grow.
National Unity
In economic terms, I suggest that is still the legitimate foundation of the national union. If that is not achieved in Canada, the national union will not be maintained either. I direct the Prime Minister's attention to the figures for Atlantic Canada. The leader of the opposition brought out some of those figures today. I ask the Prime Minister to consider the fact that our fellow Canadians in Atlantic Canada suffered disproportionately, age after age, decade after decade, from unemployment which has worsened during the last decade rather than getting better. As has already been indicated, the program of regional development has been virtually scrapped.
On television the other night I saw a very moving Cape Bretoner who said to all Canadians watching television that they had serious problems in Cape Breton. He mentioned something which I am sure, caused people who live in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver to shake their heads and wonder about. He referred to the fact that they still have outdoor "johns". That is a joke for most of us because it is so remote from our cultural experience, but for a good part of Atlantic Canada it is a reality. That type of regional inequality is something Canadians in that part of our fine land will not tolerate much longer.
There has been lots of rhetoric and nonsense spoken about western Canada in regard to western alienation. Perhaps occasionally I have indulged in a little of that myself. But the reality is there. The Prime Minister knows that there was a western economic opportunties conference in 1973, when the four provincial governments met with the federal government and set up a series of legitimate demands. What were those demands about? Did they want special treatment? Did western Canadians say they wanted something that Ontario and Quebec did not have? Of course they did not. They said to the national government, "Give us an equal break. Change the freight rates system so that in the prairies there is an equal opportunity to develop industry, just as there is in southern Ontario". That was a reasonable demand. They asked for some moderation in the government's taxation policy on resources which it changed overnight without telling them. Again, that was a reasonable demand.
[DOT] (noo)
Following that conference, if I recall correctly, the Prime Minister said that these were sensible proposals for western Canada, that they were legitimate expectations for our prairie people whether they live in Moose Jaw, Calgary, or in the more rural parts of the prairies. But what did the Prime Minister do, Mr. Speaker? In 1973 the conference took place in a year when there was a minority federal government. In 1974 there was an election and the Prime Minister got his majority and forgot entirely about western economic grievances. He forgot entirely those legitimate concerns of western Canadians who want to feel part of Canada too, those on the prairies more than those in British Columbia. They feel that the Liberal party of Canada plays a cynical game in every election. The cynical game is that they calculate their majorities in Ontario and Quebec and say to hell with the rest of Canada.
7324

July 5, 1977
National Unity
I think any objective analysis by a historian, or political scientist, of government by the Liberal party over the past 20 years will support that western cynicism. The Liberals do their polling, they send out their surveys and find out whether leadership or some other policy is the issue, they count the votes in Ontario and in Quebec and, by God, if there is a majority, they call an election. In the meantime, serious harm is done in our country because westerners become more discontent with their lack of power and the people of Atlantic Canada continue to suffer prolonged inequality. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that an unjust confederation, not just from the point of view of the people of Quebec but from the point of view of western and eastern Canadians, will not survive and the Prime Minister had better learn that.
One issue, more than any other, of concern to our people, whether in western Canada, in Quebec, in northern or southern Ontario, is unemployment. I am not going to take the time of the House this afternoon to repeat speeches which I and others have made in past weeks and months. Let me simply say that the problem does take on national unity implications. I say that because there is an unhealthy correlation between high levels of unemployment and regions of serious discontent and the state of national unity. If you go to Newfoundland, you hear cracks about upper Canada and Newfoundland has 30 per cent unemployment. If you go to the Gaspe region, you find separatist members have been elected and you also find very serious levels of unemployment. There is this kind of pattern existing in a good part of our country within provinces and between provinces.
I say to the Prime Minister, as I have said elsewhere, that one of the best ways of making the nation work is actually putting the nation back to work. I wish that the Prime Minister would take that objective a little more seriously. The approach to the question of national unity taken by my party has been a serious one. We have not recommended a national commission. Since last November 15 we have been working to draw up very specific suggestions regarding what should be done at this time to maintain a strong, united country. Before coming to two or three points in that program which I want to emphasize-and I want to emphasize them with pride because 950 or so delegates at a recent convention of my party worked all over Canada Day weekend, appropriately and symbolically enough, to come up with what I think is a remarkably sound resolution on the subject-I want, in all seriousness, to discuss what I understand to be the central argument of the official opposition.
I listened with respect and with interest to the Leader of the Official Opposition this afternoon when he emphasized economic concerns as a legitimate and important aspect of national unity. I want to say on behalf of my colleagues that we are in full agreement with the Leader of the Official Opposition on that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: But beyond that, Mr. Speaker, there is a substantial difference between our approach and the Conserva-

tive party approach on the constitutional issue. There was not much emphasis placed in the speech of the Leader of the Official Opposition today on the point, though it has been emphasized many times in speeches he has made outside the House. I want to deal with it because I think it is a dangerous point. I refer to the argument that at this point in our history we must, either by tax point transfers or by changing constitutional power, give more authority to the provinces.
In my view, Mr. Speaker, that would be a serious mistake for us as a federal union. As a federal country we are now burdened in some sense with a central government which has less economic power than the other major federal countries in the world. To take any more power, principally economic power, away from the central government would, in fact, contribute to disunity. The point I want to make is that giving either tax points to the provinces or constitutional power will cause the rich provinces to get richer and more powerful and, conversely, the poor provinces to become poorer and less powerful.
For example, a tax point transfer involved in recent legislation introduced by the government and supported by the official opposition just a few months ago. One tax point transferred to a province means $4 per capita to the province of Prince Edward Island, but $10 per capita to the province of Ontario.


Mr. Kaplan:: They are equal.


John Edward Broadbent: No, Mr. Speaker, they are not, and I can go into the details of the new equalization formula. As a result of the decision reached in the new fiscal arrangements, there is in excess of a $1 billion net increase to the province of Ontario over any other province. On behalf of my party, I want to say that the kind of Canada we want to build is not one in which we will find the rich provinces, whether Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta, becoming richer at the expense of all the rest. We will have nothing to do with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Quite apart from any notion of equality which, from my perspective, is so central to the argument, I appeal to my colleagues in the other parties to consider the following argument. If they are not interested in principle, in the notion of equality as such, I would ask them to think about the implications for national unity. If this kind of transfer continues, whether in the tax system or constitutionally, what it will mean is that the Atlantic provinces will build up a set of grievances against Ontario and against British Columbia, and perhaps Saskatchewan, after a few years of bad crops-and that is possible-will find itself once again in a have-not position. This will cause great resentment against the richer provinces. By giving more power to the provinces, either in the form of constitutional change or fiscal transfers, what we will be doing is sowing the seeds of future discontent in our land. So for national unity reasons alone I think we should oppose this kind of move.
July 5, 1977

If we reject that kind of constitutional approach seriously put forward, what is the option? Do we revert to the kind of centralized federalism that we have had over the last ten years, one that has shown no respect for or sympathy with the nationalist development in the province of Quebec; one that has insisted upon a rigid application of national programs, whether we are talking about hospitalization or CMHC, right across the land? 1 suggest that is not the option. There is a third alternative, and I should like to sketch in what I think some of the components of that third option are in terms of Canadian federalism at this point in our history.
First, we want to emphasize the need for an effective national government with a national program, whether we are talking about unemployment insurance, medicare, hospitalization or housing. All of these programs must be maintained on a national basis in order to give Canadians from coast to coast some reason to identify with the national government. Such programs can be nation building.
Second, we suggest that the government take the rhetoric of decentralization seriously, but instead of decentralizing fiscal power or constitutional power what they should do is decentralize in a fundamental way the administration of such programs. They can establish housing programs on a very broad scale and money will go to the provinces to build homes within a certain income category and price range, but then leave to the provinces the right to decide what kind of housing they will build. We do not need the rigidity that we find in CMHC.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The housing needs of New Brunswick are different from those in downtown Vancouver, and both, again, are different from those in rural Quebec. So let us turn over pretty completely the administration of such national programs to the provinces, the same as 1 said on another occasion in terms of hospitalization. If the provinces are to get money for hospitals, they should not be told, as the government has told them in the past, to spend it all on acute care hospitals. Maybe one province needs more nursing homes than acute care hospitals. Again, the solution is not to get rid of such national programs, which I take to be the logic of the Conservative party. The solution is to maintain such programs, but to radically decentralize the administration and give the provinces the right to decide whether it makes more sense for them to build acute care hospitals or nursing homes. That is our second point, that we can have substantial decentralization in the administration of national programs.
The third point I would make, particularly at this point in history, is that we need a massive program to deal with unemployment. The Prime Minister recently came back, with what I took to be some kind of pride, from a meeting of seven industrialized countries and said that we are not unique, that all countries have the unemployment problem. What he did not point out is that among the seven countries we are the worst. He casually forgot to say that the other six have an
National Unity
unemployment problem, that is true, but two or three of them have social democratic governments which are doing a hell of a lot better than Canada is with the combination of inflation and unemployment. That is the point. Certain governments are prepared to involve themselves in the kind of national economic planning that is necessary to deal with both inflation and unemployment, and the resolution passed by my party on the weekend calls for such a national planning effort on behalf of this government.
Fourth, I turn to the constitution. It is our view that some constitutional change is necessary; some is inevitable. There has been change in the past and there will be change in the future. Some sensible proposals have been made by a number of Canadians both inside and outside this House, but I want to stress that in our view the basic structure of our constitution is sound and the prime source of our current tensions and problems in Canada does not come from the constitutional structure we now have. It comes, rather, from the policies and leadership, or lack of leadership, in the politics associated with that constitution.
I suggest that, for example, in the province of Quebec where the cultural problem is the serious one, Rene Levesque is showing that within the present constitution the French language can be made the language of work for the people of Quebec-and I and my colleagues, salute and support that effort. Second, the effort to make changes in the distribution of power in the province of Quebec can be done within the present constitution. It is the case that the minority of Anglophones dominates the power structure in the corporations in that province, and it is the case that if the prime minister of that province wants to change that, as he does, he can do so within the present constitution and we should encourage him in so acting.
Finally, another aspect of concern to the people of Quebec, as expressed by a good number of them, anyway, is that they want to get more control over their natural resources, as do a lot of people in other provinces who support the philosophy of my party. I say through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier of Quebec that if he wants to do to the asbestos industry in Quebec what Alan Blakeney has done in his province to the potash industry, more power to him. He can do that also-I want to stress this-within the existing constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Although we are very open, as a party, to those who want to propose constitutional change, it is certainly our view at this point that that is not the primary concern and that more basic economic and cultural matters and problems can be solved by political and economic decision-making within the present framework.
Let me conclude with our last point. What I think is really required in our country, more than anything else, is a leadership which says to the people of Quebec and to ordinary Canadians outside the province that there are, in fact, two great cultures. I say that to the Prime Minister who tries to pretend that somehow it is simply a multicultural society. It is
80018-61%

July 5, 1977
National Unity
multicultural, but he knows as well as I do that there is a predominant Francophone culture established as a society in the province of Quebec, and there is the English community outside of it. What we require, surely, from the national leadership is for those of us who are federalists to say to the people of Quebec, "Let us work together. There is an immense amount of good that we can do. Within the federal union we can best preserve your cultural existence and Francophone community so you will not be gobbled up by the Americans to the south; and together you, the province of Quebec, and Canadians elsewhere can build a just and decent society that is really committed to building a sense of community based on the values of liberty and equality."


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I am pleased to take part in this important debate on national unity, or more especially as far as Social Crediters in the House are concerned, on the constitutional future of Canada. The conditions in this country have changed substantially in 110 years. We have evolved from a mainly agricultural and stable society into an industrial, technological, urbanized and active community in the business world, so that our needs have also changed.
Some clauses of our constitution should not have been altered, while others should have been abolished or slightly amended. Considering our present constitutional document, the Social Crediters are demanding a new constitution for several reasons and among others because our constitution is already 110 years old. It was not drafted in Canada, by Canadians, for Canadians without outside pressure. And then our constitution is still in London after 110 years and we are not sure where it is localized and how it could be patriated. With this so-called Canadian Constitution which no longer meets our needs and which causes us so much trouble to patriate, it is the contention of the Social Crediters that it is easier and better to have it where it is, especially when we consider the trouble its patriation would entail in relation to its real value in Canada nowadays.
A new constitution drawn up by the provinces is the safest way to come up with Canadian constitutional harmony, to the satisfaction of all parties involved, namely the provinces. We should not be unduly bothered Mr. Speaker, by the constitutional troubles Canada experiences at this time as we are contemplating a new constitution. France and the United States have set up their constitution in more dramatic circumstances than ours, following bloody revolutions. However, the procrastination demonstrated by this government, as well as previous ones, and its attitude towards the provinces in the present constitutional crisis could only lead us, perhaps too soon, unfortunately to a situation which other countries have experienced with regret.
Sentimentally, the Social Crediters identify themselves with the whole country. Intellectually, 1 am sure that the future of everyone will be better if we stay together. Why should we separate or divorce if it is to get married again. Thus I approve and we approve the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) not to

believe in divorce between the provinces or in the separation of Canada, nor in the marriage of the provinces under a so-called sovereignty-association. Still I cannot understand the actions of our Prime Minister in the light of what he says, for the actions of an individual generally reflect the actions of the country, and all the more so when one is Prime Minister.
Divorce and separation are totally contrary to marriage and national unity. On December 3, 1976, 1 made a speech in the House on the value of the British North America Act of 1867, in the course of a debate on the constitutional issue which was initiated by the Social Credit Party after the Quebec election of November 15. I will not repeat today the arguments I put forward in that speech. However I would like to resume the discussion on this question by addressing myself to the new Canadian constitution which we have been claiming for such a long time, as I indicated in my speech of December 3, 1976.
In La Presse of May 4, 1977, Mr. Pierre Desmarais II, president of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec is reported as saying:
We need a refurbished federalism which the provinces have to redefine.
Mr. Speaker, we in the federal government think of ourselves as being all-powerful, those who have the absolute power. We in the federal government have to be the ones to tell the provinces what their constitutional future is. Well, here is what Mr. Pierre Desmarais II, president of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec, has to say:
Mr. Pierre Desmarais is in favour of a refurbished and renewed federalism which the provinces have to redefine.
Speaking before the Rotary Club and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Metropolitan Quebec, Mr. Desmarais contended that one of the first rules of the game of Canadian federalism is "that the distribution of sovereign powers be consistent with the will of the provinces".
It rests with the provinces that make up the country to decide what part of their sovereignty will be shared with the central authority. The review of our constitution and the reorganization of constitutional jurisdictions are essentially the responsibility of the provinces. If they want to reduce their aggregate powers to increase their respective power the decision is theirs alone. There is no national will without the will of the constituent parts.
I think this is very important. I go on quoting:
There is no national will without the will of the constituent parts. This is the price we have to pay for our national unity.
To this extension of provincial responsibilities, Mr. Desmarais adds the necessity of proportional representation of French-speaking people at every level of the federal administration as well as the respect for the linguistic rights of the minority groups. However, he refused to elaborate on the form this division of powers should take, believing that it is for the provinces to sit at the table and determine what they expect from the federal system.
In response to the terms of the conference entitled "Why choose Canada?", Mr. Desmarais expressed his conviction that the federal system is the best formula to ensure the future of French-speaking Canadians because it is a flexible formula, because our institutions are able to adjust according to our needs and hopes, because it allows a combination of forces and because it brings men together.
In 1963, Mr. Speaker, addressing the Quebec Kiwanis Club, the Hon. Daniel Johnson, the late Quebec premier, stated as follows:
July 5, 1977

Before starting to draw up a new constitution, tailored to fit the needs of modern day Canada, the principle must be laid to rest according to which in a federal or confederal regime all provinces must of necessity be shaped in the same constitutional mold, have the same rights, the same responsibilities and the same sources of revenue. He added that a new constitution, perfectly adapted to the legitimate aspirations of the two cultural communities, would be possible only when English Canada and French Canada will have understood that Quebec is not, and can never be, a province like the others. Mr. Speaker, constitutions are made to serve man and not to enslave him. The greater and stronger governments become, the greater the risk of people becoming isolated from the main centres of decision. The 110 years of massacre inflicted upon the constitution of 1867 by the present government and its predecessors has led to Canada finding itself, in 1977, in a worse situation than it was in 1867.
Ever increasing centralization on the part of the federal government has provoked a back lash on the part of the provinces which clamour increasingly for greater autonomy. From that state of affairs stem two contrary political forces which have led Canada to the brink of the abyss of separation. Everyone knows that our so-called constitution of 1867 was never approved by referendum in Canada in 1865. Why weren't the people consulted in 1865-on a question of such tremendous importance, in which its future was at stake? This consultation did not take place because the debate was so hot at the time of Confederation that the bishop of Trois-Rivieres, among other people, had to intervene to calm down people and because the federal government of the time feared being beaten in Quebec by a referendum; so they decided to avoid the verdict of public opinion by having their plan approved by members only.
A new confederation should comprise autonomous communities with equal rights, but in no way subordinated to one another, although united by common allegiance, namely the principle of equality of all provinces in a new constitution which does not mean that there is unanimous consent on the part of all members of the collectivity. A new Canadian constitution should give to the provinces the right to decide for themselves whether they want to remain in Confederation. This right would contribute to a large extent to prevent potential violence because of the right of peoples to determine their own destiny in peace and order.
All obstacles put in the way of promoting and abetting separatism can only accelerate what we dread. A new constitution should provide for flexibility, openness of mind, mechanisms for regular consultations between the federal government and the provinces and a decentralized federal authority which would supplement and strengthen provincial governments. Strong provinces would thus attenuate regional conflicts. It is thus essential to redistribute powers among more viable units. If the provinces see fit to reduce their present eleven parliaments and two territories, they should be free to do so themselves.
National Unity
An autocratic government can only appeal to a dictator. In a democracy, the government must look after the ordinary citizen, see to his welfare, his security and his expectations. It must consider his desires which are expressed through popular organizations and action committees within parishes. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people is infinitely more complicated than are absolute monarchy and dictatorship, for example. A new Canadian constitution as proposed by the Social Crediters would allow every province to determine itself its political and financial course in a Canada whose wealth and diversity could very well go with a decentralized federalism at the service of the provinces and not out to subdue them.
National unity might be a noble and desirable aspiration if it applies to English Canada only, but it becomes an irritant and against nature if it seeks to encompass French Canada. French Canada can only let itself be drawn into that national unity movement by sacrificing its own national characteristics and resigning itself to fusion and simulation. A single uniformity might be desirable in a country where there is only one nation, only one community, only one language and only one culture. We are against the Liberals' or this government's national unity because we are against the present constitutional melting pot.
We are against the status quo of this government. We are for national harmony via a new constitution because national unity in Canada, Mr. Speaker, is impossible since we have not one but two national communities. The province of Quebec must bear alone the responsibility for the French-Canadian culture. When the powers are uneven, the legislative and fiscal powers cannot be the same. It is wrong to think that all provinces must have exactly the same powers and the same means of action. It is in the name of that faulty principle that Ottawa continues to multiply constitutional subsidies for joint programs in provincial fields without leaving Quebec any other choice than conforming to common standards to recover the money it pays in federal taxes or tax itself again for the maintenance of its own institutions. What I just said, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the province of Quebec also applies to all other provinces of Canada.
It is in the name of this false principle that this government, this status quo government, is asking us to disregard the pact of 1867 in order to comply with the will of the majority in a federation where French-speaking Canadians make up 30 per cent of the population but control only one government out of 11. So long as the same constitutional straitjacket is imposed on all ten provinces, we will never get out of the present constitutional impasse. The two communities making up the Canadian nation will be a problem for each other.
The counterpart of this constitutional dead end lies entirely and solely in the sharing of powers among governments. If Canada exists today and if it is to exist tomorrow, it is on one essential condition, to remain a federal state in fact and not only in name. The federal state is a creature of the provinces. It seems this fact has been forgotten here. Its only purpose is to promote their common interests, that is the interests that

July 5, 1977
National Unity
the provinces feel are similar enough to be looked after by a sole representative for all, namely the federal government, for more flexibility, for the sake of economy or for greater efficiency.
The federal government must have limited powers. They should not have any other powers than those conferred upon them by the Constitution. They should not try to interfere with the responsibilities and jurisdictions of the provinces, neither in time of war nor indirectly nor under the pretence of their international role. They cannot either act through statements and on strictly political grounds, without first submitting the matter to the provinces, nor through fiscal means or judgments rendered by their own courts, nor can they do it in case of emergencies or for the protection of so-called national interests. They cannot argue either that evolution has traditionally been a centralizing force or that economic progress commands it or finally, that nowadays science and technology require greater centralization.
However, that is what the federal government has been doing in Canada for several decades. To cope with this situation, to counteract this centralizing trend, to avoid the disruption of Canada and so that the provinces are not reduced to mere administrative ridings and are in a position to assume their responsibilities for the better-being of their citizens and to avoid that French-Canadians are forever second-class citizens in their own country and, finally, to assert the principle of equality among individuals and groups, it is therefore essential that the new Canadian Constitution should provide for safeguards and limited federal powers.
These vital safeguards are the following: First, a constitution written in a clear language which cannot be subject to whimsical interpretation; a constitutional court whose fairness and non-partisanship would be unquestioned; a list of federal powers which would be limited with corresponding restricted fiscal powers; a compulsory constitutional amending formula which would not enable the federal government to unilaterally increase its powers.
These requirements are not met at present and in all fairness it can be said that this is the root of our political, constitutional, economic and social difficulties. Here is the answer: the provinces should be granted real powers. Having said that, I want to deal for a few moments with the suggestions made by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who advocates more centralized powers but an administration at the provincial level. This is nonsense because how could a province properly look after its own administration if the federal government retains all financial authority? How could a province decide upon the quality of housing if the federal government does not grant enough funds to build good houses in the provinces? Centralization has proved its worth in Canada. Since 1867, we have had ever-increasing centralization. Let us see what the situation is now.
Mr. Speaker, let us give real authority to the provinces! All the authority not conferred on the federal government by the initial constitution or by amendments thereto should belong to the provinces. This is the spirit of the confederative act, the

autonomy of the provinces or the self-determination of the provinces is the right of privilege and the ability to make one's own decisions. This right is the basis of the natural freedoms that are nowadays called "human or civic freedoms or rights" and also "political, economical and social rights". These rights are individual rights and no democratic state has the authority to take them away; it can only control and regulate them and prevent some abuse against others.
Democracy is founded on the autonomy and freedom of citizens; it also exists in the autonomy of the provinces. In very large countries, and I consider that Canada is one of the largest countries in the world, this autonomy, this freedom is handed down through regional institutions. This is why true federalism means that the provinces which make up confederation have the right to self-determination and to enter contractual relationships with one another through a constitution which must provide for the protection of their rights as provinces by keeping the peace among them, by maintaining law and order and preserving the traditions of each of them and by increasing the common prosperity.
Among all the federated states of the world-and there are more than 20-Canada is the only one where the federal government assumes full powers, and since this is against the nature of things, this issue should be clearly resolved, otherwise we shall never get out of the constitutional status quo in which the Prime Minister and the present government have put us. If, under a new constitution, full powers belong to the constituent provinces, it is useless to list them. Our constitution, like the constitution of the United States, should proclaim unequivocally that the member provinces are the founding provinces and that the founded state is the federal state. This brings me to give the following explanation: Only the constituent provinces can agree to amendments to the constitution. The federal state could never make such changes alone, neither through foreign legislation in London or elsewhere nor by a simple federal legislation. If at times there were matters on which provinces would not necessarily agree and the interest of several provinces would prompt them to accept an extension of federal duties, such extention could only be made through a constitutional amendment under a majority rule still to be determined. The constituent provinces would never agree to an amending formula unless they knew first what powers they are prepared to hand over to the federal government, but particularly as basic conditions: that they have full powers, that a constitutional tribunal be set up and that the constitution restrict the unilateral action of the federal state.
One of the most serious deficiencies of the present constitution is that it does not provide for an amending formula. The provinces cannot initiate amendment procedures. Moreover, there is no distinction between matters of major and minor importance and lastly, a constitution must be flexible, that is it must be easily adapted to the circumstances. This could be done by drawing up a list of possible concurrent powers, where the federal state can legislate and spend public moneys. However, the provinces could always act concurrently if they
July 5, 1977

wished. But their legislation should always have priority over federal legislation in all cases not otherwise provided for.
This does not mean, however, that the federal government would be excluded of all new activity. On the contrary, its concurrent powers should be more extended than they are now, but along with an opting out right without any financial or other penalty for those provinces which would not accept the federal paramountcy in the areas not clearly allocated to the federal government under the constitution. Such a sensible approach is to be found in every modern constitution. We are also convinced that the French language will never be protected by other than the founding province of Quebec. We are also convinced that the old federal parties are committed to centralizing residual powers in Ottawa, and that such a centralization effort stems from an electioneering approach on the one hand and the bureaucratic and financial establishment on the other.
In this light, the Social Credit Party of Canada is recommending a new constitution that would respect the principles stated earlier and allow for constitutional harmony between our Canadian provinces. Concretely the Social Credit Party of Canada urges the drafting of a new constitution made in Canada by Canadians for Canadians, aimed mainly at reviving the true Confederation spirit where the parties involved, provinces in other words, will recover and assume all the powers that belong to them, in order to protect and safeguard their identities and ensure their true participation in monetary, fiscal and trade decisions in Canada. In order also that such decisions taken at the federal level exert exclusive control on and deeply influence provincial economies and provincial initiatives.
The steps leading to a new constitution would therefore be the following: provinces will be responsible for establishing the constituent assembly to draft a constitutional proposal. The constituent assembly could be comprised of representatives of the people especially elected for that purpose, members of parliament and provincial legislatures, representatives elected by various organizations, with the help of experts in an advisory capacity only. The constituent assembly could hold sittings in every province, consult with all existing organizations, in order to be in a position to develop a modern draft meeting with the aspirations of every social class and the various groups.
Once the proposed constitution had been drafted, the various provincial legislative assemblies would scrutinize, amend and accept in principle the proposed constitution, which would then be submitted to a constitutional conference of all Canadian provinces. The proposed constitution would further be submitted to the people of each and every province through a referendum. Finally, this new constitution would become law on the date set in the constitution. It would give provinces complete responsibility with full powers, and extend to the federal level responsibilities to execute the mandate given by provinces for their greater social, economic, political and cultural development.
National Unity


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, as a Canadian who feels deeply and passionately about the future of this great country,
I deem it a great honour to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I begin from the premise that Canada, after the election of November 15, can never be the same again. It seems to me we have two clear options. First, that we shall go on to be a stronger, more united country, more united than ever before; or, second, that-as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said earlier-we shall drift into separation by attrition and shall end up with French only being spoken in French Canada and English only spoken in English Canada. At times I see great hope for a stronger, more united country. At other times I am very concerned in case that which none of us wants should come about.
It seems to me that we are discussing, in this debate, the sorts of questions which arise in the discussion of any personal relationship. In any relationship, be it that of business partners or any other personal relationship, it is important for both partners to lay their differences on the table openly and frankly. If there are differences, one must ask if both partners are prepared to make attitudinal changes which will restore the former relationship. If that were not possible, I should be most concerned about the future of our great country.
Several have already spoken in this debate. Writers have written articles on the question and perhaps expressed their views more clearly than I can express mine. They have written articles about this country, studied its history and expounded the difficulties it faces with great clarity and depth. However,
I have made it my business, as a member of parliament, to travel across Canada and to participate in many different areas in the debate on national unity. It seems to me, therefore, that we are debating a fundamental question. When we debate the French-English question, we are really debating the right of a people to preserve a culture as old as this country. We must accept that a substantial number of our people are unilingual and their ancestry goes back to the beginning of this country. Also, when we debate this question we are debating equality of opportunity in education, economics and social matters. Perhaps, most important, we are debating the right of Canadians to be perceived by other Canadians as equals.
It seems to me that the debate has centred mainly on the French-English language question, but I should like to broaden this debate and put on record certain facts affecting the region of the country I represent. Mr. Speaker, I represent many people who came to this country in the last 20 or 25 years. Many of them voice the same concerns. Many of them belong to visible minority groups. They question their role in Confederation and whether they are perceived by others as being equal to other Canadians. It seems to me, no matter if we debate economic development in the maritimes, problems in the west, the aspirations of native peoples in the north to have their land claims settled, and objectives heeded by the rest of Canada, that the basic question with which we must deal is the

July 5, 1977
National Unity
right of individuals to play a role in this country, a role equal to that played by other Canadians socially and economically. Our individuals seek these rights.
Perhaps I can draw an analogy with the anti-inflation program. Since the days when inflation was running rampant, it seems to me one can see a perceptible change in the attitude of many in this country. People were striving for almost unrealistic gains, were doing so with an attitude detrimental to groups not as strong as the ones to which they belonged. I think of business groups which made a point of saying that unions should be done away with. I also think of unions which said that what happened in future did not matter; they were concerned about present wage gains. An individual somehow felt in his position he was a good deal better off than the next person.
There is a whole harsh attitude, particularly in that part of Canada that I represent, toward people who speak a different language, have a different colour of skin, dress differently or come from a different economic stratum. It is all of these we should be concerned about. If we look at it in sheer isolation, we are not effectively speaking to the problems facing Canadians today.
I was attracted to a comment, reported in Maclean's magazine, by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Salts-man), and I quote:
We are in danger of becoming a nation of well off bitchers-province against province-group against group-region against region-person against person.
As a country we can only be successful if the larger, stronger, and more powerful groups are more charitable to the minorities and conscious of their rights and aspirations.
It all comes back to the question of attitudes and whether people are prepared to change and understand. I think they are and I think they can be. Who would have thought in October, 1975, when we had such a confrontation in our economy, that today business, labour, and government would be sitting down at the same table, perhaps not in total agreement but at least discussing some of the problems? If we can accomplish that, in spite of the threat of inflation presented to the country at that time, surely we should have a similar ability as Canadians to have that same attitude of wanting to look sincerely at the problems of national unity and seeing what we might be able to do.
I want to talk for a few minutes on what I think are some of the solutions to the national unity question and what the role of members of parliament should be in this entire matter.
I feel very strongly that we, as a government, have to stand four-square for minority rights. I am pleased that in this session of parliament Bill C-25 with regard to human rights and the discrimination question has been passed. The recent publication "National Understanding" was a large step forward for this. However, we do not want to leave it there in terms of having printed this policy paper and having passed that type of legislation. Everyone in this place has to believe
[Mr. Milne.)
sincerely the motivation behind that legislation and that document.
If we are not concerned enough to want to stand up for the rights of minority groups, not only to preserve them but to promote them, we will fail our country. Surely the many different viewpoints put forward by various groups relate to their concerns about this.
When we talk about the French-English question, this means that French speaking Canadians across Canada must have the types of rights that English speaking people want to have for English speaking people in Quebec. On that there are many points you can make. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister comment earlier today about the tragedy at the present time of retrenchment on that in one part of the country rather than turning the argument around so that we are all concerned about bringing the rest of the country up to where it should be. It is not too late to rally to that side of the argument.
There is considerable danger that if we want to decide that very little can be done we will lose the advances that we have made in terms of minority language and other rights over the years. We have to support that side of the argument which maintains that the parts of Canada which do not offer real opportunity for minority language groups should do something about it.
I represent an area in Ontario, one of the richer provinces, one that could well afford to do a good deal more than they have been doing. I am desperately concerned that they get on with the job. If my knowledge of history is correct, in certain parts of Canada both official languages have been in the court system for as many years as this country is old. In some parts of Ontario today we find the situation where they are trying, on an experimental basis, to use both official languages. These are areas where there are substantial numbers of Francophones. This is something that has to be accelerated very quickly.
One of the difficulties that people in English Canada do not seem to understand and must learn to accept is that French has to be the working language in Quebec. Many of the people I talk to in English Canada somehow feel that this a real retreat from some other position. I refer them to speeches which the Prime Minister has made a number of times. It is as natural for many people in Quebec to speak French as it is for us in English Canada to speak English. Having said that, I am equally concerned that the freedom of choice for minority groups in Quebec be protected.
It does not seem to be very well understood in English Canada that for a very long time it has been possible for an Anglophone in Quebec to be born an Anglophone, educated as an Anglophone, work as an Anglophone, operate socially as an Anglophone, and die as an Anglophone. At the same time there have been full services in the provincial government over all these years in both languages. English Canada must now look very carefully, certainly where there are groups significant in number, at providing these types of services as well.
July 5, 1977

That is the kind of objective we should be working toward, rather than moving away from that position.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock later this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, when we took recess, I was talking about some of the thrusts which I thought important toward improving the relationship between the English fact and the French fact, and suggested that this question should really be considered in a wider range.
One of the things I think is terribly important is the role the Francophone has played in middle and senior management in many companies in Quebec and, indeed, in the government here and across Canada. I think it has been well documented, and perhaps the record should show, that of 104 of the largest businesses in the province of Quebec, fully 90 of them are considered to be completely Anglophone, 43 of them did not have one single Francophone on their executive payroll, 23 of them had one, 13 had two, six had three, two had four, and only four had five or more. Anyone should be able to imagine from those figure how discouraged Francophones must be in the business community that their progress had not been more substantial than that.
The chief point I want to make in the remaining few minutes I have at my disposal is that whichever way this argument about the future of Canada turns out it will surely in the final analysis be determined through the political fact. The time will come when Canadians will have to decide whether the leadership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal party are best suited to handle this problem, or whether it is the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) or one of the other parties. Based on the speeches given today and the performance since November 15, no question remains in my mind about which person Canadians will vote for and follow. The Prime Minister has consistently gone across this country and talked about national unity. He has expressed the same point of view wherever he has spoken, and has garnered substantial support for this viewpoint on the matter.
I was very disappointed to hear the Leader of the Opposition today making known his more-or-less partisan point of view. When he talks about lack of leadership I think he should look at his own situation. It seemed to me during the by-elections in Quebec, as reported in the press, that certainly some of the candidates of his party were very close to the PQ in terms of-


William Heward Grafftey: That's poppycock.


William Ross Milne: It happens I have the floor at the moment and wish to put that on record. When you look at leadership, the
National Unity
leadership given by the Prime Minister has been outstanding. But my greatest concern is that Canadians might join the party called "Apathy", which would be the greatest tragedy of all.
I recently read a survey indicating that if the "undecideds" were left out about 28 per cent of the people in Quebec would probably be committed one way or the other to the separatist option. Perhaps about 40 per cent are committed to the federalist option, and another 32 per cent are classified as moderates. This argument will certainly be won or lost in the appeals to the hearts and minds of these moderates. There are many comments we could make on that, but in an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail on Friday, December 31, the Rabbi of the Holy Blossom Temple, Dr. Plaut, wrote:
Everyone agrees that there is a significant segment of Quebeckers, anglophones and relative newcomers as well as an important section of the francophone community who will remain deaf to the sirens of independence. Obviously their support is essential and they need to be strengthened, but their effectiveness will be limited by their numbers.
There is, however, a third segment. Its members are as yet undecided francophones whose votes will determine the fate of the province and of Canada. What can we do to attract them to the vision of one Canada? The answer will not so much lie in concession, handouts and credits, for most of them are not likely to arrive at this most important decision of their lives on the basis of short-run economic advantages. I think they can be swayed by new attitudes in anglo-Canada, attitudes which have been sadly lacking in large portions of the population. What they need to know is that they are understood and accepted in their differentness, and welcomed by a change of heart, and not merely with bilingual arrangements.
I would be difficult to say it any better than that.
I am watching the clock and see I have very little time left in which to speak. I wish I had the time in which to comment on the educational system. I am deeply distressed that the funding which is available is not being used by the provinces. Indeed in the riding from which I come a group of parents have been paying extra to have their children educated in French, and even then it has become a matter of concern as to whether that can be continued. Fortunately a decision has been made that it can continue, but I make the point that a lot of parents and a lot of constituents are way ahead of governments in terms of their desire to see secondary education in the other official language.
I also hold the view that the teaching of Canadian history in our schools is one of the most overlooked factors in this whole equation. I well remember in school hearing at great length about Hannibal taking the elephants over the Alps, but I would think there are many people in Canada who have only a very limited knowledge of the history of their country. Many students have looked on history as a subject to "get through on" whereas in fact it is extremely important to national unity.
In conclusion I should like to read into the record a letter I received just this morning from a person who had lived in Ontario and moved some three years ago to Montreal. He is now in the process of moving back to Ontario, and these moves are occasioned by the fact that he works for a company which has production facilities in both provinces. He says:
I'm sure you, like myself, are very concerned about our country at this time in its history. Living here in Quebec I can see major economic problems growing
7332

July 5, 1977
National Unity
day by day that have been brought on to a great degree by the events of November 15 last. In many respects these economic problems are bound to spill over provincial borders and have a profound effect on Canada as a whole.
The majority of the people of Quebec, as best I can determine, are not in favour of secession from Confederation. However, they are determined to bring an end to the second-class citizen status placed upon them by the majority of Canadians. To this end they have improved their quality of education and are today turning out science and commerce graduates that are capable of standing shoulder to shoulder with any Anglophone Canadian graduate from across the country.
The Francophone Canadian is a very proud individual. He is a different person than his parents and grandparents. He harbours desires for success and the amenities of life the same as all of us and is prepared to make the sacrifices to achieve them. His only reservation is that he wants to do it in his language of thought and not be compelled to carry on a full time translation process in order to get his point across.
I can sympathize with this desire as could any Anglophone who would take the opportunity to live for a period of time in Quebec. Language however has been at the root of many problems in the history of the world and possibly because we are such a young country we must make our own mistakes.
My wife and I-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, nine years after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) formed his first administration, almost eight months after a separatist government is elected to office in the province of Quebec, members of the House of Commons are finally accorded a two day debate on national unity. For this debate the government presents a resolution in which members are asked to dedicate themselves anew to the continuing unity of Canada. Some of us, indeed the majority of us, dedicate ourselves anew to this country each day we enter this Chamber. We do not need a prolonged debate to do that, but two days is pitifully short to explore the reasons for the deep divisions and conflicts in this country, and to put forward proposals as to how they can be met and resolved.
The resolution itself reveals a very simplistic approach to the issue of national unity. Since last November 15 we have been exhorted, or we have exhorted others, to stand up and proclaim how much we love our country. But words, however fervently spoken, are no longer enough. The Canadian people have passed through that phase since November 15. Yes, we can all be and are missionaries in the cause of national unity, as the Prime Minister urged this afternoon. But surely it is not necessary for any of us in this Chamber to reiterate our feelings about Canada. We know how deeply we feel, and through our actions we try to show it with every passing day.
What this country does not need, and does not want, is a Charles de Gaulle approach. It would be an affront to Canada, to Canada's history and to Canada's people, for any individual to try to pass himself off as the incarnation of the country or the saviour of the country.
The Prime Minister has said again and again that will and determination will carry us through. But will and determination, unless channelled into some meaningful forum, cannot in themselves resolve the crisis this country faces today. Canadi-

ans are looking for a forum, an agenda, or a plan of action in which they can participate on a continuing basis in this emergency. But they do not have such a forum because the people's representatives-the duly elected members of parliament-do not have such a forum, except for a limited two day debate on a resolution couched in platitudes.
The Canadian people are entitled through their elected representatives to participate in deciding what form their future will take, and surely the best framework for this task is a parliamentary committee, as my leader has proposed. The failure of the Prime Minister to recognize this fundamental truth makes me wonder if he would not deliberately reject this idea for his own personal aggrandizement. He was asked last April to establish a special parliamentary committee to deal with the problems in our federal system. He said he would discuss the suggestion with the government House leader. The House leaders subsequently did discuss such a move, and I can only surmise that the reason a special parliamentary committee on national unity is not being proposed by the government at this time is that the Prime Minister vetoed it.
Civic-minded groups all across the country are setting up committees to discuss ways to rectify the country's current malaise. Can the House of Commons, the most representative forum of the people, do less than that?
Let us take a look at what the government has done in these last few months since the election of a separatist government in Quebec. Faced with the most serious challenge to Confederation in our history, members of the government did what they do with any other problem. They created a new secretariat in the bureaucracy. They realized there was something very special about this problem, so they appointed two secretariats. The secretariats have swung into action collecting newspaper clippings, running Pequiste economic pronouncements through a computer and, of course, co-ordinating each other's work. Their multicoloured flow charts, their computers, their analyses-everything is in perpetual motion inputting to Canada's very first programmed Prime Minister.
Today we have the appointment of a special blue ribbon commission. As worth-while as the operations of that group might be, it is yet one further example of the contempt the Prime Minister has for the relevancy of this institution. For parliament to take this lying down would surely be the ultimate abdication of its responsibility. These are eminent Canadians whom the government proposes to appoint; but they do not have the mandate that we have as members of parliament, the one institution chosen by all Canadians. The challenge that faces parliament in this year 1977 is not one that can be delegated to any outside commission, no matter how eminent.
The Prime Minister might just learn something from history. I ask him to cast his mind back to the difficulties of 1864, when the union of Upper and Lower Canada ran into grave problems. It was all too evident that the system was not working. Did the political leaders of that day send for an architect of an earlier time to help devise a remedy? Had the
July 5, 1977

present Prime Minister been there, his answer would obviously have been to reactivate Lord Durham.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: No, the political leaders of that day turned instead to their colleagues in other jurisdictions, to the working politicians of the time-Macdonald, Brown, Cartier, Galt, Langevin, Tilley, Tupper-and even though it took them three years of study, scrapping, reconciliation, and accommodation, they came up with a plan for a united Canada. They did not pretend to have the last word on Confederation. They were not searching for an ultimate truth, either to find one or to impose one.
The resolution before us and the attitude of the government for nine years suggest that language and language policy are the ultimate truth, that the country is defined by its languages, that bilingualism is the soul of Canada. This displays a very limited, a very narrow concept of Canada. Canada is much more than that. We know, Mr. Speaker, that economic disparities between English and French speaking groups, or between different regions of the country, exacerbate the problems of national unity every day they remain unresolved. But there is another dimension to the problem of national unity which has been largely ignored, and that is the political dimension. 1 do not mean by that the calling of an early election to capitalize on a crisis and thereby heighten the cynicism which abounds in the country regarding our political institutions. No, Mr. Speaker; when I refer to the neglect of the political dimension of this crisis I am referring to a long overdue analysis of our political system, our federal system, to see how it has to be changed to meet the demands of a greatly changed society from that of 110 years ago.
Over a century of experience in the art of federalism has provided Canadians with a workable political structure which is the envy of many countries throughout the world, given our complexities and diversities. But that does not mean that it does not require a major overhaul from time to time.
The agenda, the mandate, for a parliamentary committee looking into the causes of disunity in this country could cover a number of problems not presently being dealt with in any other forum in this House. It could monitor what the government is doing at the federal-provincial level and suggest ways to avoid the absurdity of one branch of government spending months working out complex new fiscal arrangements with the provinces, in complete isolation from another branch of government working on a language policy which, if implemented, would necessarily involve tremendous additional federal funding.
A special committee dealing with the problems of national unity might be able to bring some order out of this chaos. When lapses of that nature occur, is it any wonder the central government is regarded with distrust and hostility as the "alien they" by individuals, groups, and provincial governments across the country?
National Unity
Well, how to overcome this lack of legitimacy, how to bring a new harmony to the federal system, how to make our national institutions reflect the regional nature of the country which has forced the provinces to be the primary spokesmen of regional needs? These questions would be high on the list of priorities for a parliamentary committee to examine when considering the faltering political dimension of our federal system.
Another agenda item for this Commons committee could be the consideration of a regional base for certain of our national institutions. Provincial nominees on such major bodies as the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada would be an obvious starting place. In addition the committee could examine the composition of the ever-growing number of regulatory, administrative, and quasi-judicial agencies which exercise such broad powers.
As Professor John Meisel of Queen's University puts it in a forthcoming paper:
Some of these agencies like the CRTC and the CTC are within federal jurisdiction but deal with matters vital to provincial development; others like the National Energy Board operate in areas where the provinces share constitutional responsibility. In both cases there are good reasons for shaping the structure and membership so as to provide closer ties to provincial governments.
I am gravely disturbed when I see major recommendations being made by a three man federally appointed board, such as the National Energy Board, in a field in which the provinces have unquestioned rights, and yet the provinces must come before board hearings in the manner of suppliants, with exactly the same status accorded to any individual citizen in this country. Is it any wonder we do not have a national energy policy when the main national agency for formulating that policy does not reflect the true political dimensions of the federal system? The same can be said regarding the lack of a national transportation policy, a national communications policy, a national regional development policy, etc.
But if regional or provincial representation were included in national institutions, Professor Meisel considers that "federal institutions would thus act as brokers of distinct regional and ethnic interests, and the decisions of such bodies, while applicable nationally, would result from the reconciliation of various provincial interests. Federal policies would more likely respond to regional interests, and also the regional interests represented in Ottawa would begin to perceive the national dimensions to their concerns."
The need to restructure the political-and by that I mean the federal-dimension of these bodies would be an important agenda item for a parliamentary committee seeking to eradicate some of the causes of friction in our federal system. Such a committee, if bold enough, might even examine the failure of this Chamber and of political parties to provide adequate national representation. On many occasions I have said that I believe the lack of strength of the Conservative party in Quebec over a long period of time, and the lack of Liberal representation on the prairies, have aggravated the threat to national unity.
80018-62'/2

July 5, 1977
National Unity
The imbalance is apparent in considering even the most recent general election. While the Conservative party got 20 per cent of the total vote in Quebec, it got only 4 per cent of the seats. The Liberals, with 27 per cent of the vote on the prairies, won only 11 per cent of the seats. A special committee of parliament might consider the benefits and disadvantages of modified form of proportional representation and whether, by relating seats won more closely to votes, the problems of national unity might be alleviated.
I have no doubt such changes would have a profound impact on our federal system. They could alter its fundamental nature. But I believe that today's circumstances demand that we must be prepared to move beyond linguistic acceptance, beyond even constitutional realignments, to a re-examination of our entire political system.
In recent months members of parliament, journalists, academics, Canadians from coast to coast have begun to despair about the ability of this institution and other national institutions to cope with the great national problems that confront us. Parliament must not be seen to be impotent on this issue. It must not be seen as impotent by the people of Canada because, if it is, the cost not just to the credibility of this institution but to democracy itself will be extremely high. A parliamentary committee with broad powers to examine and question, to travel and hold hearings and to make recommendations, is one way to begin to put our own house in order, and the survival of our political institutions depends upon such an examination. Indeed, it could have the effect of alleviating the strains and stresses in our Confederation. As John Meisel has put it, "Motivated by the need to avoid disaster and to fashion a new community, we might thus create political institutions suited to the unique circumstances imposed by the regionally and ethnically divided nature of Canada and by the demands of the post-industrial society."
There are those who say that survival of our country is too strong a phrase to use with regard to the crisis of national unity which we face. I do not believe so, Sir, but I am interested in the survival of Canada, not in the political survival of the present government.
The resolution the government has placed before us should do more than to ask us to dedicate ourselves anew to Canadian unity-it should challenge us to take bolder moves, to examine all possible alternatives to create institutions that will ensure that unity. We must not only work but we must be seen to be working at federalism. And we must do it in this House! Let the government give us the forum-the committee-and we will get on with the job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I have decided to open my remarks on the motion proposed by the right hon. Prime Minister by quoting a very short passage of a speech of Mr. Gordon Robertson, which shows very clearly the

difficulty many people in this country have to feel like Canadians. Mr. Robertson said that over the years French Canadians have realized that English Canadians were not great enough to negotiate with them on equal terms, to acknowledge them as a community that deserves all our respect, to give them their rightful place in all areas of activities of our Canadian society. They have found out that we were unable to establish with them, even within the province of Quebec, relations based on dignity and respect. This brief quotation is taken from an address delivered by Mr. Gordon Robertson, Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations, during the graduation ceremony at Dalhousie University on May 12.
This finding of Mr. Robertson had already been repeatedly echoed in the report of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. It has been expressed in many ways throughout the history of Quebec and of Canada. Its more acute expression, which caused the greatest shock to Canadians, was undoubtedly the election of the Parti Quebecois. The election of the Parti Quebecois was not merely a rejection of the Bourassa government in Quebec, it was also an end result and a crystallization of the profound feeling of inequality on the part of Frenchspeaking Canadians of Quebec. The slogan of Mr. Lesage "Masters in our own home" and that of Daniel Johnson, "Equality or independence" were not just electoral catch phrases. They were the evidence of a collective will to be recognized as equal partners in a country that too often just tolerated them.
Mr. Speaker, are we as a country driving down a dead-end street? Flave we reached a point where there is nothing more to be done? If we answer yes to these questions, it will be because we will have let fatalism, fanaticism or prejudices preside over the decisions regarding the future of this country. Why not build this future and define this country on the basis of tolerance and generosity? If we can be filled with tolerance and generosity, then the question lies as to how we must build this future and define this country. I will try, Mr. Speaker, to answer this question by a few suggestions.
The first point to which it is always important to come back is that of the basic equality of the two languages and the two cultures, French and English, all across the country. It has become common place to speak about bilingualism in this country and some remarks made today in this House lead us to doubt that this objective can ever be reached. Quebecers have always accepted the principle of co-existence between English-and French-speaking Canadians and that in a spirit of equal rights, mutual respect and dignity. However they know, and history proves it, that this principle has not been applied to them. If a French-speaking Canadian feels as a stranger outside Quebec, how can you expect him to feel attached to this country? If the French language had been granted in the rest of the country the recognition and the rights granted by Quebec to the English language, we would not be debating today the question of national unity. If all political parties had fought to support the policy of bilingualism that was drafted in the wake of the studies of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commis-
July 5, 1977

sion, we would probably not be debating today the issue of national unity.


Mr. Stanfield:: That is not true!


William Heward Grafftey: You are dreaming in colour.


Pierre Bussières: It is you who is dreaming in colour.
This equal status for the French language and culture vis-a-vis the English language and culture is not yet a fact in this country. This equality is even fought by people who are sitting in this House, Mr. Speaker, by those who claim that this is not true. The efforts towards bilingualism have been questioned so many times. One feigns to agree on its principle but disapproves of its application. The millions of dollars spent are a pretence to demonstrate that the application is quite inadequate. Injustices against a few civil servants are a pretence to demonstrate that the application is out of tune. These are specious arguments, Mr. Speaker, so specious that they are not even clever enough to take the hypocritical disguise of sophism. The Leader of the Opposition was saying this afternoon that bilingualism is a dividing factor more than an unifying factor. This is an assertion which is too gross, Mr. Speaker, to be taken for a sophism.
For God's sake, we must go on investing millions of dollars for bilingualism. It is the price that we have to pay for the past stupidity and the past injustice. All hypocrites should stand to be counted. All those who believe in principles should accept the challenge of their application. It is unbelievable that after the claims of the 60s and of the 70s one is still reduced to go to court to be given the right to work in French, as is the case for the Air Canada employees in Dorval. It is unbelievable, Mr. Speaker, that one has to count on the fingers of one's hand the members of this House who were courageous enough to denounce the racism and fanaticism of the people from CATCA and CALPA when we were confronted with the crisis on working language in air communications. I am proud, Mr. Speaker, that these members are sitting on this side of the House.
Quebec Bill No. 1 has been readily mentioned lately with regard to bilingualism. How unwise, and above all, how stupid to put forward such an argument. Even after the adoption of Bill No. 1, no French-speaking minority in Canada will be able to boast of having an education system as comprehensive as the one provided to the English-speaking minority in Quebec. I too, Mr. Speaker, regret some provisions of Bill No. 1. However, I would feel much freer to oppose them if I could give examples of generosity towards the French outside Quebec, as we can boast of our generosity towards the English-speaking community in Quebec. The debts of history always manage to catch up with their creditors. We have now to pay the price, or rather to repay the debt of a century-old failure, a failure due to the obtuseness, the meanness and the quiet equanimity of those who form the majority.
Let us recognize that both languages and cultures are equal, let us be tolerant and generous and show all French Canadians that Canada is their country. Mr. Speaker, I would now like to
National Unity
deal with the second series of prerequisites for Canadian unity: constitutional reform. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people never had the opportunity to state their wish to belong to this country. The Canadian people never had the opportunity to speak out for their political institutions. The Canadian people never had the opportunity to speak out for their constitution. The Canadian people never had the opportunity to define themselves. This has been done for them in time and by circumstances. After having accepted equality, I believe that the national unity crisis will have to be solved through a process which will enable all Canadians to identify themselves with their country, their institutions, their constitution. I also believe that this process must finally provide an opportunity for all Canadians to speak out through a plebiscite for these institutions and this constitution.
What should that process be? I believe it cannot consist merely of the joint committee suggested this afternoon by the Leader of the Official Opposition. In my opinion, it should take the form of a constitutional conference different from the federal-provincial conferences we have known in the past. That conference should bring together members of the Senate, members of all parties in the House of Commons, members of all parties in every provincial legislature, and members of the Yukon and Northwest Territories Councils.
Those parliamentarians should be joined by citizens who have demonstrated a particular interest for the Canadian unity issue. That conference should be called by and report to Parliament at the end of its study. Parliament would act on the report of the conference. First the conference should consider how Canadians can identify themselves with their country; second, it should study Canadian political institutions; third, the Canadian constitution and, lastly, a formula to allow Canadians to approve by plebiscite their institutions and the constitution.
It is startling to note to what extent Canadians know nothing about their country and it is also dramatic to note how Canadians are ignorant of each other as a group. How is it possible to understand people whom you do not know? How is it possible to love a country you know nothing about? We should see to it that every Canadian knows his country, that Canadians from all areas have an opportunity to know each other. I think that is the starting point of Canadian unity.
The conference should also consider as a second point our political institutions. We now have a national flag, a national anthem, but we have to Canadianize other institutions. The symbol of political institutions could be a factor of unification. But citizens must see their own image in that symbol, identify themselves with it. We must make efforts so that our political institutions reflect the present reality and those institutions must bring together all Canadians.
If we put aside the issue of equality for English and French and concentrate on regional disparities, transport, power sharing, we realize quickly that the frustrations of Quebecers are not different from those of westerners or Maritime residents. What is needed in Canadian political institutions is a mech-

July 5, 1977
National Unity
anism allowing all regions as such to put forward their views and their aspirations.
The third point the conference should consider is the constitutional review. That study should deal first with patriation of the constitution. It is urgent, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians have a constitution which belongs to them. A modern country like Canada can no longer tolerate that the main text of its constitutional documents should be abroad. We must patriate the constitution forthwith, find an amending formula, add to it provisions recognizing the equality of the French language and culture and the English language and culture.
In the area of constitutional review the conference will have to study the existing provisions, clarify the grey areas as much as possible while at the same time avoiding the trap of decentralization. Decentralization is not, in spite of what some say, the cure-all to the breaking apart of Canada. On the contrary, to keep this country united, the central government must have enough powers to act on the economy, it must have enough powers to distribute wealth in this country. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the conference will have to consider and suggest to Parliament a mechanism that would allow all Canadians to have a say on the recommendations in their report that Parliament would keep in the area of political institutions and the constitution. That mechanism of a constitutional conference might seem cumbersome and the subject of their study, utopian. However, the present state of the crisis should motivate the people who will make it up to do whatever is necessary to achieve such an objective in a relatively short period of time.
In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm my faith in this country, say that the many examples of tolerance and generosity that can be seen every day are a guarantee that the basic attitude of Anglophones vis-a-vis Francophones is going to change. It is that change in attitude which is going to save Canada. It is the tangible manifestation of that equality which is going to save this country. It is not through fear of economic problems that Quebecers will remain Canadians, but when they have proof that they are first class citizens of this country, when they are given institutions and a constitutional statute that will define them and give them a sense of belonging. I wish this were the objective of every member in this House.


William Heward Grafftey: Mi. Speaker, in approaching this debate of such great national significance this afternoon and this evening, I suppose few of us remain immune from the thrust of our own respective ridings. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I represent in this House the constituency of Brome-Missisquoi. I would first recognize that because of our historical, sociological, etc., revolution, we have what I have always called a true spirit of national unity. As I said many times, our area is 80 per cent Francophone and 20 per cent Anglophone, and there is to be found a true spirit of unity. As everyone knows, Brome-Missisquoi is located in the Eastern Townships. In the past, the Eastern Townships gave the
[Mr. Bussieres.J
Canadian people and Canada a great prime minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
Mr. Speaker, I will indicate quite frankly, tonight in this House that I myself voted twice for that true Eastern Townships gentleman.

I repeat-


An hon. Member:: Welcome back.


William Heward Grafftey: Not today, I am afraid, not today. I voted for the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, once the prime minister of my country, twice. He typified the part of the world I come from where, because of our historical and sociological evolution, French speaking and English speaking Canadians live side by side in national unity. I find it hard to talk too much about it in the House tonight. We do not talk much about differences between French speaking and English speaking Canadians or national unity in my part of the world because we live it. It is deeply felt and deeply lived in our aspirations for Canada.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, Mr. St. Laurent spoke French with his father and English with his mother.

We know the origins of Louis St. Laurent and that he spoke to his mother in English and to his father in French. What would he do today? He would take Rene Levesque and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) into the woodshed and give them a damned good licking. That is what he would do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have in our great and young country two official languages and many cultures, as has been suggested many times in this House.

When I first came to this House of Commons, Mr. Speaker-perhaps too many years ago in many ways-the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) as Prime Minister helped bring those whose ancestors came neither from the United Kingdom nor France, into the mainstream of Canadian life. Once again, whether we like it or not, because of the actions of this government, those people feel that their legitimate aspirations in the mainstream of Canadian life are continually ignored.

Mr. Speaker, the great speeches made in the House of Commons, the great speeches of statesmen like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that's all very well-

I know that in debates like this one tonight it is not good to dig up history, but I am going to lay a few facts on the table. It
July 5, 1977

is fine to hear the Prime Minister talk about national unity in this House of Commons, but I am more interested in what his minions say at the grassroots when they get back home.
I remember when the right hon. member for Prince Albert was Prime Minister of this country, some Liberal notable said, "We are going to destroy him." What did they do in my province? They said he was anti-French, anti-Quebec. Now they wonder why they have a divided country, yet they come and plead in this House to make this a bipartisan issue. That is pretty hard for those of us who have heard-

-the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) say that he has found on many occasions in my province that the party which I represent here is anti-Canadian, anti-Quebec, anti-French. That's all very well to say that in Quebec, but it is a different story to make a point as statesmen must do before the House and the press gallery. We are here to state the truth and to find why my country is so divided today.

Between 1957 and 1963, Mr. Speaker, I heard the Liberal machine attack the right hon. member for Prince Albert in my province, saying he was anti-Quebec, anti-French.

Well, in the great speech he made in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister suggested that all members should cooperate, but in Quebec, he and his ministers, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) claim that the only federalist party is the Liberal party and that to preserve Canada, we need the Liberal party. This was stated on several occasions in my province, but in the House of Commons they think that the country will be united after a two-day debate. That is not true! It is absolutely incredible!

It is all very well for the Prime Minister to come to this House this afternoon, read a speech-and I give him a C minus at the freshman level of university for it-and then fly out of the House while his minions in my province preach the worst kind of disunity, saying the only federal party is the Liberal party, and the only way to save Canada is to vote Liberal.

If Canada is divided today, it is because for the past ten years, there has been a policy for the Francophones and another for the Anglophones.

Someone who spoke before me said that after ten years of the present government, asking the Prime Minister to save the country now is like asking an arsonist to put out a fire.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh! What a good line.


William Heward Grafftey: It is a pretty good line. The way the Prime Minister is handling the national unity issue makes Mackenzie King look like a statesman on the conscription issue. I well
National Unity
remember meeting the Prime Minister in a television studio during the election campaign of 1965. I have known him personally for years and was a great admirer of his-as I still am in many ways. After we both arrived in Ottawa we would sometimes have coffee together in the cafeteria, as many of us do. We would sit there talking, in the days before he was even named parliamentary secretary to the then Prime Minister, the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson.
I do not claim that I was speaking for my party at the time, but a couple of years before Expo I suggested that we needed a modern constitution, suited to modern times, suited to Canada for Canadians. I felt this not only because we had gone through the quiet revolution in Quebec but because I was firmly convinced that while it could be argued that in many ways the British North America Act was flexible enough for modern needs, I perceived it was not. The problems we face today did not exist in 1867. I talked to him often about the necessity for a modern constitution, made in Canada for Canadians, by Canadians. He rejected that out of hand. He said he had come here to settle a few scores and that the British North America Act was flexible enough for our needs, and that was that. I wonder if he feels the same way now, ten years later.
Even if he did feel the British North America Act was flexible enough to adapt itself to contemporary needs, why has he for ten years confronted the legitimate aspirations of every region of my country? Is that not one of the major reasons for division in Canada today?


An hon. Member:: Have you read the Victoria Charter?


William Heward Grafftey: I can read the Victoria Charter as the hon. member can.

But anyone can read the Victoria Charter, the speeches, the Standing Orders, one can read anything, it is the actions that count, it is the attitude, it is the sense of understanding that count. I can read the Victoria Charter as well as the hon. member.

This afternoon my leader, seconded in a great speech by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), put the proposition before the government that you can name task forces, you can talk, you can do anything you want, but unless a joint parliamentary committee composed of all parties in the highest forum of this land can be brought in a bipartisan way into the national unity debate, there will be trouble-real trouble. I say, you should not exclude us on this side of the House. Some will say I am partisan, but I find it strange that the Prime Minister should have delivered a poorly read, high school oration in the House this afternoon, and then flown off to the west coast. That was his total contribution.


An hon. Member:: He has a schedule to meet.

July 5, 1977
National Unity


William Heward Grafftey: I don't care. This is an important debate and he should be in his place.


Herb Breau: He is busy with his duties.


William Heward Grafftey: I did not schedule those. If he is serious about this debate he should be in his seat. I say, if the Prime Minister and his party make this a partisan issue by excluding members on my side of the House from such a parliamentary committee, we shall be in deep trouble. I believe, as speakers before me have said, that the highest body in this land should have something concrete, constructive, and ongoing to say about keeping our union together. My position is the same as it was ten years ago, and I say the government should accept the amendment right away. Since the Prime Minister is not present, perhaps someone else on the front bench opposite can rise and, in a spirit of bi-partisanship, say, "The government accepts this amendment."
I say to the Prime Minister and his minions, you do not have to be a Liberal to be a good Canadian.


An hon. Member:: Oh! Come on!


William Heward Grafftey: "Come on," says the hon. member. That is how many of us feel.


An hon. Member:: I thought you said you didn't care.


William Heward Grafftey: I quit your party, after having been a member of it for five years in the province of Quebec, because I discovered that the Liberal party says, "The Liberal party first, Canada second." I joined a party which says, "Canada first, the Progressive Conservative party second." Let us have a little more national unity and a little less Liberal unity in this country. I believe, for the good of Canada, this parliamentary committee must be established.


An hon. Member:: You are a clown.


William Heward Grafftey: Agreed, but to be a clown, one has to be a Liberal!
I feel we should have such a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, with members from all political parties and not only from the Liberal party. We must have such a committee here in the largest forum in Canada. Mr. Speaker, I am not speaking necessarily for my own party but as a member of parliament, and we have the opportunity to really speak out tonight and tomorrow. Therefore, I hope that after the next election, the new government will call a great constitutional conference with the participation of every province and political party, in order to draft a constitution made in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.

We are here, putting our constructive thoughts forward.


Donald W. Munro: Why not?


William Heward Grafftey: Surely the government House leader believes we must set up a joint parliamentary committee to examine the subject matter. How in the world can you exclude members on my side of the House from this ongoing discussion, unless the Prime Minister wants to make it a partisan issue?


Donald W. Munro: Of course he does.


An hon. Member:: You heard him, didn't you?


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to see action, not speeches. Let the Prime Minister put his actions where his mouth is and convene an all-party, joint parliamentary committee to examine this question. Otherwise how could it be a non-partisan examination?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Heward Grafftey: Because of present conditions in the country I get letters, as I am sure other members do, asking what I think about special status. I will tell you what I think. Far too many politicians at both levels of government have been bandying the word around irresponsibly. What do I think of special status for Quebec? I do not. I think we are a country of many regions. We all have our special aspirations within this great federal union. We all have our special problems. I suppose that in Saskatchewan the fisheries problem is not the same as it is in our coastal regions.
Let us be forthright and responsible when we talk about special status or ask questions about it. It is incumbent on those in public life at all levels of government to use language responsibly, especially when there are not literal translations for certain phrases d'une langue a l'autre.
I have been concerned over the years, when discussing the question of national unity, with the notion that we must have either/or, that you cannot have strong provinces and a strong federal authority at the same time. The Prime Minister and his supporters often say it must be either one or the other. He tells Quebecers they must settle either for the status quo or for Levesque. They have no other choice. If that confrontation continues much longer, we shall be in deep trouble. There is another choice, a responsible middle ground which cannot be called a compromise.
The Prime Minister delivered an incredible speech in the House this afternoon, eight months after the November 15 election, a speech for which, if I were a professor at McGill and the Prime Minister were a freshman, I would give a C minus. I will say now, and say over and over again, I am sick and tired of hearing it said that those who do not accept the Liberal option are second class Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman whose allotted time has expired.


Hon. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of
July 5, 1977

all 1 would like to remind the hon. member for Brome-Missis-quoi (Mr. Grafftey) that he heard, as well as I did, the right hon. Prime Minister telling the House that he had been called to Vancouver to meet the president of Germany and that this trip had been planned several months ago and that this debate was postponed until this week to accommodate the NDPs who were holding a convention last week. So you should at least be honest about those things.
Mr. Speaker, unity does not mean uniformity. Despite everything that distinguishes us, we must seek, find and develop the links that unite us. We will have to find a middle ground towards a new federalism, seek and find our own identity and build a country upon our common resources. We will have to build a country based on equity and understanding, justice and equality. This equality cannot be based on the balance of numbers. It will have to be based on a definition of this Canadian society which will be tolerant and respectful towards minorities, whether they are linguistic, cultural, social or economic minorities.
It took an electoral victory on November 15 last to make many Canadians consider the separation of Quebec as a threat and to force them to reassess our confederative pact in the light of the important part the French-speaking group has to play. We will have to define what we want, what we hope to find to ensure the existence of a united country where all classes of society, from the richest down to the poorest, can live fully and have their share of the tremendous wealth of our national heritage in every area, whether cultural, social or economic.
In 1963, Mr. Speaker, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism stated the following: "Canada, without fully realizing it, is going through the greatest crisis in its history". Needless to say that this warning left most Canadians a little puzzled and sometimes unconcerned. The anglophone press namely overreacted to the comments of the authors of the report, as evidenced by its question: "What does Quebec want?"
Things have changed and this change came about in some cases by means of political violence, educational conflicts in several provinces, through a failure to understand the objectives of institutional bilingualism, regional and provincial opposition in linguistic matters at the local level and the gradual rise of the Quebec identity which now exists, Mr. Speaker. All that have led to the present debate on Canada and national unity. If I speak a bit sharply, Mr. Speaker, it is because I feel somewhat distressed. I think it is the word that sums up all others and the only one that can reflect the fears expressed by a group to which I belong and which, in my case, is the Francophone minority of Ontario.
Recently, speaking at the opening of the conference on the future of our country entitled Destiny Canada, Georges Ram-say-Cook, a history professor, said, and I quote:
The Canada of 1867 was a nation composed of areas whose inhabitants wished to preserve their own identity within a common Canadian framework.
Professor Cook stresses the fact that this dual allegiance exists in all areas and, still according to him, there is no doubt
National Unity
that all Canadians, regardless of their area, cultural group, class or sex, refuse above all to be condemned to that permanent minority status and want Canada to give them the possibility of achieving relative equality. If a society is to be judged by the way in which it treats its minorities, whether linguistic, cultural, social or economic, the sense of equity, freedom and equality will have to be awakened in Canadians. We can no longer continue to witness, like helpless spectators, the deterioration of the situation, the tearing to shreds of the national fabric.
English Canada will have to be perceived in its actions as being big enough to deal with Francophone groups on an equal footing and recognize in them communities worthy of its respect and of assuming the place that is rightly theirs in every sphere of activity. That challenge will have to be met, Mr. Speaker, while asserting ourselves individually and collectively, and also respecting the rights of our fellow citizens of other origins. For some in the English provinces, that requirement does not seem essential, considering all the injustices that French-speaking Canadians have been subject to since the beginnings of Canada. If the famous question "What does Quebec want?" becomes as enigmatic as "What will happen in Quebec?", we are obviously facing a disquieting and disconcerting situation. What will happen in Quebec will be determined as much by what will happen in the other provinces in the next few years. Let us hope that the poor record of the English provinces to date will not prompt some to find other Plains of Abraham.
After 110 years, is it not appropriate to look seriously at past mistakes in order to correct them and build a country within which differences are considered an asset, a positive element and where experience serves to eliminate injustice? Of course, we need a new formula since after 110 years one of the partners is talking about separation or even divorce. What worries me about the possibility of separation with economic association, is not the sharing of assets or the financial settlement, but indeed who will be responsible for Lord Durham's heirs. Yes, what will happen to the linguistic minorities if Quebec separates from the rest of Canada? Some claim they will soon be assimilated. Others, that they will be used as hostages by both French Quebec and English Canada. Personally, I feel that chances are that we, the Canadian minorities, will become the Palestinians of North America.
As early as 1912, French-Canadians faced the same problem. Monsignor Langevin, a bishop from western Canada, opened the French Language Convention held from June 24 to 30, 1912, with these words, and I quote:
As far as we are concerned, no one has the right to stop the French-Canadians at the boundary of the province of Quebec and tell them: Beyond this line, you are no longer at home . .. We are at home everywhere in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, those words still apply today. As I said earlier, we must study the matter from the point of view of the errors made with a view to correcting them, rather than dreaming up grandiose schemes or rely on more or less theoretical and often emotional formulae on national unity. Over the past ten years,

July 5, 1977
National Unity
institutional bilingualism and what it is supposed to achieve or provide for Canadians has been sufficiently promoted, it is now time to try to convince all Canadians that they have equal opportunities for self-fulfilment on cultural, social and economic levels, individually as well as collectively. There is a wide margin between institutional and individual bilingualism.
One of the greatest assets of Canada is the heritage bequeathed by two nations with different cultures and languages. On the other hand, I believe that the contribution of the other ethnic and cultural groups is an enrichment for the two founding nations. Canadians must become more tolerant and understanding. Flow many times, alas, have we not been aware of racial and cultural discrimination? And this always against minorities. What can be done? The rate of assimilation as far as my group is concerned, the French Canadians outside Quebec, is frightening. I note with concern that according to the 1971 statistics, 27 per cent of French Canadians have made a linguistic transfer and joined the majority group.
I have in hand the document from the Francophones outside Quebec, entitled: "The heirs to Lord Durham," and I quote:
Comments. The trend is very clear. The regression of the French-speaking groups is dramatic. Nearly half a million Canadians of French origin do not have French as their mother tongue any longer: this is an almost irreparable loss.
This paper is, I think, well written and easy enough to read to make any willing listener understand that the situation is a critical one, a difficult one, a really dangerous one for Canada, my Canada, our country, Mr. Speaker. The rate of assimilation, as I said earlier, is accelerating to a critical point. French as a national language is in process of being relegated to the level of folklore and that, in seven Canadian provinces. Provincial bilingualism exists only in two Canadian provinces: Quebec and New Brunswick. All that is needed to understand the extent of the problems and the challenge that has to be taken up, is to read this document. If the existence, the survival and the promotion of Francophones outside Quebec does not become a Federal and other governments' priority, within ten years we will not have to be concerned about a bilingual Canada and even much less about a united Canada.
It is said in that particular document that 71 per cent of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec will be assimilated by 1991. What will happen? We are going to die! We do not want to die and we will survive because this government, this Parliament will ensure to minorities in this country the respect and equity they are entitled to. As a matter of fact, in almost every province, these minority groups are represented through their provincial organization, whose role with governments is to let them know what the expectations of their members are. The financial resources of these organizations are not sufficient because of their very minority status and the relatively small number of their members. Up to now, the federal government have had a totally inadequate budget for supporting the work of these organizations. The provinces have only made token contributions to them. Therefore, without voluntary work, fund-raising campaigns and, let us admit it, the great dedication of these French-speaking Canadians, these minorities would soon disappear.

Canada has an identity of its own, unequalled among other countries: a nation with two international languages and several cultures, which can work together because of their heritage and traditional features to produce results of the highest quality. Canada has a third important group in addition to French or English-speaking citizens: I am referring of course to our native people for whom we must show a lot of love, understanding and respect. They are entitled to retain their language, their traditions and their culture. I am referring as well to those Canadians who have deliberately left their country of origin to find a better place to live and a more promising future. These people have personally decided to adopt a new country.
It is true that many of these new Canadians, after deciding to settle down in this country, have generally chosen to speak English. It is also true that immigrants have not always been made aware of the presence of French-speaking Canadians nor have they been confronted with the French language or culture. For reasons which are easy to understand, the Canadian reality will have to be better explained as far as the official languages are concerned, so that they can choose to belong to the language group which seems most natural to them. We should no longer tell immigrants that Canada is an Englishspeaking country. We should not have them believe that the French language is only spoken in Quebec but we should explain to them that French and English are the official languages and they are considered equally by the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, if in the future, immigrants can only choose between French Quebec and English Canada, that would contribute to strengthen the false argument concerning the balkanization of the French language in Quebec while the English language is spoken in the rest of Canada. This argument today is called "separation by attrition".
Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest a few changes. I believe they are necessary: first in addition to a commitment to federal institutional bilingualism, all provinces should as Quebec and New-Brunswick already do, offer public services in both official languages. Our constitution needs to be rejuvenated. It should include for one thing a declaration of fundamental human rights and liberties. Each province should also adopt a charter which would respect the rights and liberties of its linguistic minorities and be liberal toward them.
Provincial governments are partially responsible for achieving goals of linguistic equality. All Canadian provinces without exception must ensure basic rights to education and must recognize and support by legislation the right of their citizens to be educated in one or the other official language. Moreover, provinces must encourage people to learn the other language and allow them to become bilingual if they so wish. The federal government should call on the provinces to clearly state within a year their intentions concerning the education, the rights and the matter of public communications of their French-speaking minorities. In all provinces there should be at least the right to live in one's mother tongue, the right for parents to have their children educated in the language of their
July 5, 1977

choice when justified by number, the right to communicate with government and public agencies in the official language of their choice and the right to argue in court in one or the other official language.
In order to assist the provinces the federal government should offer them all legal and financial assistance needed. The situation in my opinion is so critical that if the provinces should positively refuse to do that, I would seriously consider the use of federal powers provided in section 91 of the British North America Act and for reasons of peace, order and security, to put under the protection of the law those minorities which are so essential to my country.
Second, it is essential that a public body consisting of a representative cross section of society be set up to consult with the people on the future of this country. The Prime Minister has proposed a formula and I agree with it.
Third, given the importance of the group and its need to exist in a united Canada, I believe it would be necessary to set up a national board responsible for the promotion, survival and development of the French-speaking communities outside Quebec. I am convinced and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this board should report to the Prime Minister and, through him, to the House of Commons. The board would have to consult in order to work out concepts, plan and obtain approval for the programs required for the survival and development of minority groups.
Fourth, the Secretary of State should be immediately reorganized so as to foster the implementation of programs. The existing mechanisms set up following the decentralization and regionalization of that department will have to be reviewed. The minorities were not prepared for that, Mr. Speaker. They have been badly served in the last two or three years. The maturity of the minority groups and their mutual needs are so different that it was doing them a bad turn to expect them to take advantage of an organized regionalization or decentralization to meet the government standards which could not meet the needs of the flagging communities.
Fifth, the federal government and the provinces must absolutely give a new direction to their budgets to balance the survival chances of the linguistic minorities, more particularly the French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. What about a linguistic policy which seems to favour the English-speaking majority through a program called institutional bilingualism and which cost $300 million, when this minority group got only 1 per cent, that is $3 million up to this year? The government increased those credits to $6 million this year, and I think it was about time.
Sixth, we will have to bring the Canadian constitution back, but in the meantime we must get the heart and spirit of Canadians back so that we can write a social contract taking its inspiration from and reflecting our common expectations and wishes, free from any past illusion and based on respect, equity, and particularly fraternity between the groups.
Seventh, we have to review all our statutes at the municipal, regional, provincial and federal levels in order to put an end to
National Unity
those many frustrations which offend and annoy us continuously, Mr. Speaker. I think for instance of the simple fact that a French-speaking person who lives in Ontario, like myself, cannot write his will in his mother tongue and have it registered. This is not legal. 1 think of the Air Canada case. I think of the Forest case in Manitoba. I think of the Filion case in Toronto and of a great many other cases, Mr. Speaker. We will absolutely have to review our statutes to do away with injustice and frustrations.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read something which is fairly important in my constituency. It is a text written by someone who works in an area which I consider very important, namely children education. She wrote a creed for children. Her name is Mrs. Betty Nickerson, national coordinator of the All About Us/Nous Autres movement. I read this creed: We all come from somewhere, we chose Canada by adoption. In our cultural baggage we have the experience and the wisdom of the world.
Those choice morsels, chosen among the sterling values and traditions of our various peoples, we offer them in tribute to our new homeland. We leave behind us wounds, wars and famines. We live here in a vast and generous land, filled with challenges to be met. The ingeniosity we put forth in meshing our various cultural elements will help us develop an identity throughout this phase of our growth, and throughout our lives. Each one of us, within his own confines, will add a flash of colour to the Canadian mosaic. How are we going to fit all those pieces together? There lies the challenge. And that, Mr. Speaker, was written for children. I pay tribute to Mrs. Betty Nickerson.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, the preceding speaker spoke of love, and I suppose we shall need lots of love in this country if we are to make our way through to the 21st Century. I should like to talk tonight about some of the facts as I see them in Canada. Occasionally, and only occasionally, do we have a chance to speak in this House about the objectives and aims of the part of the country from which we come, not necessarily our own constituencies but the regions from which we come to represent people in the House of Commons.
I can quite understand the feelings of some of the comments of the hon. member from Quebec who spoke before the last speaker. I come from a part of the country which, frankly, at the present time feels misunderstood and is tired and frustrated coping with what seems to be an ongoing problem of Confederation. We in the west believe that while Quebec must play a part in Canada, that part must be kept in the proper perspective.
Canada is not so much a bilingual country with hyphenated English-Canadianism or French-Canadianism at it is a multicultural country composed of people of many different racial origins who, I believe, want nothing more than to be known as Canadians. The feeling in Canada as we move at times almost

July 5, 1977
National Unity
deliberately to pit one race against another is growing indifference and, in far too many cases, growing hostility. The reality is that Canadians do not understand each other. Perhaps our country is too large or too diverse, or perhaps we are all too preoccupied with making a living to really care. Or perhaps we are all victims of a prime minister who, for the last nine years, has been concerned solely with political survival.
Central Canada has spent the last half century producing people who are not British, who are not French, but are simply Canadians. The same process has been going on in Western Canada only for the last two decades. Western Canada has a different vision of this nation from the vision which central Canada holds. It arises from a different historical experience and perspective in Canada.
The settlement patterns of the east, New France, the maritime colonies, the Acadians and the Loyalists of Ontario were groups of people who settled, struggled, endured and finally, with a lasting tenacity took hold and survived. The roots are deep, unchangeable, unique and crystalized. From this pattern of accepted and established differences has come the concept of Canada as a bilingual and bicultural nation.
In the west the settlement pattern was not one of roots but rather waves, with each successive wave-Indians, French trappers, Scottish settlers, Hudson Bay Company employees, Ontario settlers, and European immigrants-inundating and sweeping over the former. This pattern produced, when the European homesteaders were gradually absorbed, a diluted pan-Canadianism, an optimistic vision of a country from coast to coast and a group of strangers who suffered great hardships, were forced to intermix and ultimately to grope toward a new awareness of themselves and their place in a new Canada.
The people of the west, the sons and daughters of those long trainloads of European immigrants, brought the vision of Canada peddled at the turn of the century. They believed in the unity of this country. They were certain that it was indivisible, that it had a destiny, and they were determined to build it. This concept or notion of one Canada seems to be out of fashion today. The federal government has launched a concept of duality. Everything now is divided into two- English-French, Canada-Quebec, Trudeau-Levesque. Splitting or dividing has become part of the national fabric, and the people of the west, whose historical background led them to support an antiquated pan-Canadianism, find themselves trying to cope with a new official duality.
Suddenly Canada is two parts, each part fighting to secure its own position and power. The sons and daughters of those European immigrants find that they truly belong on neither side, conveniently forgotten in the fray. They are not French. With their strange last names, their family pasts and their older generations, they are not quite English either. In the growing division, they seem not to belong. With a sense of frustration and confusion, they argue using the old terminology. "We are Canadians", they say, hesitating to select the arbitrary French or English designation before the term.

At the present time in Canada there appears to be no place in our national life for this vision held by the west. It appears hopelessly out of date-a remnant from a time when Canada was a young, enthusiastic nation. The eastern vision of Canada is one of duality. Certainly at the present it appears, on the basis of numerical superiority alone, that this vision will triumph. But out west where people feel isolated and removed, where they feel thrust out of the stream of national life-while the Quebec crisis consumes its second decade-there is a feeling of frustration, anger, sadness, and defeat.
Initially the people of the west were receptive to bilingualism, because they were told that it was the price to keep Canada together. Their belief weakens as Quebec drifts toward separation and a diminishing respect for the Canadian confederation. It is my opinion that the people of the west will, for the foreseeable future, be charged with bigotry. They will continue to be described by their own Prime Minister as ignorant rednecks, swearing at bilingual labels on cereal boxes. Their concept of one Canada will inevitably be read as an attempt to impose standardization on all Canadians, to assimilate all cultures and languages, and to force all minorities into one mold. It is not that simple. In reality the people of western Canada earnestly desire that every Canadian, whatever his language or culture, should feel some commitment to his country, some respect for its institutions, and some faith and trust in its future.
For anyone who takes the time to know and understand the people of the west, you will find them generous, frank, optimistic, and loyal. Today they are confused, afraid, skeptical, and isolated. If the federal government could only treat the west as part of this nation and make a serious attempt to explain to them the necessity for its actions, the whole national fabric might be a little bit closer, and a little warmer.
Of all the areas in Canada the west would be most receptive to changes in the structure of Confederation, but the extent of such changes must be carefully studied before they are agreed to. We cannot give away all our heritage and forget all our past in an effort to preserve a territorial unity which may prove to be incapable of preservation. Rather, we must see how far we can go without losing the identity we have now. If we go beyond a certain point, we are no longer Canada. If, as we believe, there are millions in this country who want Canada to remain in being, then we must be ready to pay a price. If we must pay that price, we must also be determined that Canada will continue to exist as a country.
We have a future if our desire, dedication, and sense of nationhood are strong enough. All parts of this country must be represented, all parts of this country must be listened to and understood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot about separatism since the Parti Quebecois victory in November. Allow me to make some
July 5, 1977

observations on this matter of national unity. The importance of this subject to us all can scarcely be exaggerated.
I think if the English speaking world keeps telling the Parti Quebecois, in their struggle for the future hearts and minds of the Quebecers, that they cannot make a go of it economically without us, it may only stiffen their resolve to have a try at it. We must remember that Quebec with its some six million people is, by the standards of the countries that belong to the United Nations, far more populated than most of them and, of course, has much greater territory. Norway, for example, is a well respected country with only four million people.
It may be that economics will defy Rene Levesque's siren song of separatism and that it might founder badly on economic shoals in terms of fearful economic cost to the people of Quebec, as I would guess would likely be the case. A 1971-72 study showed Quebec received a surplus of $600 million from the federal government. Andre Raynault, a past president of the Economic Council of Canada, estimated some months ago that Quebec was now receiving about $ 1.5 billion more than it gave to the federal government; and we all have read that on February 25 the Quebec government released a study which purports to show that between 1961 and 1975 the federal government collected $4.3 billion more from Quebec than it spent in that province. The accuracy and implications of these figures will be debated for months.
The notion though that Quebec has nothing to offer in economic advantages except cheap labour and natural resources is, to say the least, exaggerated. The market of that province is now rich and sophisticated. The work force is, for the most part, more skilled than that in the Atlantic provinces, and certainly no longer cheap. I would guess that the indigenous capacity for innovation in technology is as great as anywhere in Canada.
Of course, the Parti Quebecois is banking a good deal, so far as the economic aspects of its strategy for selling separatism are concerned, on the continuance of a Quebec-Canada customs union. One cannot, in fact, be sure that an arrangement of this sort would be attractive to English speaking Canadians if Quebec goes its own way politically. I find it highly unlikely that two such nations would be able to agree on a central bank issuing common currency and having a monetary union, as Levesque mentioned in his New York speech, or that they would be able to agree to a common level of tariff. I am sure that the rest of Canada would not consent to giving a new nation of Quebec a veto over these kinds of matters.
An article some months ago by John Downs in the Financial Times points out the importance to Quebec employment of industries like textiles, clothing and footwear heavily protected with tariffs. Canadians from coast to coast, of course, pay for this protection when they buy garments and shoes in the stores. We in the maritimes have constantly been critical of the high cost of Canada to us because of the highly protective tariff in Quebec as well as in Ontario. Between them, Ontario and Quebec account for more than 80 per cent of the manufacturing output and employment in Canada.
National Unity
According to a study by the Economic Council of Canada, about 37 per cent of the manufacturing jobs in Quebec and 27 per cent in Ontario are dependent on tariff protected sales to other provinces. We, like other Canadians, have reluctantly accepted tariffs as a means of keeping our fellow citizens in these jobs but, of course, there is no assurance that the political equation would be seen in the same terms if Quebec separated.
However, let us not underestimate the leadership of the Parti Quebecois, who have among their members at least a couple of prominent economists. They are aware that the plight of many of Quebec's most vulnerable industries can only be solved by radical surgery, hacking out, as it were, the inappropriate sectors to make way for others of higher productivity. They might be reasoning that this operation would be better performed in circumstances where Ottawa, by shaping English Canada's trade policy vis-a-vis Quebec, would have to do all the dirty work and receive most of the blame.
I think if we were to underrate the possibility and the shrewdness of such manoeuvres, we would be making a big mistake. In any case the very nature of the separatist movement, based upon an old idea of independence, fed by a very strong emotional stream and bolstered by a charismatic leader like Levesque, who is backed by probably the brainiest cabinet that now exists in any province of Canada, makes its followers rich in potential for self-sacrifice. An old endemic idea of independence, strongly backed by a torrent of emotion and a new found political power, must not be taken lightly by anybody who professes to love this country.
What I am trying to say is that what English speaking Canada must appreciate is that the Parti Quebecois has managed to become the focus of the new pride of many French Canadians, their society and its achievements, and thus the calculation of gain from a particular constitutional system is going to be more than a matter of economic arithmetic. The Parti Quebecois have, in fact, done what all colonized people, or people who have seen themselves to be colonized, have done: they have sought independence to give their colonists selfesteem. They will find, as others have found, that self-esteem can bring a high economic cost, but again 1 remind us all not to underestimate the potential for sacrifice in such a movement.
In the immediate months and years ahead, all of us in Canada must try to be wise and civilized to an extent that we may not have reached before if we want our national affairs to evolve toward a successful conclusion, instead of into the kind of strife that has done such unbelievable harm in places like northern Ireland, Cyprus, and Lebanon. In the ongoing debate, strident voices, in their zeal to defend Canada, or English speaking Canada, would do well to remember the fundamentals of good manners.
In this connection it was sad to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who aspires to be Prime Minister of this country, quoted as making the observation some months ago that he would not rule out completely the use of force to hold Quebec in Canada. My guess is that all thinking Canadi-

July 5, 1977
National Unity
ans want the potential use of force to be completely excluded from the thinking and talking of all members of parliament and most especially aspiring prime ministers.
I think it is clear in the recent past that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who in the 1960's made a valiant, well-intentioned effort to bridge Canada's two solitudes, to use that apt phrase coined by the Cape Breton born Hugh Maclennan in his novel of the same name, has been too inflexible in dealing with some of the constitutional difficulties as they relate to Quebec as a unique province in our Confederation. He has been inclined at times to hit Quebecers over the head with seemingly inflexible interpretations of the British North America Act. At the same time, in his well-intentioned bilingual policy his government has succeeded in alienating many English speaking Canadians by pressing bilingual policies in areas where English Canadians are in a very dominant majority, and by refusing to take constructive criticism, at least until recently, on how the bilingual approach might be radically altered for the future good of Canada. Admittedly, some of this criticism on my part is hindsight.
The Prime Minister seems prepared to gamble that the kind of federalism which he has always pursued can win a straight intellectual confrontation with Mr. Levesque's idea of independence. But, as I have implicitly suggested, the fight may be more emotional than intellectual, and in that regard the Parti Quebecois may well have the upper hand. I think it is important to point out that perhaps neither the independence as outlined by the Parti Quebecois, nor the federalism as presently practised, responds to Quebec's needs.
Around the House of Commons it was constantly pointed out after the Parti Quebecois victory in Quebec that only 41 per cent of the people of Quebec voted for the Parti Quebecois. The assumption is that only half of those who voted really wanted separatism. What this type of observation neglects to state is that none of the parties which contested the November election, including the provincial Liberals, favoured the kind of inflexible federalism traditionally expounded by the Prime Minister.
Whether or not the Prime Minister, or English speaking Canada, like the notion, Quebec's political leaders have moved away from that style of federalism in which Quebec is a province just like the others. I do not think that patriation of the constitution, or the whole question of the future of the constitution, should have the highest priority in the national debate now, but rather the debate should be on how to get over a million Canadians back to work in good jobs, and get rid of the AIB with the proper decontrol mechanism. However, what may be needed by the time Mr. Levesque holds his referendum is some means to permit constitutional options, rather than extremes of separatism or the existing form of federalism.
On the nation's economic input toward the intensification of the Quebec separatist movement, the present government must be held responsible for the some 10 per cent unemployment that exists in that province. Probably at least 40 per cent of the

young people in Quebec between the ages of 16 to 22 are suffering the effects of unemployment generated in large part by the failure of the present government's economic policy. This government has certainly managed to mismanage our national economy, and we in the Atlantic region and our fellow citizens in Quebec share the legacy of those policy failures as shown by our extraordinarily high unemployment. Little wonder that a tenured, separatist, professional elite at the University of Montreal and other Quebec universities, as well as teachers at the high school level, find willing ears amongst young Quebec students as they advocate their separatist ideas.
It seemed to be a most chastened and humble Prime Minister talking to us on national unity today in the House rather than the arrogant man who was telling us, as recently as last year, that separatism was dead in his native province of Quebec. As our leader, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), said earlier today, we in the New Democratic Party offer Canadians a positive option. This means a federal government committed to national programs aimed at cultural and economic equality, and political and economic independence for Canada.
The New Democratic Party underlines its determination to defend and promote the position of our official languages and the multiplicity of our cultures.
The NDP urges all Canadians to share this vision of a fairer, independent Canada, and to join with us in establishing the national policy priorities needed to overcome this present crisis.
Therefore, on this national unity question, our party has resolved: First, that while the NDP believes the people of Quebec have the right to make their choice without coercion, we strongly support a federal Canada and are confident that the majority of Quebecers will decide to remain within Canada.
Second, the NDP recognizes that some constitutional reforms are necessary but affirms that it is not by constitutional amendment alone that we will solve the national unity problem. We believe it essential for the federal parliament to maintain sufficient power for effective national economic policies to build a fairer, freer Canada. As one from the Atlantic region, I believe very strongly in this concept of our party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) is seeking the floor on a point of order.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to rise on a point of order but 1 think this is a very important debate in which we are all participating, a debate which every member of the House should be able to throw his heart into and speak from his gut. According to Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, Citation 144, it is the rule of both Houses of Parliament that a member must address the House orally and not read from a written, previously prepared speech, because if the practice of reading speeches should prevail, members might read speeches that were written by others and take up the time of the House.
July 5, 1977

I have noted that each of the last four speeches has been read in the House. I think the rules should be enforced, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 accept the hon. member's point of order. It has been a long standing practice of the House that speeches not be read and, as the hon. member said, made with "gut" feeling. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) was perhaps referring to notes. I am sure he will conclude his remarks, as the hon. member said, with "gut" feeling.


Andrew Hogan: 1 use the same kind of notes as the Prime Minister was using this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was using as well.


John R. Rodriguez: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today the leader of the hon. member who has raised this point of order read his speech from notes, and so did the Prime Minister this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had a full text which some of us had in front of us.


John R. Rodriguez: An so did the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). If hon. members are allowed to stand up on points of order of this sort every time a Conservative member in the House reads his speech, we would be up constantly on points of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has the floor.


Andrew Hogan: The New Democratic Party rejects the current policies of the Conservatives and Liberals which would give more power to the richer provinces, a step which will balkanize Canada and provide for increasing disunity. With notes or without notes I can say that, my friend.
Third, the NDP reiterates its determination to defend and promote the position of both French and English, our two official languages, and the multiplicity of our cultures which enrich and strengthen our national fabric, and further recognizes that the existence of a bilingual Canada depends on the presence of a Quebec where the language of work is French, just as English is the language of work in most of the other provinces.
Fourth, that in implementing existing national programs, and in the development of new ones-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is at the end of his speech. In view of the unfortunate interruption surely he should be allowed to finish.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
National Unity


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think there was about a minute and a half of interruptions. Perhaps the hon. member should be allowed extra time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Andrew Hogan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for their kindness in view of the inconsiderate interjection.
Fourth, that in implementing existing national programs, and in the development of new ones, the NDP stresses the importance of delegating much administrative authority to the provinces and affirms the need for the federal government, in co-operation with provincial governments, to devise new policies and structures that will respond more sensitively to regional needs and aspirations and permit the people of all regions and provinces to achieve their economic and cultural goals within one Canada.
Finally, fifth, that in continuing relationships between the federal and provincial governments an attitude of serious co-operation would replace that of confrontation which has characterized Ottawa's approach for the past decade.
Vive le Canada libre-long live a free Canada!


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


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I will abide by the rules of the House since I have no written speech before me. If it is so, it is because any member of the House who wants to participate in such a debate can recite a series of impressive statistics or rely upon a series of statements made by university people, newspapermen or perhaps even politicians; or else he can do as I decided to do, that is rely on personal impressions after having travelled throughout this country.
When we listen to the comments of many hon. members, we notice that words like: price to pay, 15 November. We hear stereotyped words which have come to sound like cliches, like in Quebec where we have developed cliches like sovereignty-association, special status, government of Quebec sole representative of francophones in this country. We have invented the expression cultural sovereignty. We were quite in advance in the making of some cliches.
On the other hand, the Anglophones, if cataloguing is allowed, were the staunchest champions of the cliche "What does Quebec want?" If in 1977 we still hear it, if in the minds of the people of Windsor whom I visited no more than two months ago, if in the minds of the people of Calgary where 1 was some four weeks ago, if in the minds of the people of Picton, and the minds of the people here and there throughout Canada, the question still persists "What does Quebec want?", I wonder just how in earnest the hon. members were, regardless of their political party, who voted and then fought for the Official Languages Act.
The Canadian reality, Mr. Speaker, appears to me to be something like this: on the one hand, we have a people that is

July 5, 1977
National Unity
slightly surprised, and on the other, a people that is impatient; surprised because it is true that until 1962 the people of Quebec, probably because of the collective decision it made, had refused to become educated collectively. However, since Jean Lesage, since 1962, it can be said that that failing was remedied; and besides, up to 1962, we were not the only people in Canada who had not taken great advantage of a department of education. There were other provinces, whose names I shall not mention, in the very same situation. Now, the truth about the years 1967, 1968, and 1969 proves that in Quebec, in Canada, French Canadians are every bit as well educated; that French Canadians are as scientifically, technologically equipped as the English-speaking Canadians. The time has come therefore for the Anglophones to accept institutional bilingualism; not only must they accept the fact that 27 per cent of civil servants should be francophones, but they must also accept the French fact in this country not as a Quebec reality but as a Canadian reality.
Francophones must be recognized not only in government institutions but also at the Royal Bank. They must accept that there be as many anglophones as francophones with MBAs, that there is room for them in the pipeline projects, in Calgary, Edmonton or Toronto. Members of parliament on either side of the House must defend energetically these lofty principles but, as the Prime Minister was saying, they must sell their convictions in their own ridings and come to grips with the problems, but I fear that they do it halfheartedly. And that is not good enough, Mr. Speaker. It is true that national unity is necessary.
Quebec's independence would be as bad for English Canada as for French Canada. I think the two provinces that can least afford to separate are Quebec and Ontario. Together, these two provinces account for 75 per cent of the manufactured goods produced in this country. As far as Quebec is concerned, we make the other provinces pay our manufactured goods 10 per cent more than they would pay elsewhere. Ontario makes the rest of the country pay its manufactured goods 7.5 per cent more than they would pay elsewhere. Some people suggest that the cause of Quebec separatism, of Quebec frustration is an economic one, others submit that bilingualism was implemented in a way that was unacceptable, that a committee should be appointed to solve the problem. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that since the coming of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Canadian who most ably describes the Canadian situation, those opposite have not yet grasped Canada's real problem, and appointing joint committees of the Senate and the House of Commons is sheer nonsense.
I am 100 per cent in favour of the suggestion made by my colleague from Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) that some sort of constituent assembly be established, with people coming from all parties in this House, all political parties in provincial legislatures, and representatives from municipalities, labour, universities and business. I feel that such a body would have many advantages. First, it would preclude any partisan views such as we have heard in this debate this afternoon. It would
also have the advantage of truly involving the people in such a public debate.
I challenge 20 per cent of the hon. members to tell me what one fiscal point is worth in each province. People want a change. Nobody is satisfied with the status quo. Some chose the easy way out, that of urging decentralization, as this pleases everyone. My friends, if we decentralize as much as the Parti Quebecois would have us, we would be compounding the problem. If we accepted that easy formula, with five provinces below the national average, we would be going against the basic principle of Canadian federalism, which is to fight regional inequalities. And yet, Mr. Speaker, no one seems able to give a precise definition of that easy solution of decentralizing. No one. Some people refer to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, others to immigration, but it varies from one province to another and even sometimes the same man has different views as he changes locations. I, for one, think that the real answer, Mr. Speaker, is to gather a group of men who will do some research, who will first of all analyse the present formula of federalism, study all the announcements concerning the constitutional issue made by the greatest Canadian of all, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, since he became Minister of Justice in 1966.
They will see, and I am referring now to Quebecers, that one must make a distinction between French-speaking Canadians, the government which really represents them and the importance to be granted to the Quebec government. I believe that if we have French-speaking Canadians, whether from Quebec or elsewhere who are making a full contribution to this House, no provincial government can rightly pretend to be the only one to represent any minority or any majority in Canada. I suggest that provincial governments, and as long as we shall not be more specific in terms of language, Mr. Speaker, we shall tend to say, like some old colleagues or former provincial ministers who were standing as champions of this philosophy, that the Quebec government should defend French-speaking Canadians throughout the country. Well, I tell them: "You fell right into the trap." Since 1970 or as early as 1966, the Quebec government and even now Peter Lougheed have caught the germ.
When the federal government administers a jurisdiction in a way they do not like, instead of criticizing it, they say: "We will take over your jurisdiction." It is somewhat like a company where there are four partners who have invested the same funds. They assume different responsibilities at the beginning, but when they realize that one is slower than the others, they say to him: "Listen, you have the same privileges as ours, but we will take over your responsibilities." The three others are overburdened and everyone becomes less efficient.
The answer Mr. Speaker is to call those individuals together and advise them that in Canada some rights are not negotiable. The best way to deal with the problem is to include the amended legislation on the official languages into the new Canadian constitution. We must dedicate ourselves forever to the purposes of this government, to this level of government, to the equality of both languages, to the equality of both cultures. We must consecrate the basic principle of redistribution of

July 5, 1977

wealth and equality of men, whatever their sex, their language, their colour, before the law and institutions.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, whether one is a Frenchspeaking Quebecer, an English-speaking Ontarian, or a Zulu, as far as all the rest of the problems in Canada is concerned, I think that when it comes to the development of territories, economic problems, the solution may have pretty well the same name, whether it is in Vancouver or in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, if for that matter we had programs in this country to promote exchanges, to allow the people of Newfoundland who are more different from the people of Calgary than I am from a guy from Toronto, if we get programs so Canadians would know one another, understand one another better, I am convinced that it might not be necessary to discuss those problems of Canadian unity.
Well, Mr. Speaker, and briefly, I subscribe to the formula proposed by my colleague for Portneuf (Mr. Bussieres) and since this government has a proposal or a motion in that sense, that approaches this proposal, I will support it without reservations. And when we see those people, the only question we will have to ask them, Mr. Speaker, will be this: In Canada, we have three levels of government-municipal, provincial and federal. Which one is in a better position to administer most effectively such or such a power? Let us stop seeing in magic and easy formulas the solution of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, we only have to think that we are facing in Canada the same problems as all industrialized countries in the world. The two main ones are energy and the economy. In the nine years to come, Canada will have to spend $120 billion in the public and private sectors in energy development. Only $10 million will go to the James Bay project, $4 million will go to the tar sands, and the rest of this sum will be spent in the Northwest Territories and the Arctic.
In all objectivity, can we think that it is possible to have ten or eleven energy policies in Canada? We are in a privileged situation in the economic sector while we are talking about unemployment and inflation, and in 1982 and 1983, according to the reports of the Economic Council of Canada and most economists in our universities, we will have to face some alternatives. Around 1985, our unemployment problem could become a lack of manpower. At that time, we will be able to re-orient our manpower to less efficient and less competitive sectors, and I believe that Quebec will benefit greatly if we can apply the strategy that our Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and our Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) are now developing and introducing. Mr. Speaker, if we state the issue clearly to these people on the basis of the interests of Canadian citizens rather than on the basis of the political partisanship of the various parties or of the various provincial governments, I believe that Canada and Canadians, whether they be French-speaking or Englishspeaking, will have a marvelous future.
I am thinking of people my age. This might be the last comment that I make this evening. For my part, I have never really suffered from what the English Canadians have left as a legacy of the Plains of Abraham. Perhaps I was brought up in
National Unity
a privileged environment? Perhaps I have something of an advantage? However, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it would be a good idea for young Quebeckers and members of the opposition to go see them like we, the Liberals, are doing. Young Quebeckers are open. They want to know who are their neighbours and their brothers from the rest of the country.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat what I said in Picton about a month ago: When a Frenchman lands in Dorval, we have a tendency to tell him: Welcome, cousin! I can hardly wait for the day when the Anglophones of this country tell me sincerely when I come to see them: Welcome, my brother.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, Gladstone said that if he were to make a speech of ten or 15 minutes he needed about six weeks' notice. My hon. colleagues will be upset to learn that I was told of my impending intervention very late. I think they should be glad that there is a time allocation on my speech.
Some people who belong to service clubs-I do not want to be unfair-sing of brotherhood on Mondays and tell racial jokes on Tuesdays. As we reflect on what we say in these days when we are thinking about national unity, I suppose we realize that we should be thinking about our country every day. Things might be said that are blunt and direct-and why should they not be-but which are in no case hurtful of any individual. It is in this context that I want to say one or two things about the country and what I think about it.
On Friday evening, July 1, 60,000 or 70,000 people stood in the rain outside this building on grounds that are a part of the complex of Parliament Hill, waiting to make a commitment by a national anthem upon which we are apparently still unable to agree. They wanted to make this commitment to Canada. In a way they were lucky, although I would not have traded where I was on July 1 for being here. I was in a smaller place, but where the evocation of Canada was just as strong in feeling if not in numbers.
Reflecting on those 60,000 or 70,000 people it seemed to me they were representative of all of us who could not be here. I think in a way parliament is a commitment-not really "in a way"-we do have a commitment to people who wait outside, outside in all places in this country. This is an institution that curiously watches other institutions of our country reform themselves, yet does not seem to be able to find a formula not only to cope with its own business but for a new constitutional arrangement for the country.
I heard a wise, new member of parliament say in caucus that she was uncomfortable with the "we/they" focus of some of the debate on unity. It was a curious and very sensitive observation. 1 think there is too much of the "we/they" going on in our country. As we debate our future can we not do it as Canadians, not good guys and bad guys, federalists and others, but as Canadians who in different ways and with different talents care very deeply about our country?

July 5, 1977
National Unity


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: I suppose almost all of us-at least we say all of us, I have heard it endlessly since November 15-say that we do not opt for the status quo. If we do not opt for the status quo and if we use logic-I know that is dangerous- then we need some new arrangement.
1 am going to flatter myself and some others who suggested some new arrangements to the government and to parliament. We tabled those suggestions in this House five years ago. It is interesting to see some of the suggestions made by a former joint committee after its travels across the country now having the character of imprimatur on government departments and secretariats. I hope, as we reflect upon the new committee, that some of the things the former committee did will prove useful as a frame of reference. The recommendations of that joint committee are impressively current and imaginative. A new committee could use them as the basis for a fresh examination of the issue.
Saul Bellow wrote a book entitled "Journey to Jerusalem". He mentioned the preoccupation of Israel was survival. As an artist and writer he felt some alarm that a country he admires was committing itself so totally to survival that all the other essential components for Israel were lost sight of. Although we can thank God that Canada does not have external threats, we obviously have internal threats. I hope that national unity does not become such an oppressive preoccupation of government that all the other attributes of citizenship are lost sight of.
A week ago when I asked a minister about a certain policy direction-I do not doubt his motives-he replied that national unity was the preoccupation of his department and that the particular decision I referred to would have to wait. Other questions flow from that answer. I warn colleagues that it will not be useful for our countrymen to engage in this debate if it becomes an excuse for inactivity on the part of government. There is a danger to Canada in this preoccupation with the theme of national unity, the danger that the theme will be used as an excuse to postpone other essential decisions governments must make. I will not list them because we are under a time constraint, but other members have spoken of questions in the economic, social and cultural sphere which await government action.
As the cabinet chooses the direction we are to take as a country, I hope it will opt for a population vibrant and alive as it was ten years ago, vibrant and alive in the way my leader mentioned and in the way it was during the phenomenon! of Expo in 1967 on our one hundredth birthday. That will be one of the tests of the government. I hope the criterion by which we measure this test will be much broader than the government's mere responsibility to maintain national unity.
I have another comment to make. I am worried by some of the inward-looking aspects of this debate. What are people in the world thinking about this country, as we go about this agony, as we expose ourselves and our agonies to the world?
[Mr. Fairweather.J
One wonders if it matters. Personally, I believe very much that this country's survival matters to the world outside Canada.
If I may say so without presumption, during my public career I have looked at the pluses of democracy, so to speak. I remember what happened as Greece overthrew the colonels. We have watched in the last few months a remarkable transformation in Spain. First there was a referendum, then we saw a democratically elected government. No voter under age 64 had ever voted before in Spain. I allude to those two examples, and to India. Actually we saw another example of the negation of the rule of law yesterday in another Commonwealth country. Therefore I say we in this country have a kinship with those in the world on the side of democratic institutions. Those people care how we arrange our institutions, how we respond to this country's challenges, to see if we can find a way, with mutual understanding and good will, to make what I used to call a precious experiment. Then a friend said precious is not a good enough word; we must call it a noble experiment, because this country, make no mistake about it, is a noble experiment in sharing.
One of the elements of federalism is the sharing of powers. Crude people call it sharing the pie. One could use other examples; I hope I am not offending anybody. Perhaps somebody in this debate has talked about sharing the pie. "Pie" is not a bad metaphor. It means the pie of Canada. But there is another essential element, reconciliation. George Woodcock spoke about it in his little book about Canada, written at the time of the centenary. He spoke of the two elements essential to the working of a federal system, sharing and reconciliation. I am sorry to say I have seen little evidence lately in this country of the ability to reconcile.
There are, by latest count, only a dozen or a dozen and a half federal systems in the world. Perhaps the experts can confirm my figures. Perhaps the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) can. I am not certain of my figures, but 1 do not suppose there are more than a dozen or 15 federal states in the world. Those of us who believe in the federal system have a tremendous responsibility to show the world that the system works and is the best system for a country of the size and diversity of this one where more than one language is spoken.
Let me end on this note. Surely the language aspect of this debate has been immensely complicated by the fact that many in this country have not yet accepted another language as a learning experience. To many people other languages have been associated with emotional experiences, presumably because of fear or threats, or because of insensitivity in the application of the Official Languages Act, as my leader said.
I do not suppose my short contribution will be remembered, but it is on record, and nobody can do anything about that. I make a plea for this noble experiment, almost unique in the world of federalism, this noble experience we share with only a dozen or so other states, and it is this: let us maintain the two essential elements of the experiment at all times. Let us not have one versus the other, but both. Let us foster the ability of governments and people to share and to reconcile, for if those elements are missing our unity is in trouble.
July 5, 1977


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honor and a privilege for me as a member of this House to take part in this important debate on national unity. Is it possible to live together in Canada in each of our two large linguistic and cultural communities? Can each one be respectful of the rights, dignity and existential needs of the other? Is this not an important and basic principle in this country? Historically, for over a century, has this principle been reasonably respected? The negative answer to this question explains in part the present unrest in our Canadian society. Therefore, it has become important and indeed vital in order to correct this situation, to improve the way our Confederation operates, and to prevent the splitting of our country, to change some of our attitudes and offer a third option between separation and status quo.
I do not think I am being overnationalistic and on the contrary I believe I am being realistic and objective in laying the blame on the English speaking community in this country for not respecting, as it may and should have done, the French speaking community, in the course of this first century of Confederation. If English Canadians had agreed to treat French Canadians as equals, if they had dealt with them without a complex of superiority and if they had carried out with them a relationship based on respect and dignity all over this country and in all areas of human endeavour we would not be witnessing today the withdrawal on its own territory of a people, a dangerously high proportion of whom, now believes that it is the only way to preserve its language, culture and community and we would not be facing today this threat of assimilation of the French speaking minority outside Quebec into the English speaking Canadian melting pot.
If the West had been more receptive to the efforts and representations of my right honorable predecessor as representative of the Drummond constituency in the House of Commons, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who having later become prime minister of Canada, pleaded the French Canadian cause in the newly formed provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan and if Manitoba had not literally eliminated the language of its pioneers by banishing French from its schools, courts and legal books, if Ontario had refrained from forbidding the use of French in the schools of its minority who at the beginning of the century numbered in the thousands! If in the Maritime they have earlier given full recognition to the important French-speaking minority by officially acknowledging the French language and culture, giving people full access to all levels of education in their mother tongue, in other words, if our two communities outside Quebec had coexisted on equal terms, if only they had coexisted!
It seems to me that the frustration of French Canadians is well justified when we consider the privileged lot that the French-speaking majority in Quebec reserved at that time for its important English-speaking minority which, in addition, always dominated on the economic level. And recently, the no compromise attitude of the CALPA and CATCA concerning
National Unity
air bilingualism, and the defeatist attitude of Donald Creighton who said "No more concessions" to Quebec certainly do not contribute to improve the situation. If on one hand some changes in attitude and mentality are needed, and they are justified by the historic background that I just depicted, fortunately we now see evidence of those changes, on the other hand the fact that a majority, a part I should say of the present French-speaking community is prepared to forget all about Canada seems to me basically unfair and inappropriate, for their ancestors as well as for their descendants, for themselves and for their fellow citizens who want to maintain the unity of our country. Our forefathers gave us examples of fight and courage, not of defeat. What an insult to those who have built and protected this beautiful and great country if we let go a large part of territory with all its ressources and if we let our French-speaking brothers and sisters outside Quebec alone to defend their cultural and linguistic heritage. What a denial of justice to our children who have a right to those huge material and cultural resources which we will abandon on their behalf without their authorisation. What a shame if we were to deprive them of the noble right to realize themselves the great challenge of diversity when they attain their majority.
Most young people see the world and things around them in quite a different way. Those young people openly express in many ways that they disagree with the value system generally accepted by our generation. They reject materialism and they often renounce the comfort to develop nature worship. They believe in a better world where there would be more room for fraternity, social conscience, love, liberty and peace.
Can we spare them the scandal of this useless ravage of a country in an affluent society and in the eyes of a world far more complex to whom it is repugnant to show this example of a social failure? For those who might be tempted to separate, what masochism! Why give in to frustration in a reaction so exaggerated that it might deprive them not only of an invaluable good but, as well, in the present state of affairs, would gain them the qualification of renegade? Are not the French Canadian people a hard working, tenacious and courageous people? Is it not prepared to share since its generosity is proverbial? Does not its great jovial humour make it one of the most sociable? Does not its prudence incite it to let someone else bear the burden of the proof of a better condition, those who, through interest or opportunism, want to break the country to try and create another one?
And what treason, Mr. Speaker, in respect of all French Canadians in Quebec and in other provinces who chose to work towards the achievement of equality of our two linguistic groups, within the federal government or outside it, while respecting Canadian unity! Why abandon the remarkable work of the Trudeaus, Marchands, Pelletiers and others?
The courage French Canadians have shown through difficult times and the measure of success they have met with in Ottawa and elsewhere over the last 10 years in particular warrant us to persevere, to believe in our fulfilment and to strive for it in harmony with our English-speaking fellow Canadians. The important thing, therefore, as the distin-

July 5, 1977
National Unity
guished Secretary to the Cabinet for Federal-Provincial Relations, Gordon Robertson recently pointed out, is that our two communities really make it their goals to promote the co-existence of two languages and various cultures in this country in a climate of mutual generosity and complete equality".
As 1 said before, Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize the fact that attitudes have to change and a better understanding must develop between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians if this country is to be kept united and that is possible! But I feel that we would be deluding ourselves to think that those changes of attitude so long overdue would be enough. The preservation of national unity also calls for a renewed federation: the anglophone community must agree wholeheartedly to such changes which will adequately protect and fully promote the French language and culture in Quebec. Moreover, all Canadians must soon accept the necessity of providing all minority groups, from everywhere in Canada, with the best guarantees possible ensuring them equal status and development opportunities.
In this spirit, Mr. Speaker, why not at the same time bring our constitution back unilaterally and make an official declaration of principle through a joint resolution of the Canadian Parliament and Senate? Having exclusive control over our own constitution, would it not be a symbolic affirmation that has now become timely and necessary? How long do we still have to wait uselessly to get out of what our Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) properly calls a "constitutional impasse that has frustrated governments of all political persuasions, both federal and provincial, for nearly 50 years"? Would it not be time to put an end to a unique and hardly enviable distinction of our country, that is the need to go before the British Parliament, the Parliament of another country, to change such and such basic aspect of our constitution?
But there are priorities of a less tangible kind that are important when human societies are buffeted by the uncertainties and the attacks on confidence that we find in the world of today. Affirmations of national will and indications of collective determination to renew and strengthen faith in structures and in values that unite people are symbolic, but they are important. Such a symbolic affirmation occurred, 1 think when the Parliament of Canada adopted our national flag. Does anyone doubt it has strengthened our sense of being "Canadian" or of being united for important purposes? A similar symbolic affirmation could occur if we were seen to attest our faith in our form of government by ending a defect that has flawed it for decades. We should not be seen constantly to be failing as a people in a matter that relates to the central structure of our national fabric. In short, it is well worth some attention from this parliament to conclude this long outstanding piece of national business.
This is the idea expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister in the House on April 9, 1976, before the election in Quebec of a government committed to independence or separation. In view of this acknowledged objective of the PQ government, the

unanimous consent of the provinces on an amending formula for the constitution seems to me illusive before the referendum they promised to hold has taken place.
It is evident that in the circumstances this unilateral patria-tion would not be done in a way that could bring changes in the distribution of powers or in the position of the provinces. Speaking about the unilateral patriation of the constitution, the Prime Minister of Canada said that if unanimous provincial consent is impossible to achieve "it must not provide any means by which Parliament could act unilaterally in future in any area where it cannot do so today since that would erode the essence of our federal system". We will have to accompany the unilateral patriation with a temporary amendment formula providing for unanimous consent to change sections of the constitution which cannot be changed now in Canada without the unanimous consent of the provinces, while waiting to find more flexible and more comprehensive means to amend our constitution: this would result in the fact that a principle centred in London would be replaced by the principle of consensus in Canada.
We would have to take the advantage of the procedure concerning this unilateral patriation of our constitution to reaffirm clearly in a formal declaration of principles the undertaking of the Canadian Parliament and of the Senate, while exercising their power under the constitution, first to avoid any action likely to jeopardize the maintenance and development of French language and culture, and to take all possible means to preserve and develop it; second, to avoid any action likely to jeopardize the equality of status and the opportunities for development of minorities in Canada, and to find out all possible means to preserve the same equalities; third, to promote the same opportunities for all people who live in Canada, to ensure their well-being and to encourage economic development in order to reduce social and financial inequalities between people, wherever they live in Canada.
This federal declaration of principles, Mr. Speaker, accompanying the unilateral patriation of our constitution, would thus clarify the intention of the Parliament and the Canadian Senate concerning the rights of French-speaking people, minorities, individual freedom and regional disparities in Canada. This clear and official declaration, accompanying the great symbolic affirmation of our constitution patriation, would influence and induce those attitude changes I have already mentioned and which are so desirable, even necessary for Canada's survival.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I humbly suggest that my proposition, if implemented, would have the effect of paving the way for the two essential conditions for the safeguard of the Canadian unity: changing our attitudes and our institutions. Indeed, they would first enable us to influence and induce attitude changes, the feelings and magnanimity needed by our two linguistic and cultural communities so they can realize a great common goal: co-existence in conditions of reciprocal generosity and complete equality. And secondly, it would also offer a third alternative besides separation and status quo, in giving rise to a symbolic act of affirmation
July 5, 1977

without precedent, accompanied by a firm declaration of principles, thus creating the opportunity to revise our constitution here in Canada so we could make changes in it which would satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the French-speaking people of Quebec, of minorities all across Canada and of individuals in all areas.
That is, Mr. Speaker, my humble contribution to this great debate on national unity.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, discussions on the subject of national unity have taken place certainly in this nation for the past 120 years. In most cases, these discussions have centred around what could and should be done to keep Quebec happily in the union. Many have suggested adjustments to the constitution while others have felt that an entirely new constitution is in order. Aside from the numerous conferences and propaganda being distributed promoting national unity, members of parliament have, for the most part, discussed this topic in their constituencies. But truly, what good have all these discussions and talks done?
The situation has gone to the extent that even Canadians from the extremities of this country-east and west-are considering thoughts of their own independence. But here we as members of parliament sit, further discussing an issue that has already been used and abused, thinking to ourselves that maybe in some small way we are aiding the situation when, in actuality, we should be waking up to reality and realizing that our discussions are not even going to influence the situation. The unity of Canada now is up to Quebec.
Since 1963 the federal government has been attempting to court the province of Quebec, first of all by establishing a royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism and empowering it to recommend ways in which Canadian confederation could be developed "on the basis of an equal partnership of the two founding races." The wholesale revision of the language clause, section 133, in the British North America Act, which the commission recommended in order to extend the legal limits of bilingualism, failed for the simple reason that the province of Quebec vetoed it. And to quote a well-known Canadian historian who has already been quoted today:
-despite this crushing disappointment, Parliament tried to carry out as many of the Commission's recommendations as it was constitutionally capable of doing. It passed the Official Languages Act which established federal bilingual districts wherever the minority official language was equal to, or more than, 10 per cent of the population. It appointed the Commissioner of Official Languages and began an officious attempt to promote bilingualism in the federal civil service. The English speaking provinces, impressed with all this federal business, started to enlarge the place of French in their school systems.
But the results have not been cheering. This historian goes on to say:
The results were certainly mixed and doubtful. Bilingualism in the federal civil service cost vast amounts of money, produced negligible results, and aroused angry resentment among English speaking bureaucrats. The office of the Commissioner of Official Languages was soon crowded with a robust army of dedicated snoopers and the Commissioner himself appeared to think that his most important public duty lay in abusing and hectoring English Canadians for their neglect of a language only an infinitesimal minority would ever have the occasion to use. The bilingual colleges had the tendency to remain only theoreti-
National Unity
cally bilingual and the French total immersion courses in the schools did little more than deepen the illiteracy in English with which pupils tried to enter the universities.
As I listen to the speeches here today I am amazed at some members who seem to have their heads in a bucket. Certainly none of us really wants Canada to be divided like a piece of pie. Certainly this country is worth saving and worthy of our loyalty. But the fact which most of the members here today do not realize is that the federal government-and members of all parties are to blame-has allowed the decisions in this country to be made by one province, one province that is a nation unto itself.
What more can we do to appease this province now? Quebec alone received the greater part of the budget of the Department of Health and Welfare. For the year ending 1976 about 50 per cent of the DREE grants went to the province of Quebec. The minister of justice for the province of Quebec now wants, I believe, about $11 million in return for assistance which the Montreal police have given the RCMP. Just this last week the federal government spent $3.5 million on what was called Canada Week in an attempt to unite the country. It is indeed all well and good to want to keep this province in the geographical union of Canada as we know it today, but I would not think that this should be done at the total expense of the other provinces which wish, desire, and want to stay in this union voluntarily.
Absolutely no attention seems to be paid to the other provinces. Quebec is becoming a spoiled child-not a prodigal child but a spoiled child. Nowhere in Canada is the unemployment rate as high as in the Atlantic region, but what has the federal government done about this reality? It has merely continued to pour money into its favourite charity-Quebec. And what has the province of Quebec done to thank the federal government for its undying donations? It has introduced bill 1. It has as much as spat in the eye of its benefactor, the Parliament of Canada. Bill 1 is the only document ever produced which preaches the antithesis of the bilingualism program and the antithesis of democracy so eloquently.
The federal government and its programs are being totally ignored by the province of Quebec except, of course, when it is on the receiving end. So why should we continue to give and continue to coax a province to be in the union if it has no will to be there?
Quebec's new language bill states specifically that the language of business in that province is to be strictly French. There is to be no bilingualism there. Is this then not going to hamper the operation of federal government business in that province? The Government of Canada seems willing to ignore these factors. While ignorance may be bliss in the short term, it certainly cannot be the rule in the long term. Something must be done to halt the actions of Quebec, whether it is by disallowance of the bill or in some other way. Bill 1 is causing major inequalities for many Canadian citizens, not only in the province of Quebec. For example, to prevent the use of English public signs, to forbid the use of an English corporate name in

July 5, 1977
National Unity
the province, and to forbid a local community from determining whether its local democratic institutions, such as town councils and schools boards, should use English as well as French in their proceedings and their administrations-these are real and important denials of liberty.
The people of Canada are wondering how the federal government can ignore such inequalities in its midst. But then, a quick journey to Parliament Hill would instantly make one realize exactly what is going on in this country.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to be served by the ranks of the support staff on the Hill in the English language. Food is served in French, photostating is done in French and, excluding the secretaries, it is not stretching the facts to state that 79.9 per cent of the support staff on the Hill are of French origin.
In most cases these people are hired as bilingual staff regardless of their qualifications. Somehow the term bilingual has been grossly distorted. And may I also say for the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) benefit that the term "linguistic equality" has also been misused in the hiring practices on the Hill. '
To me, if a person cannot say "potato" in English, they can hardly be considered as bilingual staff in a restaurant. But the personnel branch on the Hill does not feel that way. This in itself would indicate who is being discriminated against.
It is time that the federal government started practising what it preaches. If it wants language equality, then it is time that fairness and equality were promoted right down the line, fairness in hiring, and fairness in the allocation of federal government funds.
But instead of promoting fairness and straightening out the bilingualism and the Quebec mess, the government chose to issue yet another statement under the name "A National Understanding". The preface to this booklet, which was delivered to all our offices, states:
... the government wishes to emphasize that the official languages policy is not, and never was, intended to be a cure-all for all the problems of national unity.
The preface goes on to abridge the problems in our country today but states that:
... breaking in on them are our continuing problems of language. They are the most acute issues facing us, as the events of the province of Quebec have demonstrated.
This does not seem to be a logical statement to me. How can people of any country rationally decide on their country's future when they have no jobs and no money?
It is obvious that the Prime Minister, for some reason or another, has taken the defeat of the Liberal party in Quebec to mean only a vote for separatism. This is a wrong assumption indeed. The people of Quebec voted for what they thought was better government and better economic policies, and this is what the people of Canada want today. I am not sure whether the people of Quebec realize what they got or got what they want, but it is our unemployment situation over and above all the other problems in this country which is most important. Instead, the Quebec situation is being used as an excuse to ignore the problems of dissatisfaction with the unemployment situation. I suggest that at this time the problem of national unity is really a red herring to cover up matters of unemployment, inflation, and other serious crises.
The recently issued statement on the government's language policy does not even mention the inequalities inherent in Bill 1. The statement is full of generalities in bold print, but when one reads the finer print one can easily deduce that the government is in full agreement with Quebec policy.
The federal government has finally admitted that the place to teach the two official languages is in the schools, but its interpretation of the school system and who should be allowed into certain schools is definitely stilted. I would like at this point to quote a typical paragraph from the booklet entitled "A National Understanding", which, incidentally, makes no sense at all. However, this is in relation to the school system in our country, and it reads as follows:
In any event, the federal government asserts that it is incompatible with the unity of Canada that Canadian citizens should be able, when they move from province to province, to send their children to schools where they are taught in their own language. The government believes that necessary facilities should be provided, wherever they do not exist, for people moving from the province of Quebec to other provinces, and that they should continue to be provided for people moving from other provinces to the province of Quebec. In both cases, the federal government recognizes that there will be particular situations where this will not be feasible. But the principle remains.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 11 o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At eleven o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.



END OF VOLUME VII