1977-10-19

THE LATE MARY STANFIELD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, all of us appreciate the fine words you spoke yesterday on behalf of all members of this House in expressing the deep regret of members of this Chamber at the death yesterday of the wife of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield).
All of us who knew Mrs. Stanfield are saddened by her passing, but are sustained by the memory of a vibrant, natural, sensitive woman. Politics is sometimes a stuffy business, and Mary Stanfield would let none of us get away with that. To Canadians across the country she brought a gift of warmth and wit-

-in both official languages. Indeed, it is an expression of her character that she learned the French language here and that she spoke it with verve and pleasure.

Those of us who were privileged to be her friends knew a charity and a concern for others that went well beyond the call of her responsibilities. She was fresh air in our lives, our party and our country. We extend to the family our condolences at her passing and our gratitude for sharing her with us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of our party, 1 should like to express our very deep sympathy to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) at the loss of his wife, Mary. To all of us who had the privilege of knowing her, she shall be remembered as a very happy lady who was always eager to share warmth and friendship with all members and their families, regardless of which party they represented. We extend our sincere condolences to my hon. friend and his family, particularly those who were close to her.
[ Translation]
And 1 would like to take the opportunity to say to the House how Mrs. Stanfield was admired when she was visiting French communities in Canada. She was a great lady, very charming and gay. She had really understood, as it is more and more accepted among all Canadians, that it is possible to be a genuine Canadian and, at the same time, have access to both official languages of our country. To Mr. Stanfield and his
family, I present my deepest sympathy on behalf of all members of the House.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of my party, I should like to join with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) to express our deep grievance at the passing of this frank and engaging woman, a woman who brought joy to all who knew her. We extend to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) our deepest sympathies at this time, and we express our hope that the grief which will come from this sad passing will soon be overcome in his life.


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


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Tfemiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, 1 wish to join the representatives of the three other parties in offering our most sincere condolences to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield), his wife having passed away. 1 must point out that last year, when my own father passed away, the Stanfield family and members of my family met repeatedly, which means that we share all the more the pain of those difficult moments. Mrs. Stanfield was acknowledged as a great Canadian lady, and the fact that she could speak French was always greatly appreciated by our group of members of parliament who come mainly from Quebec. Once again, our deepest condolences to the hon. member for Halifax.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I make this motion in the belief that the seriousness and the gravity of the threat posed by international terrorists to the lives and safety of innocent persons will persuade members of this House to give it unanimous consent. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):

October 19, 1977
Agriculture
That this House commends the West German government for the courageous handling of this week's highjacking and expresses its deepest condolences to the family of the murdered pilot. Further, that this House calls for a positive response to the appeal by the International Federation of Airlines Pilots Association for renewed international efforts to eliminate air piracy and requests that the Canadian government take an immediate initiative to bring this matter before the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require that, to set aside the business of the day for the introduction and discussion of this motion, there must be unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
ALLEGED INVITATION TO PREMIER LfiVESQUE TO ADDRESS FRENCH ASSEMBLY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the report that an invitation has been sent to the premier of the province of Quebec to address the French National Assembly, an act which would constitute a provocative incursion by France into Canadian domestic affairs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the government to investigate this report immediately and if confirmed, to formally protest this action with the government of France and request its withdrawal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Jack Horner said "no".


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the dispute between the Canadian Dairy Commission and the Quebec Federation of Fluid Milk Producers which has delayed the payment of funds to fluid milk producers; considering that those milk producers are experiencing serious financial problems, those conditions giving rise to problems in the milling trade burdened with the credit; since the withholding of funds means that the producers have

become hostages pending the settlement of the constitutional dispute, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House recommend that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) authorize the dispatch of funds to producers pending the judgment delivered by the courts on that constitutional issue.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I have taken a few moments to permit, at the usual time, the presentation of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43, but in the days that lie ahead of us I think hon. members will want to reflect on the fact that these days are to be devoted to the debate on the Speech from the Throne which traditionally, and clearly within our precedents and practices, means that, within reason, any subject is open for discussion. It is therefore difficult, within the language of Standing Order 43, to seriously consider an application to set aside that kind of debate to debate something else because there is no restriction on the subject that any hon. member can raise in participating in the throne speech debate. Therefore, in future days perhaps hon. members might want to be guided by that understanding in making applications to transfer one subject for another in the remaining days on the throne speech debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would he indicate to the House the inflationary impact of the devaluation of our dollar to date?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is quite impossible to give an exact description of the inflationary impact of the devaluation of our dollar. Of course, it is one factor of the problem, but it is impossible to say exactly to what extent the devaluation of the Canadian dollar will influence inflation.
October 19, 1977


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Minister of Finance. Could he indicate if he agrees with his own official, Dr. Hood, who has indicated before a committee of this House that he estimates that every reduction of one cent in our dollar would result in inflation of .3 per cent over a two year period, which would mean that as a result of the 13 cent reduction we already have in the Canadian dollar there is approximately a 4 per cent inflation factor built into our economy for the next two years?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course Dr. Hood expressed his own views, but he also invited hon. members to be cautious. As to his interpretation, he said that all other factors being equal, which is not the case, the effect would be felt over a period of two to three years and not necessarily during the first year. As I said, Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely impossible to determine exactly the inflationary effect of the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. However, I must admit that it is an inflationary factor.


ALLEGED USE OF RESERVES OF UNITED STATES DOLLARS TO STABILIZE CANADIAN DOLLAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My question is again for the Minister of Finance. As the minister told us on Monday, "the governor of the bank is not intervening with regard to the floating of the Canadian dollar", and as the Bank of Canada published figures show that our U.S. foreign exchange reserves have fallen 27 per cent so far this year, would the minister indicate where the funds have disappeared if they have not been used in exchange trades?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think that the hon. member has not made the proper distinction. Intervention would mean that the governor would have received instructions to peg the Canadian dollar, and there has been no such thing. Everyone knows that the governor of the bank is involved with the market in order to make sure that the operation of the market is carried out normally. Everyone knows that he is, but he is not intervening in order to stabilize the dollar.


REASON FOR MISCALCULATION OF REAL GROWTH IN THE ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that only six months ago the government predicted that the real growth of the economy would be 4 per cent and that it is only going to be 2 per cent, why was there such a gross error in the calculations?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think everyone knows that the economies of all nations are
Oral Questions
faced with the same problem. When I was in Washington international organizations like the IMF and the OECD predicted that the growth in the world would be 5 per cent. They have reported to all the ministers that the growth was to be only 2 per cent, exactly the same proportions we are facing in Canada.


ALLEGATION FALSE INFORMATION ON REAL GROWTH IN ECONOMY PROVIDED PROVINCES-GOVERNMENT ACTION
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance would take time to check private forecasts, he might find that the degree of error there was much less than that of his own department. This is not an academic question because the provinces have made their budget calculations on the basis of the forecasts made by his department. These forecasts have been very wrong. What is the minister going to do for the provinces which are in difficulty now because they budgeted on the basis of false information provided by the federal government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, every level of government is affected by this problem. In fact, the federal government is affected more than the provinces because of the stabilization programs for revenue. The slow growth of the Canadian economy will cost the Canadian federal taxpayer $400 million more which we will have to accommodate within our budget.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister misses the purport of the question.


An hon. Member:: What is that noise?


An hon. Member:: Hold it, Jim.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should wait until we get the technical difficulties corrected.


An hon. Member:: Your horn is stuck, Chretien.


POSSIBILITY OF ACTION TO IMPROVE ECONOMIC FORECASTING
James McPhail Gillies: The problem I am trying to isolate and the problem with which 1 want the minister to deal is not the fact that the economy has slowed down, although that is the responsibility of the government. Much more importantly, a serious problem has plagued this government for a long time in policy making, and that problem is caused by gross errors made in his department. Since the minister has become the Minister of Finance has he taken any measures to try to improve the technical operations within his department with relation to forecasting and prognostications about the way this economy is operating?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is rather complicated to make predictions on the economic level, and if you look at the predictions made by economists, you will see that they seldom agree unanimously. In any case,

October 19, 1977
Oral Questions
to give a specific answer to the hon. member's question, I asked my officials to meet immediately with their provincial counterparts to have the same basis for discussion. A technical meeting on this subject is scheduled for next week.


MANPOWER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It too deals with forecasts. The report which was produced by his department and which I released two days ago included a forecast for unemployment levels for this year and next year of 7.3 per cent and 7.6 per cent respectively. Since the actual rate of unemployment for the present year is now averaging 8 per cent, well above what was forecast just last spring, will the minister inform the House if the same group of people in his department have done a new forecast or, if not this group, someone with a little more foresight? Has such a forecast been done and, if so, will the minister tell us the results?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that officials in the department should have a continuing watch on the unemployment level. If the hon. member will check his figures, I think he will see that the actual figure is about 7.5 per cent, but the figures that are quoted here are 7.4 and 7.6. The 8.3 and 8.2 he is referring to are on a seasonally adjusted basis. The other aspect I would bring to the hon. member's attention is that he was quoted wildly or widely in the press-


John Edward Broadbent: Both.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Maybe both, to the effect that the unemployment rate would increase at a rate of about 2 per cent per year. In fact, that report made reference to an increase in the labour force. I do not know whether the hon. member was mistaken or the press has again made an error in reporting what he actually said.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister must know it could not have been possible that I was mistaken in the statement. I say that with all due modesty.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I now ask the minister if he will answer the question. The question is whether a new study has been done. Whether the report of the study is accurate or not, what is accurate is that the forecasts made in the study have turned out to be false. Unemployment rates are now higher than the forecasts. Has a new forecast been done? If so, will he tell us what it is? Related to that, since the study stated it will cost some $4 billion next year in unemployment insurance payouts,

will the minister advise what the new figure will be? It will surely be higher.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I guess we can argue all day about figures of the kind the hon. member mentions, and whether he was quoted correctly or incorrectly in the press. In fact, as a result of seeing the worsening situation, this government saw fit to move from $358 million to $458 million for direct job creation programs. My own department has something like $1,200 million in that particular field which strikes me as a pretty adequate response from one federal department to cope with the problem we have.


SUGGESTED USE OF UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUNDS FOR JOB-CREATION PROGRAM
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is two questions in a row the minister has refused to answer. I now want to ask him a third question. Since the actual level of unemployment in Canada is just beyond 1.3 million and since unemployment in the province of Newfoundland has reached the depression level of 1932, will the minister not agree it makes a lot more sense to spend the $4 billion that has been estimated for unemployment insurance on job creation?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we had received the support of the hon. member's party and solid support for the development use of the unemployment insurance fund, it would have been a positive response and an appropriate use of the money that could be made available for that specific problem. The hon. member says his questions were not answered. Sometimes when you go on a fishing expedition, you do not catch anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Agriculture. Considering the present dispute between the Quebec Federation of Fluid Milk Producers and the Canadian Dairy Commission and given the fact that funds have been withheld on both sides since the month of May, could the minister tell the House whether there are new developments and whether negotiations between both organizations are maintained in order to reach an agreement and give justice to the producers who necessarily need their money to manage their business?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion between the Canadian Dairy Com-
October 19, 1977

mission and the producers concerned. We have had discussions with the farm organization in the province of Quebec. I want to make it clear that the holdback is equivalent to the skim-off to which we feel they are entitled to contribute. We feel they have benefitted from the subsidy and it is not on the total product they are shipping-it is equivalent to the surplus they ship which goes to the industrial market.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary. I understand very well the answer the minister just gave the House, but as everyone seems to stand firm on his positions, could the minister tell the House what steps would be taken as soon as possible to come to a settlement, for fluid milk producers in Quebec see that as a matter of jurisdiction, and thus a constitutional matter. So, given the circumstances, may I ask if the minister could tell the House whether he intends to carry on as quickly as possible with the negotiations or whether legal measures will be taken to settle the problem?


Eugene Whelan: Well, at the July meeting of provincial ministers of agriculture held in Victoria, B.C., I, as Minister of Agriculture of Canada, stated on behalf of the federal government that they could make their contributions in any way they wished-we did not say they had to make a levy on whole milk producers; we wanted the equivalent of $12.5 million from all across Canada. We thought this was a reasonable amount to ask them to contribute toward the cost of distributing surplus industrial milk products on world markets. Some provinces have already made agreements-1 believe five of them have done so.


FLUID MILK-REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF FULL SUBSIDY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I think that the government has a legal obligation to pay these subsidies to the milk producers, but 1 also understand, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties encountered by the Minister of Agriculture regarding the refusal of fluid milk producers to pay back the 25 cents. I will therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is prepared to enforce this piece of legislation which was passed by his own government and to pay these subsidies to milk producers. The present position of the government is a form of blackmail-if you do not pay back the 25 cents you do not get subsidies. Everybody knows that the milk producers would not be able to win against the government. I simply ask the minister whether he is prepared to enforce a legislation passed by his own Parliament?


Eugene Whelan: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's interpretation of the law is different from mine. I suggest he read it again: the law clearly says
Oral Questions
the government may pay a subsidy-it does not say the government shall pay a subsidy. Some of the provinces have already amended their provincial legislation to comply with the request we made, because they thought it was fair and equitable.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the past 12 months over $627 billion of Canadian money has been invested in the United States and businesses are openly moving to the United States because of the poor political climate here in Canada. What measures has the hon. gentleman been taking to stop this mass exodus of investment money and the movement of business to the United States which will only add to our unemployment problem here?


Hon. J. H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I should like to thank the hon. member for the question. We enjoy in Canada complete freedom of investment and a free country. I should like to tell the hon. member that in 1975 the Americans invested something like $5.1 billion in Canada, that in 1976 they invested something like $5.6 billion in Canada and that in the year 1977 the Americans will be investing more than $6 billion here. So, we have to accept the fact that some Canadians may want to invest some money in that country.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would certainly challenge the minister's figures. For the first time in 40 years more money is leaving Canada than is coming in. Since the United States is opening up offices in Canada and holding symposiums in Canada in order to assist Canadian businesses to move because of the political climate here, is the minister saying that he is going to take no action at all in dealing with this serious problem?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would be the first to admit, Mr. Speaker, that we have a very difficult political climate in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am overwhelmed that the Conservative party has finally realized that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The root of the political problems in Canada today stems from the fact that a portion of our country, with something like 27 or 28 per cent of the population, expresses a desire to separate. That is creating a somewhat uncertain economic climate in our country and 1 am glad that the official opposition realizes it.

October 19, 1977
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister, whom I presume is the Minister of Finance. My question refers to order paper questions answered Monday which revealed that cabinet ministers have used government aircraft 5,000 times in the last several years at public expense to travel to many places, including to a large extent to their constituencies. For example, the Minister of Agriculture has travelled 188 times to Windsor and back. Will the Acting Prime Minister advise the House whether the government will issue immediately an order to stop this practice which is costing millions of dollars; if it will not issue such an order, why not?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are well known regulations to that effect, and ministers abide by them at all times. The aircraft are at the ministers' disposal in the performance of their ministerial duties, which may sometimes involve a flight back or to their constituencies. I think the procedure is well known. The regulations very much work to Canada's best interests.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister refers to the fact that during the past few weeks the Prime Minister has been saying a great deal about restraint on the part of the Canadian people. Let me ask him this. Will the government immediately stop such flights as the one made by the Minister of Agriculture from his Windsor constituency to the resort area of Myrtle Beach in the Caroli-nas; and finally, is it government policy that there should be one code of restraint for cabinet ministers and another code of restraint for the Canadian people?


Mr. Chr6tien:: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of that nor other flights. I know the procedure is well known. Ministers use the aircraft when needed in the performance of their duties. Of course they have been invited a number of times, both by myself when President of Treasury Board and by my successor, to show restraint in the use of aircraft.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which would normally be directed to the President of the Privy Council and which in his absence I will direct to the Acting Prime Minister. Further to the statement of the Presi-

dent of the Privy council to this House on February 4 last, can the Acting Prime Minister state whether or not a chairman of the special committee to review the Public Service Employment Act has been appointed and, if so, whether or not this special committee intends to hold public hearings. If it does so intend, when?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to reply to the hon. member but I will pass his question to the President of the Privy Council. If he is not here tomorrow I will be delighted to give him an answer.


FEDERAL COURT ACT
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Having in mind the emphasis placed in the Speech from the Throne on human rights and open government-somewhat belated but nevertheless appetizing-is the hon. gentleman prepared to submit to a committee of this House the right to inquire into the extent to which the government has made undue use and probably abuse of its powers under the Federal Court Act to deny information to people, particularly to public inquiries, a use which has often resulted, as in the case of Mr. Walter Rudnicki, in the denial of public and civil rights?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that when a minister on this side signs an affidavit under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, whether myself or any other minister, he is acting under a statute and authority granted by this Parliament. I would add that there is not only the power but a duty to do so in these circumstances.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Hon. members on this side of the House are well aware of the law; what we doubt is the use the government is making of that law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the minister, with that usual good humour which he has as an able minister, prepared at least, if he is not going to submit the matter to a committee, to make a statement to this House within a very short time telling us exactly what the government has been doing, for example, in the Laycraft inquiry into crime in the province of Quebec, issues which concern us on this side of the House very much indeed?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Laycraft inquiry there was, of course, an affidavit submitted by myself which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of the inquiry, and I answered questions specifically on that
October 19, 1977

matter before the House. There was also an affidavit, I understand, filed by the then Minister of National Revenue, with questions also asked in the House. As far as the FLQ matter is concerned, I have, of course, filed affidavits under section 41(2), which I consider not only to be a power but really a duty on my part as custodian, in part, of files relating to national security of this country. This is a duty which has been imposed on me or given to me by parliament and I intend to exercise that duty.


DISCUSSIONS WITH PROVINCIAL ATTORNEYS GENERAL ON USE OF SECTION 41(2)-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same topic for the Minister of Justice with whom 1 discussed this matter last March. At that time he indicated that he had had discussions 15 months before that with the provincial attorneys general about the use of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act. Could the hon. gentleman bring the House and the country up to date on whether he has got anything new to report about the excessive use of this regressive section?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my answers earlier indicated that what 1 had discussed with the provincial attorneys general was revisions of the Federal Court Act, not specifically the particular sections to which the hon. member is referring. Work is still proceeding on revision of the Federal Court Act, including section 28; when legislation might be introduced to this House I am unable to say.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the scathing comments that Chief Justice Deschenes of the Quebec Civil Court had to make about section 41(2), and in view of the fact that the minister has conceded that it is indeed part of the Federal Court Act, 1 would expect a more specific answer.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General and concerns the Laycraft inquiry. In September of this year the attorney general of the province of Alberta indicated that he believed he had been bugged by the RCMP. That allegation has been known to the Solicitor General since September. Can he now advise the House whether that allegation is correct? If it is correct, can he advise the House whether that bugging was authorized under the wiretap law passed by this parliament in 1974?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, I understand there was indeed such an allegation. The commanding officer of the force in Alberta met with the attorney
Oral Questions
general of that province and I understand the attorney general of that province was entirely satisfied with the result of that meeting. There were no bugs involved and there was no surveillance by the RCMP of the attorney general of Alberta.


AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORCE AND NATIONAL REVENUE-FAILURE TO NOTIFY ALBERTA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In addition to the question of bugging, the attorney general of Alberta insisted that he was never advised of an agreement between the Department of National Revenue and the RCMP concerning the exchange of information between them with regard to the investigation of crime in the province of Alberta. Can the Solicitor General advise why the chief law enforcement officer of the province of Alberta was not advised of secret agreements between DNR and the RCMP on matters that concern his province?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, there was, of course, an agreement which was entered into in 1972 between the Department of National Revenue and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The object of that agreement was to increase the fight or to enhance the possibility of having greater success in the fight against organized crime in this country, an approach which had a great deal of success in the United States and we feel is most appropriate in this country also. Of course, the success of this agreement depended a great deal on the agreement not becoming generally known to the members of organized crime in this country. Once again, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of that agreement was to enhance the possibility of having greater success in the fight against organized crime in this country.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: The Royal American shows have never been described as a part of organized crime at any time, at the time that that inquiry took place. Yet, that secret agreement was used to conduct an exchange of information. It is entirely possible that that exchange of information was illegal under the laws of Canada. My question is this: how does the Solicitor General justify the use of that secret agreement against an organization in which no one, as far as the Laycraft Commission has been able to determine, formed any part of organized crime?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member is prejudging the results of the Laycraft inquiry. There is an inquiry ongoing in the province of Alberta at the moment on this matter. However, I should like to refer to one aspect of the case concerning the existence of that agreement between the Department of National Revenue and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. While it was not a widely known agreement, it was known to all people involved in the enforcement of it, both in the Department of National Revenue and in the RCMP.


An hon. Member:: How about the Attorney General?

October 19, 1977
Oral Questions


Francis Fox: The agreement was made public by this government during the course of that inquiry in response to a request by the inquiry. There was never any question of keeping the agreement completely secret.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COPY OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FORCE AND NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Mqrcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, since the agreement of 1972 between the RCMP and the Department of National Revenue has been disclosed in the Laycraft inquiry, and the minister has referred to it here, is he or the Minister of National Revenue prepared to table a copy of that agreement for the purposes of the House?


Francis Fox: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has not received a copy of the joint press release which has been sent out by both the Minister of National Revenue and myself. We have issued a public statement to which we have annexed the complete text of that memorandum of understanding between his department and mine. If it is the desire of the House, I am prepared to table copies of it in both official languages for the purposes of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And supporting documents.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question could have been directed to the Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion had he been here; but I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Given the absence in the throne speech of any new or innovative measures to combat high unemployment in the Atlantic area particularly, can the minister indicate to the House, in order to understand the basis of his intervention later on in the throne speech debate, whether he essentially agrees with the Economic Council of Canada that there is in fact an underutilized economic resource there and that a stimulation would not overly generate inflationary pressures, or whether he agrees with his predecessor that any innovative intervention in this area by using fiscal matters might over-pressurize the inflationary tendencies? Which approach does he intend to use in directing himself and his government's intention toward unemployment in the Atlantic area?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall have an opportunity to speak on that problem tomorrow

evening at eight o'clock when I shall address the House of Commons.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour.
The Radio-Mutuel dispute has been going on for more than nine months in stations at Trois-Rivieres, Sherbrooke, Quebec City and Montreal without a solution in sight, and management seems unwilling to negotiate. I wonder if the minister would inform the House whether his department intends to act in this dispute.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should advise the hon. member that we have already intervened in the matter. A mediator moved into the situation last Friday, and I hope he will be successful in resolving the dispute.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In light of the fact that in the Speech from the Throne there was some suggestion regarding amendments to be made to the Criminal Code, can the Minister of Justice inform the House and Canadian people if there is any suggestion of an application by the Premier of Quebec or anyone else concerning the voluntary exiles who were connected with the Cross kidnapping? If they wish to return to Canada will they go through the due process of law and be tried by courts as to their innocence or guilt?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the apparent request made to the Premier of Quebec has been passed on to any federal authorities at this point. There are outstanding charges and warrants of arrest against the persons involved laid by the authorities in the province of Quebec. If the persons involved return to Canada,
I would presume those warrants of arrest and charges would be proceeded with. Of course that would be a decision within the responsibilities of the province of Quebec. When the question was asked, it would appear to me that the indications from this House show that we would all want the province of Quebec to act on those warrants.
In so far as requests for pardons are concerned, there is no provision in federal law for the granting of pardons to people
October 19, 1977

who have not been convicted of a crime. Thus, there is no prospect of ever considering a pardon in this particular case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if there was an agreement in writing between those voluntary exiles when they left the country because of that crime of kidnapping a foreign representative, would the minister file in the House any agreement between those people and the federal government?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I was not involved at the time of that kidnapping. Whether of not there were agreements made in writing, I am not aware of them. I do not believe there were, but I will inquire into it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. In view of the need for an extensive fisheries development plan in Atlantic Canada, which plan would take into consideration the need for improving the inshore as well as the offshore fleet, especially as it applies to the harvesting of those species of fish which we are now giving away to foreigners within our 200-mile zone, will the minister indicate to the House why there was no mention of a fisheries policy for Canada in yesterday's throne speech?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there are many issues which will arise in this parliament and the administrative acts of this government that were not mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. I hope the hon. member does not share the view of some of those who advocate that we give away at the back door or the side door the jurisdiction which we have painfully gained by the front door.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INDUSTRY
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that policies of this government regarding the mining industry in Canada are creating ghost towns in Canada, and particularly in the Sudbury basin where 4,000 Falconbridge workers just returned to work after a six-week lay-off, where INCO is presently threatening extensive lay-offs and cutbacks and Falconbridge has announced the loss of 500 jobs by the end of December, 1977, is the minister
Oral Questions
aware of the severe situation in the mining industry, particularly the nickel and copper industries? Can he tell the House what specific steps he intends to take so that we do not end up with ghost towns in the Sudbury basin that not even a taxation data centre can save?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this question and I should like to reveal to the hon. member and to the House the deep concern the government has with regard to the complete mineral industry. As he knows, as I know and as the House is probably aware, the entire world market for minerals today is one we would call very soft. We are exploring every avenue to ensure that jobs are maintained in Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that stockpiling both uranium and gold was used in the past by this government to secure the employment of workers in those industries, is the minister prepared to consider such a program in the nickel and copper industries in order to secure the continued employment and productivity of these workers in the Sudbury basin?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, this whole suggestion is being examined.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the Speech from the Throne was empty of any reference to Canada's role in international affairs, does the minister support the formal declaration of the United States and the Soviet Union that a new Middle East peace conference should ensure the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have been in constant discussion and consultation with the governments concerned on this whole question. As the hon. member knows, there is considerable argument about the specific meaning of words. I do not believe anything would be gained by me emphasizing particular words such as "legitimate" or "homeland". The Canadian position is precisely what it has been all along. We recognize that the Palestinian position must be taken into account in any settlement. We feel that settlement is best arrived at through discussion between all the parties, hopefully at Geneva, and if not there, elsewhere.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In view of the minister's recognition of the importance of the Middle East as the central issue in the United Nations this year and his call for, "short, precise and

October 19, 1977
Oral Questions
practical resolutions", is it the intention of the minister to take advantage of Canada's position on the security council to introduce new practical resolution initiatives in the Security Council of the United Nations.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the operative words in the hon. member's question are the words with reference to the resolutions being practical. If it appears that some initiative in the Security Council, in addition to those presently underway in various other groups, would advance the situation, then of course Canada would be pleased to do so. It is my judgment at the moment that it is best left to the negotiating parties, for the time being at least, and that if there is to be action in the Security Council it is likely to come later in the present year.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. But first of all, I wish to congratulate the minister on his appointment to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Having said so, I want to bring again the attention of the House on the serious problems which our footwear industry is going through because of massive imports of shoes in this country. Would the minister tell us whether imports of footwear in Canada have decreased or will decrease in the coming days?

Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): In answer to the hon. member's question let me say that the whole footwear industry has just gone through an exhaustive study and the department is sifting through that study. I can assure the hon. member we are watching the industry with a great deal of care.


Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Last July the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Finance introduced an interim report concerning the Anti-dumping Tribunal and footwear imports. Therefore, would the minister be prepared to let us know what progress is being made in these proceedings following the publication of a report by this Anti-dumping Tribunal and what he and his department intend to do to solve the matter once and for all, in order to avoid that too many lay-offs take place in the footwear industry, in the riding of Richmond and elsewhere?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the footwear industry in Canada through my answer to the hon. member's question that we intend to maintain it. We intend to make certain that it is capable of securing a large portion of the Canadian market and our efforts will be directed towards that goal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TEXTILES-REQUEST FOR RETENTION OF IMPORT QUOTAS
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance in his former position regulated quotas for the import of textiles. The present minister seems to be doing away with those, and since there is no mention of them in the throne speech, would the minister, either today or in his speech tomorrow night, confirm that those quotas will stay in place for the benefit of the many people who are employed in that industry, in my area at least?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Everyone knows that I maintain very good relations with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and we are in complete accord on the policies which he will announce or has already announced.


An hon. Member:: Which policy?


INSULIN-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON POSSIBLE PRODUCTION CUTS AND PRICE INCREASES
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but first I would like to preface it by offering her our best wishes for health and wealth and good advice in her new portfolio. Would the minister investigate and report to the House on the disturbing news to Canadian diabetics about cuts in insulin production and its increased price?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the doctor for his good wishes and those of my other colleagues in the House. As to the serious question on insulin, I will ask the hon. member to give me until tomorrow to present a report to the House.


FINANCE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible for Small Business, I would like to put my question to the Minister of

Finance. After years of government studies related to the problems of small business the government at long last has come up with a program which basically outlines the government's intention to continue to study the problems of small business. In yesterday's Throne Speech three full words were dedicated to the largest potential employment sector in Canada. 1 would like to ask the minister whether or not he can assure the small businessmen in Canada that some specific and realistic incentive oriented programs will be introduced forthwith by the government before it is too late for the small businessmen, such as some programs which have been detailed by members on this side of the House on several occasions in the past.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If 1 have any announcement to make, it will be made at another time. However, I am glad to note that the hon. member is aware that we have been working very hard to assist small business and that it is bringing some good results.
Privilege-Mr. Whelan INDUSTRY


NEWSPRINT-REQUEST FOR FEDERAL AID
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Canadian share of the U.S. newsprint market has dropped from 80 per cent to approximately 60 per cent, what new initiatives does the minister have to strengthen the Canadian pulp and paper industry which generates about $1 out of every $8 in the export market?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, here again we recognize the fact that newsprint and pulp and paper are in a soft market in today's world and we are doing everything we can.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing about it?


An hon. Member:: According to you everything is soft.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Because of concern for the present apparent weaknesses in the Canadian obscenity and pornography laws embodied in the Criminal Code, is the government planning to introduce remedial legislation in this session or, if not, will the government refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs so that it can study the difficult problems involved?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been consulting with the provincial attorneys general on possible amendments to the wording in the code and some amendments are under consideration. I cannot undertake at present to say when we will be able to lay before parliament changes in the law. In the meantime, the provincial attorneys general and I have agreed that the best possible way to proceed would be by active law enforcement within the provinces against those distributing pornography and active surveillance by the Department of National Revenue at the border in terms of the customs operation with regard to the importation of pornography into Canada.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I thank the minister for his very informative reply and I would like to ask whether or not he would consider and inquire from the attorneys general of various provinces whether their correspondence could be tabled and referred to the standing committee so that the standing committee could also discuss this important matter and perhaps give some assistance to the Minister of Justice and to his department.


An hon. Member:: And so are you, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are doing everything we can to assist the newsprint and the pulp and paper industry in Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The minister keeps on using the words "we are doing everything we can". What do those words mean specifically?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: First of all, in doing everything we can, we must recognize the situation in which we find ourselves, and that is more than the opposition does. We recognize that position. We realize that in many cases our industry does not achieve the productivity level necessary to allow it to compete with the United States.


An hon. Member:: Why?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: To some extent it is the wages. Hon. members in the NDP ask why not. It is to a great extent because our wages have been higher than those in American industry. By recognizing those problems we can find the answers.


PRIVILEGE
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding the question which the hon. member for Leeds asked the Minister of Finance. The hon. member referred to a trip I took to Myrtle Beach. I want to make it clear that I was invited there by the Southern Agriculture Chemical Association for a seminar, to explain the legislation we have in Canada which is the envy of the people of the United States of America.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, I will consider that, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 19, 1977
Privilege-Mr. Whelan


Eugene Whelan: Whether intentionally or otherwise, the hon. member intimated that this was a pleasure trip. We were in Myrtle Beach less than 20 hours. No members of my family were included. There were staff people with me on that trip, and that was all. I say emphatically that as Minister of Agriculture, my duty is to serve this country in the best fashion I know. No one can prove that I used government aircraft to do anything other than serve this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister has only scratched the surface and given a very distorted view. Therefore, I feel I have a right to make absolutely clear what I said and to ask that he not distort my words in this house. For example, the Minister of Agriculture also went to Miami on February 22 of this year.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I feel that the government is allowing cabinet ministers, particularly the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Transport, and others, to breach the privileges of members of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As it arises, the question of privilege relates only to comments which were made during the question period. I think the hon. member for Leeds ought to be given equal time, but he ought to confine himself strictly to that point.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude by raising a new question of privilege. If it does not pertain to the point raised by the minister, it certainly pertains to a subject which concerns the minister; that is, that this government is allowing cabinet ministers to breach the privileges of parliament by allowing them to take government aircraft and to fly wherever they wish, living it up big at the taxpayers' expense. No one on this side of the House has that right, and we do not want that right, but I would like to know why it is not a breach of the privileges of parliament when this government goes against what is obviously decent practice and allows its ministers to run all over the place, at public expense, on personal holidays. The minister has made 188 trips to Windsor riding and back, at public expense, to visit his constituents. I cannot do that and no one on this side can do it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture raised, by way of a question of privilege, whatever dispute he wanted to raise with respect to the insinuations or other effects of the remarks made during the question period by the hon. member for Leeds. The last remarks by the hon. member for Leeds are a repetition of something he said during the question period. It would not be appropriate, now, to carry on and raise that as a new argument, because that was said. If there was any difference or disagreement with it, that might have been

raised at the first instance. In any case, the matter has been raised and contributed to by both sides. It does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute a question of privilege, and the matter ought to finish there.


MR. BROADBENT-ANSWER BY MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise on a question of privilege pertaining to an answer given in the House on Monday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In the course of a short answer he managed, in my view, to misinform the House very seriously in two important respects.
He was replying to a question by the hon. member for Windsor West concerning developments in the auto industry, which are of concern to Canadians everywhere because we have some 20,000 fewer jobs in the industry than we ought to have. The point and substance of the answer was that Canada was using about 8.9 per cent of the automotive parts actually produced on this continent. I would like to know where the minister got that figure. I interjected at the time and said that it was 12 per cent. The minister carried on with his answer and said, "No, 8.9 per cent".
Subsequently, I checked with the minister's department. An official in his department said he did not know where the minister got his figure, because the department does not have that information. I checked with the Canadian Automotive Parts Association, and it does not have that figure. The figure of 12 per cent which I used is the most recent one. It is for 1975. For a variety of reasons, it is inconceivable to me that the only other figure which might now be available to the minister for 1976 could be anywhere approaching what the minister suggests. As I said, his department suggests that it did not provide the figure. Therefore, I would like to know where the minister got his information, because it is a serious error.
Second, and perhaps even more important in terms of misleading the House, the minister said that, naturally, we in this country would like to see equality of consumption compared with production. He went on to say:
We are having discussions with the major automotive manufacturers today to see whether that can be done.
I checked with General Motors, Chrysler and Ford. All those companies denied that they had any meeting with the minister or planned to have a meeting that day. I checked with another major automotive association to see if it could have been involved in such a meeting and it, too, denied that it was. It seems very strange indeed, because most of the officials in this industry were at a convention on the west coast. I would like to ask the minister either to correct the record, because I think he has seriously misinformed the House, and/or to offer an apology to hon. members of the House.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying about people who use figures and about what figures really mean. I am not going to dispute whether the figure is 8.9 per cent or 12 per cent. The information I have is that we in Canada use 8.9 per cent of the parts manufactured in North America-
October 19, 1977


John Edward Broadbent: Source?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -and not 12 per cent. I stand by the 8.9 per cent figure 1 gave the hon. member on Monday. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that I did not read the blues. Hansard indicates that we were meeting with the automotive manufacturers "today". I meant to say that we will be meeting with them throughout this month and next month. The word "today" was misused either by me or by Hansard, and that is the only mistake in Monday's Hansard which 1 will accept.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege. The minister followed the contribution made by the hon. member. The matter reduces itself to a dispute as to the accuracy of facts. It is now well on the record. That, clearly, is a matter for debate and dispute, it does not constitute a question of privilege.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a brief point of order with respect to the observation you made at the beginning of the proceedings today regarding motions under Standing Order 43. Your Honour suggested-I take it it was a suggestion only, and I hope it was not a ruling-that hon. members might consider limiting themselves with respect to the subject matter of motions under Standing Order 43, on the ground that they could raise matters during the course of the throne speech debate. The fact is that some hon. members will be able to raise matters at that time, but not all members because of the limitation of time.
The other significant difference-and I say this with deference-is the difference between what is a motion under Standing Order 43 and what is a speech and what matters can be raised. A motion under Standing Order 43, under the terms of our rules, is a motion moved on an urgent basis, and whether or not there is an opportunity for anyone to speak about it, its purpose is to raise a matter which is considered urgent. The Chair can always rule it out of order as not being urgent. However, that is something the Chair has to do. It is only a motion. It is an opportunity for a member of this House to ask the House whether it can come to a conclusion. The difference between such a motion and a speech in the throne speech debate is that there are very few opportunities for motions during the throne speech debate. If we were to conduct the business with respect to Standing Order 43 in the way in which your Honour suggested, the right of members to make motions, as opposed to speeches, would be prohibited.
When a member moves a motion under Standing Order 43, the member is not asking for an opportunity to debate it. What the member is asking the House for, and hopes for, is that there will be a vote then and there on his opportunity, as a private member, to present a motion.
I listened to what Your Honour said. I did not think it was a ruling. However, I wanted to make these observations because I believe that if Your Honour's suggestion is followed, the right of members to make motions, as the rule states, on
matters of urgent and pressing necessity, will be limited. Therefore, the rights of members of this House would be limited.
As House leader of the official opposition, I think it is important to bring this matter to Your Honour's attention. It affects not only opposition members but all members of this House who are not members of the government. It is an important right, a right that by tradition has become narrowed. But narrow as it is, it is still there. It ought not to be further limited, and there ought to be no implication about limitation. I say that with great respect.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton raises, by way of a point of order, a request for clarification of what I said earlier in the day. In the course of doing so he has made a misinterpretation of the effect of Standing Order 43, which ought to be cleared up.
What Standing Order 43 does is give private members the opportunity to ask the House to set aside the business of the day in order to debate something else. The motion is debatable. Accordingly, whenever consent is asked pursuant to Standing Order 43, consent is not simply being asked-this ought to be understood-that a motion be taken into consideration and voted upon at that moment; consent is being asked that the business of the House be set aside in order to launch upon debate on another matter.
I have said that in respect of days when the Speech from the Throne is under consideration, and similarly on budget days and opposition days, there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction, when we arrive at the hour appointed for Standing 43 motions, to suggest that the matter before the House, which permits the widest possible debate and discussion, be set aside in order to debate something else.
I want to strees this. It is quite proper for any member, during any day of House business, during the appointed time to introduce any motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. That right can never be taken away by the Chair. I only ask hon. members to consider seriously the situation in which they find themselves and the situation for which they are asking the consent of the House.
When we have a subject before the House which permits the greatest latitude for debate, there ought at least to be a second thought with regard to what the member is doing, that is, asking the House to set aside a matter in order to give that member an opportunity to speak and criticize the government on certain points, when in fact the subject matter before the House gives the member the widest possible latitude to attack the government, if that is the purport of the motion. It is with most.
Some motions would still qualify quite easily for intelligent consideration under Standing Order 43. I was simply asking members to exercise some discretion and judgment when doing so on a day on which the subject matter for debate is of such wide latitude.

October 19, 1977
Anti-Inflation Act


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order perhaps by way of a correction to Hansard. On Monday last 1 inadvertently misled the House when I accused the Minister of Employment and Immigration, in a question, of refusing to meet with the manpower ministers from the four Atlantic provinces. I misled the House, at the minister's expense, and consequently I apologize to the House and to the minister. 1 should have been critical of the minister for his failure to meet with the ten manpower ministers to discuss the national employment issue.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have checked carefully and ascertained that the fault was not that of the Prime Minister nor of his office. However, somewhere along the line a mistake got into the motion that he moved yesterday to reconstitute the committee on television and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees.
Our member on that committee should be the hon. member for Brant, rather than the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie. We can make the change through the usual channels, but because it is on the record we should like to have the correction noted.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation)

Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table in both official languages the copies of orders in council made by the Privy Council namely, for the year 1977, No. 2805, to appoint parliamentary secretaries, and No. 2865, to designate deputy ministers.


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF REPORTS ON REFERENCES FROM AIB TO ADMINISTRATOR
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act, I wish to table in both official languages the copies of the reports sent to the administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board concerning matters listed herewith.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dennis Dawson for an address to Her Majesty the Queen in reply to her speech at the opening of the session.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is absent from the House. As I heard him replying today to questions asking for specifics in terms of action his department was planning to take, I thought the next thing he was going to do was make a distinction between the good industry and the bad industry in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: My first serious words, Mr. Speaker-and it is difficult to be serious when referring to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-must be, personally and on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition, to express our most sincere congratulations to Her Majesty the Queen on the occasion of her Silver Jubilee-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and also to express our deep gratitude for the time she spent with us in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The outpouring of respect and affection for Her Majesty and for her family, which has been so apparent in recent days, is evidence of the very high regard and affection held for her by all Canadians across our land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have been greatly enriched by her presence among us, and look forward to her early return.

Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf as well as that, I am sure, of all my colleagues in this House, I wish to express to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) our best wishes for a prompt recovery. I regret, as do all hon. members, the illness that struck him and express the unanimous wish of all, I am sure, that he can soon come back to take his place among us.
I should like, also, at this point to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) on the outstanding way in which they opened the debate on the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. They will understand,
October 19, 1977

having seen me in their constituencies, that I am not exactly delighted they are here, and that I tried to stop their coming; but I welcome the contributions they made and wish to congratulate them.
1 noted that when the hon. member for Malpeque was speaking, he referred to regional development problems particularly as they concern Prince Edward Island. If I might move from one island in that region to another, I would simply draw the attention of the House of Commons to a rare instance of consistency in policy on the part of the government of Canada as applied to the island of Cape Breton. I think that whenever we can find evidence of consistent policy from this Liberal government, it is well worth noting.
I remember, as I am sure most Canadians do, that some 25 years ago a predecessor of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), Hon. Walter Gordon, proposed, as a solution to the employment problems of Cape Breton, that the people of that island should simply get up and leave. Now, in that tradition, the minister has allowed the people of Cape Breton a passport office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are one or two matters to which I intend to refer briefly during my opening remarks in this debate. Colleagues of mine will be referring at greater length to other aspects of the Speech from the Throne. I want to make a brief, passing reference in the throne speech to a goal in the field of energy which my colleagues and I believe to be an absolutely inadequate one for Canada; that is, the repetition in the Speech from the Throne of Canada's goal of being simply a policy of self-reliance in the field of energy. In reality, that goal of self-reliance, as defined and pursued by the government, means increased dependence on foreigners for critical supplies of oil. We in this party believe that Canada, with more oil resources than Saudi Arabia, must work toward a policy of self-sufficiency for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This means no net imports of oil or of any other major fuel. I say to the House and to the Canadian people that in the absence of a clear objective of self-sufficiency, Canada will be in very uncertain hands within a decade in regard to its energy supplies.
I want also to deal very quickly with one suggestion made in the Speech from the Throne which is a matter of particular interest to my distinguished colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I refer to the government's professed desire to secure parliament's reaction to the green paper on freedom of information. I say to the government very directly: Don't waste our time with that document. That is not a freedom of information paper; it is a rationale for denying access by Canadians to information which is rightfully their property.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Address-Mr. Clark


Charles Joseph Clark: Canadians require much more than pious declarations of openness from the government. They need an end to secrecy, cover-up and lawbreaking by their own government. They need to know where the pay-offs went in the AECL deals. We believe this is something the government could find out if it really wanted to know. We need an independent public inquiry into the uranium cartel, not just a secret inquiry during which one official investigates other officials, without any guarantee that we in parliament or the people of Canada will ever learn the results. We need, also, an end to the secret agreement made by the Department of National Revenue to give the police in Canada open access to the tax files of individual Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We all want more effective action taken against organized crime in Canada. We on this side have been pressing the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) to allocate more resources for this purpose. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) has a fundamental duty to the taxpayers of Canada to protect the privacy of tax files, otherwise we risk very serious abuse of this information. We know from the experience in the United States, unhappily, just where this kind of abuse can lead a free society.
Even though it is part of the parliamentary ritual to extend congratulations to the mover and seconder of the address, it was an exercise in which I enjoyed engaging. But another ritual has developed in recent years which is not so welcome. I wish to observe what has become standard practice under the present government and to take notice of the changes in the ministry since we last met. It is difficult to single out one or two ministers for oustanding incompetence-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think the only difference between the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) is that the Minister of National Revenue proved his utter unsuitability to hold any responsible office before he was appointed, while the Minister of Supply and Services has had the opportunity to demonstrate his incompetence in several portfolios.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: That minister has disgraced himself and his government so often that it remains an intriguing question why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) keeps him in the cabinet. Yesterday, the Prime Minister celebrated a birthday upon which all members were pleased to congratulate him. We are not exactly sure of the mark, in years, the Prime Minister has passed, but we do know that in terms of cabinet changes under his administration he has now nearly reached the 150 mark. Indeed, the only thing that is constant about the Prime Minister is that he keeps changing his ministers. I would remind the House that during his administration we have had eight ministers of communications, nine ministers of consumer and corpo-

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Clark
rate affairs, eight ministers of national revenue, eight ministers of national defence, and seven postmasters general.


Mr. Trudeau:: How many leaders of the opposition?


Charles Joseph Clark: We have had two leaders of the opposition, and after the next election we shall have a third.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The problem with all of this changing that goes on in the shifting of ministerial responsibilities is that it takes years now for ministers to do things that should be done in months, because no one is ever in any job long enough to complete anything. That, sir, is a dangerous feature for Canada. Further to that, it makes a mockery of the fundamental principle of ministerial accountability when ministers are forever shifting to new assignments to escape answering for past actions. That is a remarkable commentary on this government's and this Prime Minister's capacity to manage.
While the government has often been wrong, and too often has been disastrously wrong in particular policies, I suggest that the failure to manage, the treatment of government as a game of musical chairs, has been one of the principal causes for this country losing that sense of unity and that sense of economic momentum which were the gift of this country to this Prime Minister when he first took office in the aftermath of Expo. The fact is that no prime minister came to office with a better opportunity to build Canada and to unite Canadians. Yet whatever was the hope in 1968, the reality today is that after ten years of this administration we are a deeply troubled, deeply divided country.
There is no excuse for this country, which was so united when this government came to office, to be so divided today. There is no excuse for that, but there are a number of reasons, sir, why we have become so divided. One reason-and it is important that these be on the public record-is that it has been the consistent style of the federal government to pick a fight rather than to build a partnership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Many of us in this chamber remember the era of co-operative federalism. Well, sir, that era was replaced by a government which attacks the provinces, which belittles some premiers personally, which attacks business and labour, and which has come to be seen as a bully and as an adversary in almost every region and every sphere of Canadian life.
A second reason why Canadian unity has broken down under this government is that this government has almost as a matter of ideology concentrated power in Ottawa. It has moved in on urban affairs. It insists on control of cable. It uses the federal fiscal power to bully or blackmail the provinces. Its competition policy builds immense arbitrary power into the bureaucracy. As my colleague from High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) said today, small entrepreneurs are buried in paperwork. This concentration of power has come at

a time when most of the world has recognized that many of the functions which this government wants to control for itself are far better exercised by provincial governments or local governments, or in so many cases by private, individual Canadians making their own decisions for themselves.
A third reason why this country is so much more divided now than it was when this government came to office is the reason on which I elaborated in the debate on national unity earlier this year; that is, that this government, whatever the merits of a policy of official bilingualism-as the House knows, I believe there are abundant merits and there is abundant common sense to recognizing the requirement, in a country like Canada, to be able to communicate with the government in both official languages-has made a serious mistake in focusing so narrowly on changes in language law as the means to unite the country.
As the election result in Quebec nearly a year ago demonstrated so clearly, a fourth reason why this country is less united now than it was is that the government has consistently ignored the need for economic growth and economic competence. In ignoring that need it has created unemployment, uncertainty and despair which are the seedbeds of division.
There is no excuse for this country, with all our immense potential, to be facing this kind of economic crisis. Once again, there is no excuse, but there are reasons, and I want to enumerate some of the reasons to the House. The most basic reason is that for the past decade the Canadian economy has been drifting, with no sense of direction. Ministers of finance have produced budgets, made tax changes, and then they have resigned. Not one of them has given us a coherent plan for economic development.
Another reason is this government's failure to spell out and abide by its rules for the Canadian economy. We have been without oil and gas regulations in this country for eight years, and for ten years we have been playing around with redrafts of competition policy. Investors, Mr. Speaker, cannot plan in that kind of uncertainty, so they take their money and go to other countries. The jobs that Canadian money generates are generated in other countries because of this legacy of uncertainty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: A third reason for our economic situation has been this government's utter irresponsibility in spending public funds. Throughout its nine years it has had one simple fiscal stance, and that stance has been to spend, regardless of circumstance, regardless of financial controls and regardless of the long-term cost to Canada. Now, sir, its financial accounts are in a shambles, its deficits grow by the week, and Canadian initiative and enterprise suffer under the sheer weight of government incompetence. We have in the throne speech yet another pious promise of restraint. I simply say to the Prime Minister that a deficit of $9 billion this year, and $12 billion next year, is not much restraint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 19, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: If I may speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker, on the subject of restraint, a few days ago on the national TV news the people of Canada were treated to the sight of two government Jetstars on the same tarmac at Calgary, having brought the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) separately to the same function.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: While it may, indeed, be true that the two ministers find each other's company repugnant, it does make the Prime Minister look a little foolish when he preaches about discipline and restraint and then sends his ministers on separate Jetstars to the same event in Calgary.
A fourth reason, obviously, for the state of the Canadian economic climate is the way this government has dealt with controls. First of all, it wasted any trust that the people might have been prepared to give it as a government when the Prime Minister, in a national election campaign and on national television, pointed his finger at Canadians and said, "Zap, you're frozen", and then a year after condemning the program, turned himself completely around and introduced as policy what he had condemned on the way to winning a national election. It is bad enough that the Prime Minister should so absolutely reverse himself and break his word to the Canadian people, but what made it worse was the incompetence with which the controls program was introduced, his refusal to act on the commitments which the government gave for reforms in other fields of policy during the period of controls, and now the continuing uncertainty as to whether, or when, controls are going to come off.
We were told by the predecessor of the Minister of Finance earlier this summer that he expected to be able to announce, by the middle of the summer, a program for getting out of controls. Well, the middle of summer came and went, the end of summer came and went, the beginning of fall came, and the minister went.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We still do not know when, or how, or whether, this country is going to get out of the program of controls which has done so much to destroy confidence in Canada and to drive to other countries money which Canadians and others would want to invest here to create jobs and growth if only they had a government they could trust. We shall resolve these problems only when we recognize that much of what has gone wrong in this country in the past decade is due directly to the policies of the government which has controlled Canada throughout that decade. That will not be easy to do, because it is the practice of this government to blame everybody but itself for things that have gone wrong.
There is really no reason at all for surprise at the fact that this government has lost so much confidence, when you consider that on questions other than the constitution and language
The Address-Mr. Clark
their strategy is set, not by a cabinet of ministers but by two advertising men from Toronto, one of whom is part of a company which grows plants without water and the other who is best known as the author of a book entitled "Have I Ever Lied To You Before?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me come to the Minister of Finance and start by saying to him very sincerely that I and my colleagues on this side of the House wish him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He, unhappily, inherits from his recent precedes-sors a legacy not only of failed policies but of total lack of any sense of direction for the national economy. The other day, when this most recent vacancy occurred, I realized that once again in Canada, for the second time in two years, we were without a minister of finance. If you define the job of minister of finance as being to give economic direction and leadership to the country, then we have not had a minister of finance since the right hon. gentleman became Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The challenge for the new minister is not simply to patch up a few holes, but to begin from the ground up to give this country a coherent economic development plan. I say to him quite sincerely that if he demonstrates concrete evidence of willingness to make that kind of change, then there will be co-operation from my colleagues. I say, with some sadness, that there is no indication in the Speech from the Throne, and no indication in anything the minister has said so far, to indicate that he intends any change of that kind of significance.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian economy is running adrift, without firm guidance from the government. Unemployment is endemic and, far from looking as if it will decrease, seems on the contrary to be headed towards further increases in coming months; while the former minister of finance forecast a rate of inflation of 6 per cent for this year, chances are it will reach at least 8 per cent. Our rate of growth, from very weak that it now is, will probably go down to 2 per cent for this year, in addition to which the value of our dollar is dropping from day to day. The Minister of Finance promised us he would face those problems tomorrow night. I trust the solutions of the minister will tackle directly the problems we face, that they will be more than window-dressing and will live up to the hopes the Liberal government has inspired towards the minister.
But there is one point which, to my mind, is very important, and which I should like to stress. The new Minister of Finance, faithful in that to the policy of his predecessors, seems to want to hold everyone but the present Liberal government respon-

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Clark
sible for our economic woes. After the Arab sheiks, after the world economy, now the Quebec government is being held responsible for the economic crisis. Let me merely remind the minister that very recently the Wall Street Journal stated that the economic problems in Canada were not the result of the election of a Pequiste government, but that, on the contrary, its election was precipitated by the economic crisis we are now going through.
Mr. Speaker, this government must stop blaming each and everyone for all our problems; it must recognize that it has and must assume prime responsibility for the economy of the country.

Clearly, the minister has to introduce positive measures to stimulate economic activity. We in this party think there should be a budget now. Parliament should have been called back last month for a budget which would stimulate growth in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We should be moving out of controls now, and not next year. There should be tax cuts now for Canadians earning $16,000 and less. The government should be in active consultation with the provinces about cutting the sales tax in order to stimulate consumer demand. There should be an investment tax credit for Canadians who want to invest in Canadian small business. There need to be other tax incentives to encourage research, innovation and development across the country, particularly in regions of slower growth.
Let us be clear that the economic problems facing this country are much larger and much deeper than short-term tax cuts, important as they may be. We are in an economic mess because Canadians, and indeed the world, have lost confidence in the economic management of this country. This government, in less than a decade, has erased a reputation for economic soundness and stability which had taken Canada a century to build up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is hardly thoughtful or responsible to try, as the minister has, to pin on the provinces primary responsibility for taking action to meet our unemployment crisis. Certainly, his comments so far on the fall of our dollar have not been marked by much thought or responsibility, I regret to say. The minister's position is that the dollar is floating-just floating, period. If you add $500 million in water wings from the Bank of Canada, you do not have a floating dollar. Perhaps the minister does not understand that, or perhaps he wants to mislead Canadians as to just how serious is this situation. He most certainly does not help that position one iota by talking as if the government does not care to what level the dollar floats. That is an open invitation to currency speculation. The Canadian people expect the minister to take charge of the situation, and not hand it over to the gnomes of Zurich.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Clark.)


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me implore the minister not to delude himself and not to delude Canadians into believing that it is good for Canada to have our dollar sliding on world money markets. That might mean short-term benefits for our exporters, but as experience in countries like Britain and Italy has shown, devaluing the currency is no answer to basic economic problems. That idea went to 20 years ago. The minister has to deal with today's reality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: No one speech by the minister, whether he calls it a budget or simply treats it as one, and no one series of tax changes is going to turn that situation around. It has taken this government ten years to ruin Canada's reputation. It will take time to restore it. Ultimately, the only means by which the reputation of Canada can be restored is for there to be a change, not only in policy but a fundamental change in government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This minister can at least make a start tomorrow night. He has been a senior member of this government for most of the period in which our reputation has been ruined. If he is to be successful, he will need the support of his Prime Minister, just as the nation needs to know in a definite, clear way the views of the Prime Minister on economic matters.
I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister's musings on television, his casual talk of discipline, his suggestion on Monday that controls might stay for some time as a weapon which the government would want to use-those statements from the head of the government of Canada have had a high cost in confidence for Canadian investors and for the Canadian economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister cannot shift this burden to the Minister of Finance. The Prime Minister himself is so much a cause of this problem that I challenge him, in the speech he will be making today, to accept his obligations and to address the fundamental economic problems which this country faces, and to spell out precisely his views, as the Prime Minister of Canada, of the Canadian economy, of the relation between government and the private sector in this country, and to spell out precisely and in detail the kind of discipline he is prepared to impose upon himself and upon his colleagues in the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are all concerned about keeping this country together and we are all, I think, beginning to realize now-we recognized it some time ago, and now it is seeping over to the other side-that there is not going to be any permanent means of keeping Canadians together until our economy is in order. We have to address our economic problems as being the most
October 19, 1977

urgent problems on our agenda, even if in the longer term the problem of keeping Canada together turns out to be the more important problem. But the most urgent item on the Canadian agenda now is economic growth. Achieving it will be one of the principal means, perhaps the principal means, of ensuring that Canadians will live together and grow together as a people.
I want to speak about one or two of the other aspects of the issue now called national unity. I begin by saying, just in case anyone believes the Prime Minister is becoming more flexible on federalism, that we have his appointment of the new Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde) to prove the opposite. In one move that minister has gone from a position in which 8,000 public servants were reporting to him, to one in which no one else in the government wants to talk to him.
After all, the government has a federal-provincial relations secretariat, a national unity secretariat, and Lord knows what other secretariats. But they all report to the Prime Minister who, as we know, has complete confidence in his Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations. The new minister was described by one government official as "a kind of vice-prime minister", which I am sure is interesting news to the new deputy prime minister who has not been seen in these parts since the designation of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is ill.


Charles Joseph Clark: I did not realize he is ill, and I apologize. I am not going to speculate on the source of his illness, but I will say that we know the deputy prime minister to be a man and a parliamentarian who is hardy enough to withstand even the designation of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations as vice-prime minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The speech from the throne indicated that a number of proposals would be brought forward later this session. We will be interested in seeing these proposals. We will be interested in seeing the form in which they are brought forward, and in scrutinizing them with care. We hope that in preparing these proposals the Prime Minister and his colleagues will pay particular attention to the agreement that was reached at an historic conference in Kingston in early September, when I had the honour to meet with the four Progressive Conservative premiers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 would have invited all five, Mr. Speaker, but we had to have the meeting before the latest burst in the fortunes of the NDP.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I note a little skepticism on the part of the party opposite regarding the pulling together of provincial premiers.
The Address-Mr. Clark
I would advise the Prime Minister to do it quickly while there are still some left, and to call together his two premiers. Someone has pointed out to me that his most westerly premier is the premier of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: More seriously, I think it would be very helpful for the Prime Minister to attach real priority to calling together, on a much more regular basis, the premiers of the various provinces in order to consult with them on a wide range of questions as to the means by which we might work out ways in which to unite the country.
Mr. Speaker, on top of the irresolution and lack of leadership which characterize them, this government now intends to put before Parliament a number of measures aimed at reforming the constitution. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) will delve deeper into that aspect of the speech, but I would nevertheless like to point out two particular items which seem important to me. First of all, it should be obvious to the government that no solution to the Canadian problem will be valid unless it is developed in close cooperation with the provinces. Unfortunately, once again conservative in its habits in this respect, the government seems prepared to act unilaterally, without the provinces' agreement or close cooperation. This government must not lose, for short term political gains, the support and co-operation of its provincial partners.
Finally, the government says that it proposes to clarify the role of the courts, particularly in the interpretation and administration of the Official Languages Act. Although I can understand the embarrassment of the government as a result of legal action taken by one of its own members, my party intends to oppose strongly any restriction in the jurisdiction of the courts concerning the administration and the interpretation of the laws of this House. If the government is not satisfied with this legislation, let it have the courage to present another one to amend it but it ought not, through deviated means, try to preclude its administration.

There is one other matter in the constitutional field with which I want to deal quickly. It relates to the legislation passed by the legislature of Quebec, namely, bill 101. I believe there is every reason for the government of Canada to take the action that only it can take, and to make a direct reference of that bill to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The most important reason for this is that the people affected in Quebec are entitled to know right now, not some years from now, what their constitutional rights are. Last month the government declared that bill 101 will- adversely affect... the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.
30

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Clark
They said that the bill isinconsistent with the federal government's view that no government in Canada should in any way inhibit free movement within the country.
They said:
-a few provisions of the law are of doubtful constitutional validity, while certain other provisions might be found to be unconstitutional depending upon their application in practice.
These are the views of the government of Canada, but this government which has those views does not have the courage of its convictions. It does not have the courage to act on the advice it has received from its own law officers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That's not true.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) says that is not true. If he believes it is not true, he has a course open to him: he can make a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada of bill 101.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is obvious that under the circumstances a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada is the proper course.


An hon. Member:: Make it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone, in ignorance of the law, says, "Make it". I cannot make it; only the government can make it, and it should make that reference now. However, it will not do so, and the people of Canada who are affected by bill 101 will wait and wait to know what their rights are, when the government of Canada could obtain a judgment and a decision right now.
We in the official opposition pledge ourselves, at the beginning of this parliament, to make a continuing, positive contribution to the work of this House. We will support positive legislation and actions by this government. We will work to improve its legislation, as we have done, with effect, in the past. We will work to ensure its consultation with the provincial governments, as we have continually urged in the past. However, we will also demand that this government deal directly with the realities of Canada.
Our falling dollar is a symbol for all the world to see. We know, the people of Canada know and the nations of the world know, that this government, through its incompetence, has mismanaged our affairs, squandered our human and material resources, mortgaged our future, generated regional alienation, inspired social and cultural discord, and introduced insecurity into the hearts of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: The throne speech has one prophetic section at the very end. That is where it states, "Canada is now entering a new era". The speech goes on to say, "It can be an era of increasing confrontation, tension and division". That is what

we have had, and that is what we will continue to have with this government.


An hon. Member:: Finish the sentence.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am prepared to finish the sentence. However, the point I want to make to the hon. member, whose most frequent intervention in this debate is to speak from his seat, is that we have had in this country, almost exclusively thanks to the techniques and methods of this government, a decade of confrontation. That has been at the root of the problems of this country. The hon. member wanted me to complete the phrase. I will be delighted to do so, because the speech also suggests that we can go on to an era "of enhanced freedom, co-operation and unity of purpose". That is what we will have when we get rid of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister is fond of speaking about the need for structural reform in Canada. That phrase, "structural reform", appears again and again in the throne speech. To take this country into the new era, of which the throne speech speaks, one fundamental structural reform that is needed-and that, sir, is to fire this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I, therefore, move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), that the following be added to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne:
This House regrets to inform Your Majesty that the incompetence of Your Majesty's ministers has damaged Canada's economy and undermined confidence in it at home and abroad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to join the members of the House who expressed earlier to the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) their deepest sympathy on the death of his wife Mary. In the last several months, we were all happy to see that she was getting better and we hoped that she would still be among us for us to see, as we had so often in the past, her smiling face and her great kindness at the social gatherings that we had the pleasure to attend.
I would simply like to express on my behalf and on behalf of all members on this side of the House our deepest regret and sympathy at this great loss. I would like to join the Leader of the Opposition who expressed earlier his satisfaction at the fact that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada has given us, parliamentarians, the opportunity to be associated with her jubilee celebrations.
I would simply like to add once again that we wish Her Majesty and all members of her family a good health and happiness not only in this jubilee year which is coming to a close, but for all the years to come. I am also in agreement with the Leader of the Opposition who congratulated the


*
October 19, 1977

movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. It is obvious that the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) has many qualities which would be quite remarkable in anyone, but which are even more remarkable for a man still in his youth who, yesterday, was able to express clearly, succinctly and convincingly, all the ability that he has gained through his administrative experience as an elected member of various school boards, some very serious thoughts on the economy and the future of our country. I believe that the best tribute that we can pay him would be to say that Mrs. Albanie Morin would have been very proud to hear her successor.
As for the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood), we knew that he would bring to our debate his knowledge of agriculture and the food industry. We also expected him to show the kind of human sense which is so typical of Prince Edward Islanders, and I must say that we have not been disappointed by his open mind, his warmth and his very great humaneness.
At the very outset of this debate, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that in my opinion, at this stage of Canadian history, the future of Canadians and the future of our nation itself hang in the balance. And history will tell which side carries the more weight. Obviously, it will be through the collective will of all citizens that we shall be able to put more weight in the balance and to express clearly and vigorously all the confidence that we have in the future of this country.
At no time in our history has there been so serious a threat to our society, both from the economic and national unity standpoints. Because of this many could be disquieted and even appear despaired as the official opposition often do. But on this side we have every reason to believe that at no time in our history have the Canadian people been better equipped to face the current challenge. At no time has the Canadian public been better informed of the choices to be made, and capable of forging its own destiny in the current world environment. For that reason, and despite the somber and largely accurate picture drawn by the Leader of the Opposition, we on this side have confidence in the future.
To take up on the opposition leader's invitation I would like to indicate my personal thoughts on the economy and the question of national unity. I shall deal with the economic situation.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) challenged me to spell out my views on the economic situation. I shall do so with all the seriousness that I can command. My analysis of the symptoms may not differ fundamentally from his, but I think, contrary to the position of the Leader of the Opposition, I will have to show the directions the government will follow, not only in my speech but in the speeches which will be made in the course of the present debate. The symptoms have been spelled out rather starkly by the Leader of the Opposition. I need not dwell on them. There is high unemployment in
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
Canada, there is high inflation, and a very serious devaluation of the dollar.
I should like to try to examine, before this House, the causes of this state of affairs and, hopefully, propose remedies that this government sees. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, the easiest way to indicate the over-all cause of our present economic state is to say that Canadians generally-governments, federal and provincial, people generally and all economic decision makers-have failed to adjust to external and internal realities in the world. I hate to examine that in too much technical detail, but in the past year we have published two government statements, one called "The Way Ahead", and the other "An Agenda for Co-Operation". They went into our views of the economic revolution in this country at great length.
When I say that we failed to adjust to realities, I suppose the shortest way of expressing that is to say that in a sense we have been the victim of our own successes as a government, as a country and as a nation. The record of economic achievement in this country since 1945, the end of the Second World War, has been very impressive. Canadians have shown that they have the ingenuity, the technology, the determination, the capacity for hard work, to conquer the external difficulties; including the great distances in Canada, including the weather, including all those other externalities which press upon us. Canadians have shown that in spite of those disadvantages, we can, in this country, sustain very considerable economic growth-the greatest growth in a given period that this country has ever known.
Just look at the figures. Since the end of World War II the population in Canada has almost doubled. We had the fastest growing labour force, in this country, of any industrial nation, yet real after-tax income per person more than doubled in this country during that period of time. The real standard of living of all Canadians, on average, more than doubled in that period of time. It is important to note that that was after taxes.
Heavy taxes were levied, by all governments, on the people of Canada-taxes which permitted us to invest in the future and in the present of this country in a way which has perhaps been unequalled in any other industrial society. I am thinking of the advances we made through our tax investments in the area of taxes, in medicare, the assistance we gave to aged people, in family allowances and in so many other areas where the Canadian people, after they had paid taxes to obtain all these social and economic advances, were still twice as well off as they had been in the middle forties.
Where, perhaps, we went wrong, when I say we are the victim of our own success, is that Canadians-their governments, perhaps, first and foremost-began to feel that everything and anything was possible in Canada. On top of all these very far-reaching social schemes, we began to invest more in the quality of life, spending more on anti-pollution concerns, doubling, trebling the number of national parks, subsidizing energy so that Canadians would not be hit by the stark reality which had hit the rest of the world after the OPEC nations formed a cartel.
80025-3>/2

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
We still found that we should do more in the area of decentralization. We still found that we should be spending more through the Department of Economic Expansion, and through other departments, in order to give greater opportunity to those regions of the country which had not been favoured by nature or by history. It is very important to say that during that period Canadians showed to the world that they could be leaders in the economic and social fields. Canadians have a right to be proud of their record. That was recognized in the councils of the world and in all kinds of forum-the fact that Canada, through the size of its gross national product and the size of its exports, qualified to be invited to the summits which have been marking the leaders among industrialized nations. All these are proof that Canadians have been able to succeed. However, Mr. Speaker, the expectation which was created by this great prosperity, this revolution of rising expectations which led Canadians to believe there was no limit to the kinds of social, environmental and developmental progress that they could afford, was in a sense the cause of our present difficulties.
It turned out that Canadians, at the other end of this period, began to consume more than they were producing. Once again, consider the figures from the mid-fifties to 1971. The purchasing power of Canadians, after taxes and after discounting for inflation, the real standard of living, doubled. However, during that period there was an increase of goods and services in this country which roughly doubled. In other words, the doubling of our standard of living was matched by the doubling of our productive capacity. From 1972 to 1976, real disposable income continued to rise at that same, almost breakneck speed: it continued to rise in that period of four years by 30 per cent, while real domestic production grew only by 17 per cent.
It is obvious that that could not last, because our standard of living depends ultimately on what we can produce as a nation. We cannot enjoy the fruits of foreign labour, buy their goods, enjoy their services by travelling or holidaying abroad, unless we can produce sufficient goods and services of our own that foreigners are willing to buy at our prices. We could, of course, for a short period of time-in this case, four years-match the difference between a 30 per cent pulling out of the economy by Canadians, and 17 per cent being put into it, by borrowing a certain amount of time and a certain amount of money. However, it is obvious that could not go on forever. We were, in a true sense, as a nation living beyond our means, because our standard of living was not justified by what we were producing as a nation. Other nations would not pay the price for our goods.
That leads me to the third cause of our present economic difficulties. It can be expressed very simply by stating the truth-that our prices are too high. We buy from other nations; we buy their services by travelling, and their goods by importation. They do not buy an equivalent or a sufficient amount of ours to maintain that standard of living. If our prices are too high, what happens? In the case of raw materials, of course, the markets of the world set the prices. We

have to lower these prices if we want to sell them. We have less revenue. Having less revenue, we invest less, or close down. That creates unemployment.
There are some cases where we can protect some of our natural resource industries. We have done that through the uranium cartel which is so heavily criticized by the opposition. This is an example of Canadians, in a specific instance, making sure that the protectionism of other countries which affects our ability to sell is matched by an equal protectionism of those countries which are a victim of the first instance.
In the area of raw materials, we can occasionally protect ourselves somewhat. However, we cannot, in a consistent and constant way, set world market prices for the raw materials that we produce, whether they be minerals or renewable resources such as lumber. There again, as prices fall, the number of jobs falls.
In manufacturing, the situation is perhaps even more stark. We must be competitive in manufacturing either by being as productive as the others or, if our productivity is not as great, to have lower wages and lower profits than the others. Alternatively, if we want to match the wages and profits of the other countries in manufacturing, we have to be as productive. We have not succeeded in either of these. It is all very well to wish that entrepreneurs would take lower profits. The NDP in particular have been wishing that for a long while. However, the very simple reality that takes over at this point is that capital is very mobile. If the profits of Canadians are less-


John Edward Broadbent: First year Adam Smith.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the leader of the NDP dropping names, Mr. Speaker. His education has gone beyond Karl Marx; he goes as far as Adam Smith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is as far as you have got-Adam Smith.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If capital finds higher returns elsewhere, it moves elsewhere. What is left if our productivity is lower, is to have lower wages. But is our productivity lower? Surely Canadians are not unproductive. Workers in Canada are as skilful as those anywhere else. I think it is fair to point out that generally, even in the manufacturing industry, there has been some catching up on productivity by Canadian workers. I believe the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) was giving an example on Monday of one industry where that was the case. However, over-all, on average in manufacturing we have not yet completely caught up. As a matter of fact, on average the figures are still pretty revealing. We are only 80 per cent as efficient as the United States in our manufacturing sector, yet during this period about which I am talking, and at the present time, average hourly earnings in manufacturing industries are 7 per cent higher in Canada than they are in the United States. We are 80 per cent as productive-or 20 per cent less productive, if you wish-yet average wages are 7 per cent higher.
October 19, 1977


An hon. Member:: That's a myth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member in the NDP says it is a myth. It may be a myth today, but it was not a myth in the second quarter. These are the figures the hon. member can confirm from the Bureau of Statistics. Today, it is a little less because of devaluation. I think probably, at the latest value of the Canadian dollar, Canadian average wages in manufacturing are only, perhaps, about 2 per cent higher than in the United States. But productivity is still 20 per cent lower. So it is obvious that either our prices are too high or our productivity is too low. It is also obvious that the head-in-the-sand attitude of the NDP in these matters-that of feeling there is no limit to what wages can attain in this country-is one of the causes of our economic distresses.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is true that our present malaise comes from living beyond our means as a nation, the remedy should be rather simple. It should be to live within our means. Here, again, I am saying that to live within our means as a nation we must produce more if we want to continue to consume as much. I know that our government and other governments in Canada have made the mistake, as I said earlier, of trying to give too much to the Canadian people by way of social benefits, without Canadians being prepared to pay for them in terms of slowing the increase in their real gains. We have in the past two years attempted to correct that situation. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and his predecessor have not only indicated the extent of their commitment in this regard, but have shown they can reduce government expenditure and slow down dramatically the increase in the size of the civil service.
Obviously, though, in a situation of high unemployment more than simply controlling expenditure is involved. We are constantly pressed on this side by our own members and by members opposite to spend more on this or that worthy project. Indeed, on the very first day the House sat this week, on Monday, there were several motions from opposition parties urging the government to spend more in particular areas of the country or on particular sectors of the economy. We have to show restraint, but it is clear that without taking the position of being the employer of last resort or otherwise, the government does feel it has a commitment in the area of direct job creation.
This year we have budgeted $350 million for direct job creation. Recently, that amount was increased by some $100 million and, if I may scoop the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), I have reason to believe that tomorrow he will announce the allocation of a further $150 million in the area of direct job creation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: So this year and next the federal government will spend more than $1 billion on direct job creation. Every-
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
one realizes that jobs can, in a sense, be created by government, but the majority of jobs must, under our system, continue to come from the private sector as a consequence of private investment. In the last budget the government did provide tax incentives for private investment. We did what we could, in that sense, to demonstrate confidence in the economy. But it is absolutely certain that the greatest incentive to investment and economic growth in this country cannot come from government spending on job creation. It must come from a renewed sense of confidence within the business community. This is essential. It could, of course, come from the stable kind of policy for which the Leader of the Opposition is asking, but it must also be accompanied by the belief of investors that there will not be a new outbreak of cost increases since, if my analysis is correct, such increases are among the most serious causes of our present economic difficulties.
So the government acted, and continues to act, to bring costs down. Three areas are worth mentioning: first, the Anti-Inflation Board. We have brought costs down. I realize that the policy of the oppositions parties is to get rid of the Anti-Inflation Board. They have been wanting to do that, in one case, I believe, for the past two years, and in the other for perhaps a year. But we have brought average wage settlements down from 22 per cent in the first half of 1975, before the AIB was established, to 14 per cent in 1976, and to 8.5 per cent in 1977.
We have brought costs down, and at the same time the consumer price index has been going down. If you look at the period of two years during which the Anti-Inflation Board has operated, we are on target. In the first year we did better than had been planned; we brought inflation down faster than the guidelines had foreseen. This was in some substantial measure due to the fall in food costs, as the opposition has always reminded us. In the second year we did not do quite as well, food prices were not as favourable. But on the average, over two years of controls we are just about on target. We have brought costs down and we have brought the consumer price index down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A few minutes ago we were enjoined by the Leader of the Opposition to get rid of controls. Mr. Speaker, we would like to do that. We would like to get rid of controls. But the fact that we are now bringing inflation down from double-digit figures to lower levels must not lead us into believing that this catching up is sufficient, because we still have the legacy of unemployment which persists from the fact that our cost structure for the past several years has been much higher than that of our competitors.
We have always said we would get rid of controls. We want to get rid of controls. We attempted to get rid of controls last summer, when the minister of finance was working toward the date of October 14. But we would only do so if we had an expression of the willingness of the unions and the employers to co-operate in keeping the lid on inflation. In other words, as we said when we brought in controls in October of 1975, we can only give Canadians the opportunity to express a resolve to

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
co-operate in order to dampen the inflationary spiral. It must come from us. It must be an act of collective will. Indeed, in the past two years in which we have had controls I think we have seen a remarkable amount of restraint shown by Canadians.
The figures for negotiated settlements in the second year of controls were below the AIB guidelines in 70 per cent of those settlements. This shows that Canadian employers and unions have exercised restraint in the great majority of cases in which settlements have been negotiated. It shows that collective resolve can successfully be brought to play. The date of the removal of controls will be announced tomorrow by my colleague, the Minister of Finance. We urge Canadians to understand that it is only because of this change of attitude that we can even consider setting a date. This change of attitude has also been shown in the strike record, which is very considerably improved this year compared with last year-63 per cent less strikes in 1977 than in 1976.
The hon. member for Hamilton is often asking me what kind of discipline is best for Canadians. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a good example of self-discipline, of Canadians beginning to realize that they can do much better in the economic sense if they want to co-operate. Indeed, if we look at the figures showing the trade balance, we see we have done considerably better this year than last year. There is a considerable increase in the surplus of merchandise trade. The figure to the end of August was $2.5 million. It is turning around. It is beginning to show the sense of discipline, of restraint, for which we have been appealing to Canadians.
Of course, we have been helped-and we have to admit it very clearly-by the devaluation of the Canadian dollar. The dollar declined some 12 cents over the past year, Mr. Speaker. This is not something that was contrived by the government. Everyone knows that the dollar is floating and that the money markets of the world were merely giving us a message. They were saying that our cost structure was too high, that Canada was not an attractive place to invest; therefore, this corrective process of devaluing the Canadian dollar on the markets of the world was set in place. The beauty of the mechanism is that as it sends us a message, it also corrects what is wrong with our economy. Because it means-this goes back to Adam Smith, and I am sure the leader of the NDP will understand it too- that when the dollar is worth less, our exports are more attractive and our imports are more expensive.


John Edward Broadbent: Page 321, first edition.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, the difficulty with the rate of exports being higher, and imports being lower, is that this means higher costs, higher prices in Canada. Therein lies the trap. If Canadians say, "Well, our costs are higher; we are paying more for imported goods or for goods which are substituted for imported goods, and therefore we are going to try and increase our money incomes", then, of course, we have defeated the whole corrective process of devaluation, because

then we get higher costs and we can no longer continue to compete.
I have given earlier figures showing that average wage rates in Canada were 7 per cent higher than those in the United States just a few months ago. Now they are only 2 per cent higher. What has happened in the interval? The dollar was devalued and we became suddenly more competitive. But we must not miss the signal, Mr. Speaker. We must realize that if we do, if we just seek a higher money return to offset these higher costs of what we are importing, we will have lost the opportunity to expand and to create new jobs. In other words, we will not correct the economic situation; we will only put higher inflation on our backs.
There is another area which I must mention, but only briefly in view of the time constraint. That is an area, as the Leader of the Opposition has reminded me, about which we have talked abundantly in the Speech from the Throne, the area of structural change. As early as October, 1975, when we were bringing in anti-inflation controls, we said that we would have to bring in structural changes in areas such as housing, energy, food. We have brought in changes in these areas which have produced results in the form of multiple-dwelling units, for instance, increased energy exploration and increased conservation measures. These will be commented upon in some detail by the respective ministers. The Speech from the Throne indicates the other structural problems which we will address, and how we intend to adapt to this changing world environment through the market system and through the government's creating a climate for change in a way which will permit balanced growth.
The last remedy which I wish to mention in the area of the economy is that of consultation. We again talked in great detail on that subject in the Agenda for Co-operation. I just want to mention-and it is suggested in the Speech from the Throne-that we will need to set up an agency for monitoring and consultative mechanisms, if indeed we want to control our economy. There is no assumption that consultation is a substitute for action, but it is obvious that proper action-non-confrontation action, to reassure the Leader of the Opposition- must, and can, proceed from consultation. I think the northern pipeline decision was a good example of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members can remember a few years back when that appeared to be an incredibly divisive policy. At least potentially, that was an area where we would see the country divided against itself-east versus west, north versus south. But because there was this long consultative process, because there were so many people involved in reflection upon this, it was possible for the government to come up with a policy which was roughly that, I believe, of the main opposition parties in this House. The result will be some $4 billion spent on Canadian goods and services. Nearly 100,000 man-years of employment will proceed from that project. This does show that what is needed is not so much a new economic
October 19, 1977

theory, a new Adam Smith, a new Karl Marx, a new John Maynard Keynes-


John Edward Broadbent: A new government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is needed is a simple decision on the part of the Canadian people to cooperate, to keep their costs down, to live within their means, to act together in a spirit of cooperation in every area of the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The government said this quite clearly in the Speech from the Throne yesterday. 1 will just read a short phrase which is to be found about half way into the Speech from the Throne:
This discontent in such a wealthy country must find its causes in the human spirit, and it is there also that the unity of the nation must be found.
We have seen, from listening to the Leader of the Opposition-i am sure it will be true when we listen to the leader of the New Democratic Party-that there are no economic signs that will tell the industrialized nations how they can improve the situation. We will see it is not a new Cain which is arising and telling us what must be done to create jobs, to reduce inflation. We see that even in the ranks of the opposition parties, within the same party, some will have one theory, others a contrary theory. It is not a new economic theory which we need; it is a new spirit, a new national will.
[Translation)
It is true, Mr. Speaker, that in the area of national unity the same spirit of cooperation rather than confrontation is required. I am receiving lessons from the Leader of the Opposition who feels that there is too much aggressiveness on this side of the House. The analysis of these solutions can therefore show whether this is true. But I would be in total agreement with him if he was suggesting that in the area of national unity, progress will more surely come through cooperation than confrontation. Going through the history of our country, it is certain that it does not show of heavenly perfection. Obviously compromises were made all along between the various forces. Obviously these compromises never were final nor completely successful. But obviously they allowed our country to progress for 100 years, and made us one of the most privileged countries in the world.
We are what we are, Mr. Speaker, not on account of external powers and obligations laid on us, but because we have chosen our fate. Nobody has forced confederation on us, our federative system did not originate in Great Britain, France or the United States. Canadian federalism has been the creation of a properly Canadian genius and in the same way, Mr. Speaker, the new federalism which we are trying to set up must be devised by us. It must be adapted to present circumstances and answer the real problems confronting us today. How could I specify them, Mr. Speaker? I cannot dwell too much on the various social sectors, the different geographic areas giving rise to dissension.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
If we consider the Indians, the Metis and the Inuit, it is certain that we must eradicate the cause of their alienation by giving them some time and also the financial means to find in their own mind their sense of direction, the place which they want to take in Canada, give them the opportunity to make legal and historic research which will enable them to gain satisfaction and obtain fair results. Again, as an example during the pipeline debate which lasted a few years, the Indian and Eskimo people of an area of the country have at various times, been able to express their objection to the Mackenzie solution and indeed, Mr. Speaker, this pipeline has not been built. Therefore, in this area as well as in others there must be a long process of consultations and exchanges.
The Atlantic provinces hold grievances dating back 100 years because their hopes have been frustrated. They believed that Confederation would provide them with more industries, more jobs, better transportation systems. What they are asking for is the possibility to be a little more self-reliant, self-sufficient, the opportunity to choose their own economic destiny, the opportunity to keep their own people at home instead of seeing them expatriate themselves to find employment elsewhere. It is true that succeeding governments, ours and others before, did face such problems and tried to solve them.
One only needs to consider the area of equalization payments, for instance. In the last nine years, some $5 billion have been paid to the Atlantic provinces in order to bring the standards of their public utilities more or less up to the national level. As a matter of fact, almost one fourth of those provinces' budgets comes from equalization payments. In the last eight years, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has injected some $1,300 million in that part of Canada to create jobs and promote industry, for an average of about $77 per capita for the Atlantic provinces compared to a national average of some $17.
Therefore, it is clear that successive governments have looked into this problem, but that it is yet to be resolved. Mr. Speaker, why are we hopeful on this side of the House that these problems will be resolved? Because here is now, I dare hope, a climate, a public opinion which is ready to make structural and other changes.
Decentralization is already well on its way through the action of my colleague, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the development of energy resources, the tapping of marine and sub-marine resources, the establishment of a 200 mile off-shore limit, the federal-provincial agreement on the tapping of sub-marine resources, and I might add the increasing awareness by all Canadians of the fact that we must really provide that underprivileged part of our country with a greater equality of opportunity, something which is now evident to all of us.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), at the Kingston Conference, which he deigned to refer to as historical, has taken up position in this respect. That is a thing, Mr. Speaker, we had proposed as early as 1971, at the Victoria Conference,

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
but the people of Canada, and certainly the Leader of the Opposition, were not aware of that. All this, I believe, gives us grounds for hope, Mr. Speaker, that we will at last be able to resolve those problems in a spirit of courage, initiative and sacrifice.
Western Canada has problems which are not parallel, or identical, but are problems nevertheless. It was practically in a state of wilderness at the beginning of Confederation. Now it is one of the fastest developing areas in the world, one of the most confident in its future, and yet its people are frustrated. Why? Because in that part of our country they feel they are not given enough opportunity to participate in setting up a national policy. They feel they are too remote from the central government in Ottawa, and left out of the centre of decisions which were traditionally made in Upper and Lower Canada. The government addressed itself to these problems in the "Western Economic Opportunities Conference" in 1973 but as recently as this summer, the four western premiers met in Brandon and published a document entitled "Task Force on Constitutional Trends," which indicated that, in their views also, the problem was a constitutional one.
There are the economic problems, but in the provinces, even in the very prosperous ones such as Alberta, there is concern about constitutional matters, thought is given to the constitutional set up. In other words, Mr. Speaker, when the government addresses those problems, despite the fact that the Leader of the Opposition chides us for being too concerned about the problem of unity and not enough about the economy, well, we are only doing what the provincial premiers do, who feel that the two are of equal importance, who feel that the constitution, and the problem of unity are in a sense as important as the economic problem. One cannot be solved without the other, one depends on the other, and the solution of one depends on the solution of the other.
That is how we see the problem, Mr. Speaker, namely that of Quebec: and in dealing with it, we naturally also talk of the constitutional situation. We did not invent that: the Quebec government, the Pequiste government itself has put to us the fundamental question of national unity. We would be playing ostrich if we claimed that it did not behove us to deal with it because the economy is too important, because we have to deal first of all with the economic problems. So, Mr. Speaker, in that matter as in all others, we are willing to tackle the problem.
To make my statement clearer, I will consider the province of Quebec and the problem it raises under two aspects: On the one hand, the province of Quebec is unlike the others. Obviously, because of its language and culture, it differs very deeply from the other provinces with a majority of English speaking population but, on the other hand, it is also a province like the others in that all provincial governments are trying to bring about constitutional changes which would give them more control over their own destinies. Of course, all governments think they would be better equipped to deal with their problems if they had more money and a wider jurisdic-

tion. This is not only true of provincial authorities, but also of our own government.
As I said Mr. Speaker, I would like to consider this problem under those two aspects. First, the general one which is common to all federal systems, I mean the tension between the provinces, and it is through this creative tension that both levels of government are often faced with problems.
If, for instance, we look at Quebec's demands for an extended jurisdiction in the field of communications, what do we see? We see that Saskatchewan, Manitoba as well as other provinces would like to have more powers in that particular field. The same goes for immigration. Quebec would like a broader jurisdiction in that area. Some say that Alberta has the same concern and also wants to have some kind of control on its immigration. Quebec would like more powers in the field of social security, namely through more percentage points. So does Ontario.
It is in this sense, Mr. Speaker, that when people talk about a special status they are only fooling themselves. We know that if a province, Quebec for instance, obtained more constitutional powers, the other provinces would like to have approximately the same powers. As a proof, when I made a proposal to all the provincial premiers early last September, people were up in arms because they felt I was offering a special status to Quebec and they said: But the same thing has to be offered to everyone.
That was a misunderstanding, naturally, because I was not offering a special status to anyone. I was using a formula that has been in existence for several years, the "opting-in", but in any case, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a special status is absolutely unrealistic in a sense that if we stretch that notion, each province, if it wants an absolute control over its own development, be it industrial or economical for instance, should have jurisdiction on monetary, fiscal, tariff and even foreign policies. This is obviously impossible in a united country. It is obviously impossible to give the provinces all the jurisdictions they might need either directly or indirectly in order to follow a given political destiny, a given economical path. So, how was this problem solved in Canada, this problem of existing centrifugal forces on the one hand, and of centripetal needs on the other, if you will allow me the expression, which will allow a country to act in a united manner?
The traditional answer in this country has been that all the parties have sought to get representatives elected from all across Canada. Traditionally, the cabinet formed by the central government has tried to include representatives from all the regions. Traditionally, the members of the federal parliament have done their best to be acknowledged by their respective voters as their representatives, as first-class representatives not second rate. All the elected members have tried to see to it that the federal government would appear in each of their ridings as the "important government".
Those are so many traditional ways by which the central government has tried in the past to match those centrifugal forces. This has also been done through federal-provincial conferences, through those very numerous federal-provincial
October 19, 1977

institutions which enable the federal and the provincial governments to negotiate almost on diplomatic terms in order to work out compromises between the parties concerned so as to reach some kind of equilibrium. This was done by maintaining provincial autonomy on the one hand and federal autonomy on the other hand. They met in sectors in which both were involved and arrangements were sought. That is the history of Confederation.
There are other approaches. We see, for example, that the American and German constitutions have followed another direction. A new federalism, a different federalism in any case. In such a system of government for regions, provinces, lander and states in the case of the U.S.A., there is some kind of involvement in the central government and administration by the election in the United States of an equal number of senators for each state in Washington, while in the case of German lander, the regional governments appoint representatives to the Bundestag in Bonn. It is a different style of federalism where effectively the regions are somewhat represented in the central parliament or Congress. What are the results? Well, the central government has no longer much to negotiate with the provinces, the States or the Lander, for they are in a way part of the central administration. The federal government could also show its flexibility if the provinces wanted to be present in some way on Parliament Hill. We have already proposed changes to the Senate with this purpose in mind. We are still willing to do so. Our position, as I have often indicated, is that any changes are possible. Everything is possible, except of course in the matter of civil rights protection and for any solution which would tend to destroy Canada as a united and single entity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our position is that everything is possible in the constitutional field, and that we are willing to negotiate, provided that this does not result in weakening the fabric of our country and does not infringe upon the basic individual liberties.
Mr. Speaker, there is a cliche, a trite expression which is commonly used at this time, particularly in my province, namely the status quo. As the cliche goes, this government is bound to the status quo, is rigid and shall not move. The simplest proof that we are not bound to the status quo might be to look somewhat closely at the constitutional proposals we have made from 1968 to 1977. These proposals were aimed at changing the Constitution, in other words the status quo, to demonstrate that federalism has changed and can go on changing.
I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. Because the proposals are numerous, I shall refer to the headings only. Even before the Victoria Conference we put forward significant changes concerning the Canadian Senate, spending power, provincial fiscal powers, social security and social services, financial institutions and capital markets, the administration of environment prob-
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
lems. In Victoria, we proposed a number of changes concerning political rights, language rights, section 94A, social security, and also equal opportunities, and notably the insertion in the Constitution of a provision concerning regional disparities and the offsetting of such disparities, the need for annual meetings on the amendment formula of the first ministers, federal and provincial, and the federal government proposal to get rid of the rights of denial and qualification.
I shall not read all of the new proposals that were made in March 1976, but there were two in particular which concerned the protection of the French language and culture within a new constitution. Again in January last, I included in a letter to the premiers a proposal to increase the number of senators from the various provinces, and proposals with respect to consultations prior to taking certain action.
I cannot list nor dwell on all those proposals, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that I have said enough to show that the myth of the status quo is truly a myth. There is not and there has not been any status quo. The Canadian constitution has incessantly been changed and made to adapt to reality and in the course of 8 or 9 years, we have suggested many changes to the so-called status quo. If anybody may be identified with the status quo, Mr. Speaker-and I say this with some regret-it may probably be the governments of Quebec, the present one in those that preceded it. We should remember that since Mackenzie King, the federal government has been looking for solutions for repatriating the constitution in Canada. Each time we have come close to finding one, that is a solution as suggested by a provincial government, such as the most recent ones, the Fulton-Favreau and the Victoria formulas. These were both developed at the request of Quebec government, and yet they were the ones who said no at the last moment, indicating that they prefered the status quo to the change that they themselves had suggested. We should therefore realize who represents the status quo in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
While I am on this subject, I would like to address myself to another cliche, that of the third option. Mr. Speaker, it has become somewhat fashionable to say: "I am not for the status quo, I am not for separatism, but there should be some compromise, a third option." I would simply like to warn my fellow-citizens not to fall into this trap, Mr. Speaker, because we never did invent this third option, the alternative to separatism and federalism-I am not saying status quo, but federalism. There is something called sovereignty association. I see that the Leader of the Opposition has something to say. Perhaps he could say it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what is meant by this association? Are they trying to square the circle or what? How can it be defined? Obviously, the PQ party could not and will not define it; so that the burden of the proof, if we fall into the trap of the third option, will not rest with the PQ party which will not take the responsibility to define the third option between independence and federalism, or to define the association of sovereignty. It will be up to us, federalists, to come up with a definition.
38

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
And we all know very well, Mr. Speaker, that the PQ government will not accept any proposal for change. No proposal for a constitutional change will be accepted by a party whose goal it is to break the country.
So, Mr. Speaker, I submit respectfully to everybody, including members of my own party and of the Pepin-Robarts Commission, that this third option business is a trap we should not fall into. So much, Mr. Speaker, for the general problem of Quebec within Confederation.
I would now like to address myself to the specific problem of the specific needs of Quebec in the area of language and culture. Well, our policy in that area is as follows: there are in this respect two fundamental and inseparable dimensions. The French language and culture must be preserved in the province of Quebec, but it must also be preserved among the Frenchspeaking minorities in the other provinces, in the same way as we suggest that the English-speaking majority in the other provinces must of course ensure the preservation of its own language and culture in the province of Quebec for the English-speaking minority. Why? For a very simple reason: if the problem of minorities is not resolved, we are once again caught in the trap of separatism, be it from Quebec or elsewhere. Why? Because if Quebec is going to be unilingual in French and the other provinces unilingual in English, if the minorities on both sides are not protected what is going to happen? We will have two solitudes, two nations, two political groups more or less homogenous each looking for powers and a status to protect their majority, unmindful of their minority. That is why these two dimensions are absolutely essential. If we choose those easy solutions as: Well, let Quebecers speak French and let people speak English in the other provinces, I say this is potential separatism, separatism in the short term, Mr. Speaker. And that is the reason for all our initiatives as a Liberal government with regard to the French fact in Quebec as well as in the other provinces.
We recognize and we are willing to recognize that particular case and, as I said earlier, we have proposed to do so in constitutional arrangements, by special guarantees. Especially in March 1976, I proposed to all provinces certain arrangements to guarantee in the Constitution that the French fact will be inalienable in Quebec by any government, any administration, any federal Parliament. That is why we said that certain provisions in Bill 22 and Bill 101, tended to recognize in the province of Quebec some values essential to the protection of the French language. We have condemned and we still condemn those bills because generally speaking, they are inspired by a restrictive sense of public liberties. However, we have recognized the validity of Quebec aspirations expressed by all provincial governments in Quebec over a long period of time, that the French language and culture should freely develop in that province.
That was our first attitude concerning the particular case of Quebec. As I just mentioned, the second is that we must absolutely protect the minority's rights, and that is why as

soon as the historic agreement of St. Andrews, where the nine prime ministers of the English provinces agreed to help their French-speaking minorities, that is why at that time, I tried to find a way to permanently guarantee that agreement. But the Prime Minister of Quebec had himself proposed some agreements, some arrangements between the provincial governments. It was not bad for a start, and it was a way to obtain immediate arrangements which would guarantee the rights of French speaking people in the other provinces against a similar guarantee for the anglophones in Quebec, but the obvious flaw was that these arrangements were only temporary ones. This is the reason why, Mr. Speaker, I suggested that the government keep advocating and this is part of our policy, that the rights of minorities be written in our Constitution, so that they become definitely inalienable, and cannot be abolished through a whim or arbitrary decision by any government.
I have neither the time nor desire to dwell on the proposal in detail at this time but I would be very pleased to do so in a subsequent debate if, as I think, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) does not see the merit of this constitutional proposal right now.
Now, our third approach to this particular problem is the Official Languages Act and the federal official languages policy which aim at placing French and English on an equal footing. I regret that in this area we have not reached an agreement yet with the Official Opposition and especially with its Leader. If I am not mistaken, in his speech about the national unity debate which took place on the 5th of July, he said more or less that bilingualism does not unite Canadians.
Bilingualism does not unite Canadians, it divides, but we must build unity despite differences and not on bilingualism.

These are sincere points of view which must be respected but which I cannot help denounce. On our side, we do not consider bilingualism, or the Official Languages Act or the policy of equality for the official languages as a necessary evil. On the contrary we consider it as a goal to achieve, as something positive that enhances Canada, as something our country cannot do without. History could have been different, but it was not.
This country was, in its origin and in its existence, actually founded on the reality of two linguistic communities. Reality could have been different if history had been different, if Jacques Cartier had landed somewhere else than Canada, but since this reality exists, we on this side of the House say that Canada cannot exist without this equality for both languages. Furthermore, we are made for bilingualism, if I can put it that way, Mr. Speaker. Not only is it not an evil that must be endured, but it is the very condition of our existence.
In early July, the Secretary of State made in Ottawa a speech that I noted, that dealt in detail with this problem. He gave an example which I often like to use: Since humanity has
October 19, 1977

been created with both sexes, then for us sex is not a necessary evil, it is something which is rather essential to reproduction.
Mr. Speaker, in some other system or humanity, virgin birth might be a possible and desirable thing but that is not the present reality. The fact is that mankind is made up of both sexes and it must not be regarded as a necessary evil. It is exactly the same thing for Canada. There are two linguistic communities. This is not a matter for division; on the contrary, Canada exists because they can and must get together. It is the government position.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Either the translation or the mind of the hon. member is slow! I would not know. I would like to speak about the problem arising from the election of the Parti Quebecois last November 15. I would like to add a few words on the strategy and tactics that we are preparing on this side of the House because I think it is important that Canadians in general and members of parliament in particular be made somewhat aware of the reason for some of our actions. It will be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that as early as November 24, I said on television that, in the final analysis, the solution had to come from the Quebec voters, that they are the ones who eventually will have to get rid of a government that wants to break up this country, the PQ government. I even said a week or two later in an interview on the English network that come referendum time, we had to clobber the PQ.
Well, that was our strategy, and it still is. What we need after all is to win that debate, win it at the polls, win it by convincing the people in Quebec that they will be happier, that they will be able to develop more fully culturally, economically and socially within Canada than outside Canada. That is the basis of all our actions. That is quite simply the reason why we refused to use our power of disallowance when urged to do so by English-Canadian groups, particularly from the province of Quebec, who asked us to disallow Bill 101. Others suggested that it be referred to the Supreme Court, as did the Leader of the Opposition. They took the position that the way to get rid of bad laws, of a bad government, was on the authority of either the Supreme Court of Canada or the government in Ottawa. I know that view is not shared by all members of the party of the Leader of the Opposition.
I believe the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) expressed himself rather clearly in the month of September. One of the only two French Canadians in the party of the Leader of the Opposition is in disagreement with the Leader of the Opposition on that point. He said quite clearly before the press that he did not believe that referring the bill to the Supreme Court was the solution. Well, we agree on that. Why? Because I believe that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) understands, as we do on this side, that a case referred directly to the Supreme Court cannot give the desired results. If the Supreme Court decides that the act is ultra vires, well, of course, the Parti Quebecois would be quite
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
happy and that would take away from Quebecers the indignation they now feel against that law and their desire to have it changed through the democratic process. Should the Supreme Court decide that the act is ultra vires, of course, independen-tists of every ilk in the province of Quebec would certainly say: You see, once again it is a court made up of a majority of English Canadians who want to interfere with our educational system.
Mr. Speaker, from the beginning we had no hope of winning. At first, had we applied the solution proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, we would probably have given the Parti Quebecois the pretext they need, the one they were always looking for to call an election and blame the federal government for the resulting confrontation. This was not understood only by the government and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), but I also saw it very clearly stated in an editorial which I find remarkable in the Vancouver Sun, in which a very forceful argument was made against referring Bill 101 to the Supreme Court. In a word, they say we should not try, as the opposition leader suggests, to solve this problem too hastily.
This problem must be settled before the courts of the province of Quebec. The Superior Court, the Appeal Court of the Province of Quebec must rule on these problems before appealing to the Supreme Court of Canada. It will give Quebecers time to think about the unacceptable aspects of Bill 101 instead of being distracted by a political manoeuvre, a defence manoeuvre against the federal government which is trying, through confrontation and interference, to overrule legislation approved by the Quebec majority and passed by a democratically elected government.
The people in Quebec, and particularly French Canadians in Quebec, must realize to what extent this Bill 101 is encroaching upon their rights. From a cultural point of view, it is obvious since this bill deprives them of a freedom of choice, the freedom to send their children to an English or a French school, according to what they think is best as parents. Even from an economic viewpoint, Quebecers must realize how harmful this legislation is.
I think it is perhaps too soon to give definite statistics on the economic situation of Quebec, but already there are some fairly conclusive indications that the November 15 election is turning into an economic handicap for Quebecers. I am thinking in particular of Montreal. Montreal is my hometown, and I can say a lot of good things about it, it is a great city. It is a city which, because at its location, its human resources and its financial resources has been a great city and can continue to be a great city because of its urban as well as industrial infrastructure.
But it must be said that the figures we have for the last year indicate that Montreal's economy is now stagnant. Why? Simply because the coming to power of the Pequiste government and such measures as Bill 101 rob Montreal from a part of its calling. Let us look first at these figures. If we compare the first ten months of the year 1977, from January 1 up to now, with the first ten months of the year 1976 until the
80025-4 Vi

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
election of the Pequiste government, we see that unemployment increased by 10 per cent in Canada, by 20 per cent in Quebec et by 30 per cent in Montreal.
If we compare the third quarter of 1976 with the corresponding quarter of 1977, we find that the growth rate of unemployment in the province of Quebec, about 80 per cent, occurred in Montreal.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, an act such as Bill 101, a mentality such as that of the Pequiste government cannot but be detrimental to the industrial development of the province of Quebec. Montreal is cut out to be a transshipment center, an industrial city, a service center, a financial, banking and management service center. So, when you start telling people who want to come to work in such a management, banking or corporate center, that their children will not be allowed to attend English schools, then it is clear that one of the main callings of that great city vanishes. Clearly, such a stand can only lead to economic stagnation. That is why I say that, in the case of Bill 101, it might not be a bad idea for Quebecers to have a chance to reflect on the qualities, on the harmful aspects of that measure.
One word only to complete the picture from the point of view of our strategy. So, we say: the Pequiste government is dividing the provincial electors; so it will have to go. What are the tools available to that government? Well, that government will have to hold provincial elections, as well as a referendum.
On this side of the House, we want the very same tools. Being able to meet the PQ on as favourable a federalist ground as they want a separatist ground. That is why I believe when the next federal elections are called, all parties in this House will campaign for national unity. In that regard, there will be no problem whatsoever. But we too, during this session, would like to have a legislation on referendum so that the federal government may also appeal to the people of Canada, and Quebec in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope that in that field we will get the cooperation of opposition parties. Naturally, in due time, we will give them the specifics of the referendum. For the time being, we only want to advise Canadians that we do not want to be taken aback by this PQ instrument called the referendum. It is really a plebiscite, but the PQ are talking about a referendum. We also want a similar instrument. We want the federal government to be able to consult the Canadian people, the population of all provinces on a certain amount of problems affecting national unity. Those who claim that the problem of the independence of Quebec only concerns the people of Quebec are like the surgeon who would tell a patient who is going to have his arm amputated: well, I am going to amputate your arm without consulting you because once it is cut it will no longer be part of the body.
We also look at separatism in a similar manner. We believe that we cannot take such an essential part of Canada as the province of Quebec from Canada without the whole nation

being concerned. Once again, this is the reason why we are going to put before the House a referendum proposal.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, you have before you a government which is not rigid, which does not seek confrontation, which says that everything is possible and which proposed in September to the provinces a constitutional arrangement which would meet the objective sought out by all the premiers at the historical conference in St. Andrews.
Now, in brief we are going to discuss whatever subject we wish on this side and on the other side of the House, whatever subject the provinces wish to discuss; as a matter of fact, only one subject is excluded, namely a proposal which would attempt to break up, to destroy Canada; we are not willing to sit down and discuss that.
I apologize to the House for the length of my remarks. It is often said that I do not speak enough in the House of Commons.


John Edward Broadbent: We won't say that again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But I did want to make this point at some length-


An hon. Member:: You did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -because I feel it is important not only for opposition members but for the country to understand the basis upon which they would have to make some very fundamental choices in the economic area and in the area of national unity.
I confess I am somewhat mystified by the fact that in the past few years Canadians seem to have lost a sense of perspective about the country. They seem to look more often at what is wrong with the country than what is right with it. We have demonstrated an amazing capacity to close our eyes to the great things which exist in this country, to the human achievements, to the privileges which our freedom and wealth confer upon us. So many seem willing to see only the supposed injustices inflicted upon us, and forget to realize that in many countries what we describe as our problems would be regarded as unattainable luxuries by nine-tenths of the population.
I have attempted today to show that we will not close our eyes to the real problems we face. I attempted to do what Canadians did 110 years ago when they created confederation. They did not close their eyes to the inequities which existed in the country, to the tension which existed between the different colonies, the disadvantages which the various native peoples faced. They did not ignore potential future conflicts, but they did realize that by uniting themselves they could be strong and could resolve those conflicts.
The Fathers of Confederation could have decided, just as Canadians could decide today, to do nothing but to let these problems overwhelm them, to let inertia condemn them to continue their isolation and to miss the opportunities open to
October 19, 1977

them. But the Fathers of Confederation did not do that-and we must not. They chose to pool their resources. They chose to create a constitution and to invent a great country. To those who say that confederation is a failure, I reply that it brought about a stable democratic system of government, it protected cultural and regional identities, it opened the door to geographical expansion, it provided liberties and rights, brought about an effective system of social justice, led to economic growth, to the establishment of a strong financial system, and to a respected position among the nations of the world.
To those who call this a failure, I say I hope that we, in our time, in our efforts to renew our national spirit of community, can fail so well. But we shall not fail, Mr. Speaker. We can succeed, we must succeed, and we will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, having heard their weekly sermon, the Liberal backbenchers are now preparing to leave, and we wish them well. Back in September, 1968, I returned to speak at a high school in Oshawa which I had attended some years earlier as a student. In the course of meeting with the students a fellow at the back of the assembly got up and said, "Mr. Broadbent, 1 understand that you studied at the London School of Economics. Is that right?" I said, "Yes, that is right." He went on, "I understand that a fellow named Trudeau, the new Prime Minister, also studied at that institution. Is that right?" I had to say, "Yes, he went there as well." Then this student turned to me and said, "How is it you came back a democratic socialist and he came back a Liberal?" I said, "Well, the Prime Minister always was a poor student."


An hon. Member:: No wonder the backbenchers are leaving.


John Edward Broadbent: If the people of Canada with the most elementary education in economics could have listened to the first half of the diatribe we heard this afternoon, they would have agreed 100 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Just listen. We listened for an hour and a half; now it is your turn. For an hour and a half we listened to a sermon which contained only two new items. Firstly, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) scooped the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) by announcing the government is going to spend $100 million on some job creation program. He was so scared stiff that the rest of the hour and a half of his speech would put everyone to sleep that he had to mention that at the outset. He then trotted out all the old stuff. Some of it we will agree with, and I want to deal with the points he raised. For better or for worse, I have thrown my speech away and I will try and engage in some serious debate on the issues.
The Prime Minister continued for an hour and a half, and then near the end of his speech made another announcement. He said the government is going to bring forward a bill
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
covering federal referendums. I happen to think that that is a good idea. That is something I was considering, and I seriously thank the Prime Minister for it. Why did the Prime Minister do that? He spent no length of time justifying the referendum at all. Nor did he elaborate on the $100 million which is going to be spent on job creation. He knew that the people sitting in the press gallery and those who may see some of this debate on television, hear about it on the radio or read reports, would have learned absolutely nothing new this afternoon, so he trotted out a couple of announcements.
I want to deal as seriously as I can with the economics argument, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the Minister of Finance or some Liberal backbenchers will take up this argument tomorrow. What do we hear? First of all, let me say that the end of his speech was the sort of culmination of a series of insults. The Prime Minister had the audacity to say to the people of Canada that somehow they were at fault. At a time when, compared not with the poor countries of the world but with The Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, West Germany, Japan, our economic performance has been deplorable, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that Canadians are a bunch of bitchers. That is what the culmination of his speech amounted to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: One point is to be made about the unemployed, Mr. Speaker. I have just come back from Newfoundland, and I can tell the Prime Minister that the unemployment level in that province is the same as it was in 1932. Let me remind the Prime Minister of a little economic history: 1932 was the depth of our depression. I do not know whether the Prime Minister is going to go to Newfoundland and say to the people in the fishing communities or in St. John's, "You're a bunch of bitchers, fellows. The fact that there is no job for you is somehow your own fault". Perhaps he will tell those Newfoundlanders with a 30 per cent unemployment rate, "You're soft", as he said to Canadians in general. Or, "You're lazy; you are not out there trying hard enough".
The other day, in London, the Prime Minister said that Canadians simply did not want to work and that was the reason we had unemployment. He said that they were soft. I want to list some of the points he made today. He said that the problem with the Canadian economy and with the Canadian people is lack of productivity. He said that we were outpricing ourselves in world markets. He said that earnings in Canada are 7 per cent higher than they are in the United States, that they are more productive than we are.
A number of these generalities, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to contest. I am not going to say that a number of the statements the Prime Minister has made and which I have just quoted are wrong. He may be right. But I should like him to narrow down the sectors and to tell us which ones are not productive. That would be serious work. The impression that he tried to leave with us in the House today and with the people of Canada is that somehow his government, the Liberal party, has been non-existent in this country for the past ten

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
years. If ever I heard a banal political sermon, Mr. Speaker, it was this afternoon.
People like Helmut Schmidt in West Germany, or Olof Palme in Sweden, or even the President of France who is not a social democrat, or the Prime Minister of Japan who is not a social democrat, are people in very divergent economies who do not sit back and say that their people are at fault, that somehow they are not being as productive as they should, that they are being outpriced in world markets, and then convince themselves that they have made a brilliant argument.
I said to the Prime Minister that he was hurling banal platitudes when he was making his speech, and I repeat that now. There is no argument there. There is a mere assertion of claims, a mere rattling off of statistics. In all seriousness, I say that if we are now in this state in Canada, if we are in the kind of economic situation we are in-as indeed we are-there is only one group in this country which must bear prime responsibility, and that is the government over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In asking, Mr. Speaker, where they have been for ten years, I go back to last spring's budget. I do not go back ten years, but just a few months. Where is the economic competence? The Prime Minister sort of hurls at the official opposition and the NDP, "Who are you guys to really know what you are talking about?" The government produced a budget last spring which is a disgrace in the modern world. If the Prime Minister and his cabinet had any integrity, they would get up and say, "We were dead wrong; we made serious errors". Because they did. Every economic indicator, their forecasts of unemployment levels, their forecasts of the rate of inflation and their forecasts of job creation, were dead wrong in that budget. Their economic analysis was that the manufacturing sector was operating at 80 per cent capacity.
My party does not object to profits, but we do not accept the simple-minded argument of the Prime Minister. If you have a private sector, of course you accept profits. Again I urge him to talk to the social democratic prime ministers of Western Europe. Instead of producing a budget which recognized that we had only 80 per cent capacity being utilized in the manufacturing sector, and saying that the economic conclusion which you deduce from that is not to expand your capital facilities but to expand consumer demand, he did the opposite. He offered a $1.2 billion tax incentive to the corporate sector to overexpand.
Businessmen are not stupid, Mr. Speaker. If General Motors has already 20 per cent unused capacity, you can be damned sure they will not overexpand some more to have 40 per cent unused capacity. So we said then, and I repeat now, that that $1.2 billion tax concession to the corporations is objectionable to us, not because it was a tax concession to the corporate sector-anyone in his right mind in the modern world knows that you have to have a tax policy for corporations-but because it was the wrong policy at the wrong time. If it was wrong last spring when we were operating at 80 per cent

capacity, it is equally wrong this fall when we are operating at only 83 per cent capacity.
From the throne speech yesterday we learned that the government is going to bring back again that piece of economic nonsense. A legitimate question posed rhetorically from time to time by the Prime Minister is, "What would you do, you wise guys over there who make all your criticisms?"
The economic issue bothers me, and I will get to that. In his argument today, the Prime Minister very deliberately contrasted the economy with national unity, which is his traditional fashion. On the one hand we have national unity which is a problem, and on the other hand there is the economy, according to the Prime Minister. They cannot be separated in that way. If I understood the hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), he was saying the same thing. One involves the other.
The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport), the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), said to me, when we were talking about unemployment last night, that in her riding in the province of British Columbia there is 30 per cent unemployment. I am not giving away any secret. In northern Ontario, 4,000 or 5,000 are laid off in Sudbury. In southern Ontario, from community to community-and I mean from Windsor in the west right through to Ste Therese, Quebec, in the east-some 20,000 additional jobs could be created for Canadians. Some 20,000 jobs could be created, and not on the basis of some airy-fairy, long range scheme but simply on the basis of this government doing its job. If it lives up to the requirements of the auto pact if it did not give over $300 million in write-offs to the automotive companies-which was done in the last few years-and if it did not fail to meet the job requirements, we might have 20,000 jobs.
You can move in every province in Canada, sector after sector, and find problems. I should like to say what we can do with some of them. The Prime Minister, in the Speech from the Throne, was so disturbing to me-and, I am sure, to hundreds of thousands of Canadians-because there was no indication that the government recognizes what is required in some sectors. For example, there is fishing in Atlantic Canada. Why do we not establish what the fishermen have been calling for down there-a national marketing board for fish? If it is good for our wheat farmers in the prairies, and if it has produced sales for our families in the prairies in the agricultural sector, surely a national marketing board is good in the fishing sector. The fishermen of the east coast want it. Why do they not get it?
Dealing with the textile industry, 60 per cent of the workers in Canada live and work in the province of Quebec, and it is in trouble. We say that what you should do in that sector is to put a freeze for at least three years on the level of imports as they were coming in in 1975. Three years would give us time to modernize the industry and do something about it to create long-range jobs.
October 19, 1977

With regard to shipbuiding there is an obvious solution to us. Sixty per cent of the ships being constructed in our shipbuilding industry today are sold in export markets. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) kept saying about every other sector today, it is a soft market. We have calculated that the number of jobs currently threatened could well be maintained if the government, in its own departments, would make advance orders now and let the shipbuilding firms, the private sector firms, know what line of ships they need to enforce our 200-mile limit, on the one hand. On the other hand, it would produce new shipping and boats for our fishermen. If there were co-ordination between government departments, something could be done in terms of their own requirements.
The Prime Minister talked in general terms and came out with platitudes, without recognizing that what is required, and has been required, is a very different kind of economic policy from the government of Canada. Canadians are beginning to know that we are running into the problems we are now experiencing in this country because of a policy established back at the time of the Hon. C. D. Howe. The reason we are having problems is that every village and town across the land, in one sense, has had a false economy which was built merely on the exporting of raw materials.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It has been built on the exporting of raw materials, and they are running out. Raw materials are running out, and when the world demand goes down, we suffer the consequences.
What is required, in general terms, to deal with this situation? If the government of Canada will not listen to the New Democratic Party of Canada, then I plead with it to talk to the Japanese, the French, the West Germans and the Scandinavians in order to find out that in all those countries they have investment planning, which is hardly a revolutionary idea. All those countries have a major, national governmental input into economic decision-making, particularly at the investment control level.
For years our party has talked about national economic planning. If the government of the day does not want to steal this idea from us, let them go abroad and claim they are getting it from someone else. That kind of planning is essential if we are to get out of the serious mess we are in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We require a real and solid commitment in terms of job creation. I do not pretend it can be done overnight. We have presented a short-run program of three or four points which would, if carried out over a period of 12 months, create between 250,000 and 300,000 jobs. To achieve unemployment at the 3 per cent level will take three or four years. That should be told honestly to the people of Canada. If we do not start now to do the kind of planning all industrial countries have done for the last 10 or 15 years, we will not get it in three
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
or four years, nor will we get it in three or four decades with the kind of policies of the Liberal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: On the very important question of national unity, the economic aspect of it, the need for national policies is essential in terms of overcoming regional inequalities and overcoming inequalities which exist between regions. That has worsened in the last ten years.
I should like to make a point about the constitution because there is a myth which is being increasingly accepted across our land. It is a very serious myth and it is being propagated by provincial premiers, by certain academics and certain politicians. The myth I am referring to is that we have to give our provinces more power in terms of economic activity, either by changing the constitution or by evolving further tax points.
I believe very strongly that any further movement in that direction will destroy this country, if we move any further in a world as competitive as ours. We have to deal with Japan, which has a national economic control system controlled out of Tokyo the like of which is unknown in almost any other country. We also have to deal with the indicative planning in France and a form of planning in Sweden, West Germany and all other industrial countries. Canadians are dreaming in technicolour if they think we can give our provinces more financial power and have more control taken away from Ottawa. We need national direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Canadians in our Atlantic provinces must keep that in mind. Even though Canadians in Saskatchewan and Manitoba may be wealthy now, they will see what can happen to regional economy after a year or two of bad crop failures. Then they will see the need for a strong, national economic policy and an effective government in Ottawa.
Another myth which is receiving some credibility is more power being given to the provinces. Ultimately, it will mean that Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia will do well, but no one else. The other approach which is proposed is to take Canada and its five economic regions and somehow develop a new constitutional framework in which those five regions would have new and increased powers. People who are saying that can understand that real worlds and real political communities are dreaming in technicolour. If we have a prairie economy, a British Columbia economy, an Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic provinces economy, then we are not going to receive co-operation because each of those sectors will set itself up in competition with the others.
The people of our prairies would say, quite legitimately, from time to time, "Let us import everything from Japan or the United States, in terms of industrial goods", and the people of our industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec would say now, "Let us import our agricultural products from over the border, from the United States". The more you create

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
semi-autonomous economic regions, as seems to me to be the essence of what those people who are mindlessly calling for five economic blocs mean, the more you set the framework for tension in the country. That, too, is no solution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The solution at the federal and constitutional level, in my view, is really very basic. There is almost no move which we can make in terms of devolving federal powers to the provinces, and we should stop the talk that somehow we will remake Canada by remaking the constitution. That is just nonsense. The federal government needs that economic power, particularly, I repeat, in the modern world where competition with other nations is becoming tougher, not easier, and we need national direction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The devolution of power is not the answer; the devolution of administration is. I do not want to exaggerate the point-I have made it before. We can move forward considerably in our country by having national programs, whether in housing, medicare or hospitalization, and having the federal government raise the funds but turn them over to the provinces to administer. I see no problem in that. Let them set their own priorities, whether it is with regard to acute care hospitals or nursing homes. Let each province decide that, but let us maintain the national programs which are essential in getting a certain, high, common standard in Canadian nationhood from Prince Edward Island in the east to Victoria, British Columbia, in the west.
So we want no further decentralization in power, but some in administration. Above all, what I am saying-and this is central to my argument-is that in economic affairs we need economic leadership, a sense of national direction, a sense of national purpose emanating from here, emanating from the benches on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the context of making the economic argument, I want to say something about the cultural reality as well because it is important in a country, whether it is our country or any other. There are two broad ways of looking at society. There is the way of the people who produce their goods and services, our farmers, our fishermen, our steelworkers and our autoworkers, that is, the economic aspect of life, and there is another aspect. You cannot radically separate it from the economic aspect, but you can do so analytically. I am referring to our cultural life.
I think that in Canada there are two vital cultures in existence. There are many subcultures, but there are two vital ones-the English and the French cultures. I want to say something this afternoon first about the English language culture because I am of the generation that does not turn to the United States, to England or to continental Europe for what I respond to in terms of the English language creativity. I do not have to read Saul Bellow. I like Saul Bellow, but I can

turn to people such as Atwood, Mordecai Richler, Graeme Gibson for fiction and poetry. We are at a higher level of creativity now than in any other period in our history and at world standard levels.
I am speaking of my culture now, the one from which I come, the English language culture. In terms of music, an English Canadian can be proud. He can listen to Maureen Forrester or Glen Gould, musicians of world renown, and he can listen to Oskar Morawetz in terms of creative composition. The point I am making is that there have been a lot of positive things said about Francophone culture, and I agree with them, but in the last decade and a half there has been a sense of pride and accomplishment, in English Canada, in English Canadian creativity which is second to none in the Englishspeaking world, and I am proud of that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Perhaps on a personal note-I do not make personal observations too often-I think there is something different about the mental framework, and I hesitate to make this point as well, but those under 45 or 40 years of age, as opposed to other Canadians perhaps-this I do not know- had, as I did when I was a student in the early 1960s, the opportunity to study abroad. I was in England and I had the choice to make whether to stay in England and study for an English Ph.D, or come back to my own country. There was no conflict for me; I saw no lowering of standards if I came back to Canada.
So I decided I would study where there was the best person in the world in my field, and the best person in my field happened to be at the University of Toronto, a man named Macpherson. So I studied in Toronto and did my Ph.D. there. The point I want to make is that there is a change going on in our land, in our generation. We no longer feel we have to go to Harvard or to LSE or to Oxford to get our degrees. In fact, we are now exporting our scholars. As the Prime Minister well knows, the fellow who is heading the political science department at Oxford now is a man named Charles Taylor, a very distinguished Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The point I am making is that there is great vitality in our land, there is a high level of creativity in the English Canadian culture, in the English language. In the cultural domain something exciting is going on in the province of Quebec. If great things are happening in English Canada, they are also happening in Quebec. We have heard a lot about that recently, but we have not always responded well. They do have their writers, they do have their poets, they do particularly have their song writers and their singers. There is a joie de vivre in that province that should make all of us proud as Canadians.
What I am asking is, what can we do, as the federal government, in the cultural domain in this national unity debate in which we are involved? I can state quite bluntly that there is little that I see we can do in terms of legislation. Most
October 19, 1977

of the areas of cultural control in the province of Quebec or in other provinces are within provincial jurisdiction. Rene Levesque or any other premier in the province of Quebec has control over the educational system. They have the opportunity to use cable television, and we need to make certain amendments to our legislation to open up to all our provinces the exclusive control of 80 per cent of 90 per cent of the cable outlets. There is no reason why they should not have it. It is good for Quebec and it is good for all the other provinces, so long as we keep a few networks national.
The essential point I want to make in the national unity debate vis-a-vis the provinces, and particularly the province of Quebec, is twofold. First, we should not say to Quebeckers that they have to choose, that in their psychic make-up they have to be either Quebecois of Canadian. I say that the attitude of the Prime Minister-and 1 respect it because I know it is honest- has been, in my understanding of his career in politics and his political writing, to say to Quebeckers, "You must choose. You must renounce your nationalism. You must renounce your sense of being a Quebecois and be a Canadian, or the other way around".


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on; that is not so.


John Edward Broadbent: The Liberals say no.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Not the Liberals; the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Give us an example.


John Edward Broadbent: I am asked for an example. I will give the hon. member an example. It was not the former leader of the Conservatives or their present leader, nor was it my predecessor, who said of Quebec nationalism that it was a form of tribalism. It happens to have been the Prime Minister. There was no attitude on the part of the leadership on this side of the House of any of the parties that Quebec nationalism was unacceptable.
I repeat my argument and I welcome any challenging of the facts. The prime Minister was honest in his argument. He has always seen nationalism in Canada, as well as elsewhere, as being regressive, reactionary, as being an oppressive force, and he believes that with conviction. I say he is wrong. Nationalism need not be regressive; it can be creative. What we have needed in our country is not the repression of Quebec nationalism but a heightened sense of nationalism elsewhere, so that we can bring the two together to do something in our land.
The question of Quebec nationalism or cultural life is not primarily a constitutional matter; it is very much an attitudi-nal matter. Those of us in federal politics must open ourselves in a spirit of equality to our fellow Canadians in the province of Quebec and say to them that they need not choose between being Quebecois or Canadien. They can be both. We must understand that their historical, cultural and linguistic roots are very deeply embedded in their province, but there is no
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
contradiction between living that cultural reality as a Quebecois and being a Canadien.
I do not know if we are going to win that battle, because if there is not cultural vitality going on in English Canada-no question about independence-there is, indeed, that going on in the minds of Quebeckers, and any one of us would be dishonest if we did not address ourselves to that question. If I understand my Quebec friends well-indeed, if I understand my wife, who shares that culture-there is an identity problem, and the Quebecker is going to be trying to sort out, in this period in history, whether it is sufficient to work it out within a federal framework and whether a Quebecois can really make it as a human being within the Canadian structure.
I do not know in advance the answer to that question, but I do know that all we at the federal level can do on that important issue is welcome that attitude in Canada which says that we want Quebeckers to feel part of our land and that we are going to do everything we can. That does, indeed, include minority language rights right across the country. I agree with the Prime Minister on that, but where I disagree with him and his analysis about the significance of that, is that for me, as I understand what is going on, establishing rights for Francophone minorities in other provinces is not what will ultimately persuade Quebeckers to stay within our union or to depart.
I plead for serious understanding of that point, if I am right. Those rights are important, but for Quebeckers what is really important is not the welfare of minorities outside the province of Quebec; what is important for Quebeckers in 1977 is to be convinced that their homeland, the province of Quebec, is a place which can continue to exist as a vital and creative Francophone community within the union.
That, to me, is the issue which has to be sorted out, fundamentally by Quebeckers, and if I understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) correctly, that is his argument too. He says that minority rights are important across the country, and certainly they are in the long run, but in dealing with the Quebecker as he or she is now, we have to persuade the Quebecker that it is within the province of Quebec, basically, that he or she can live as a Quebecois.
In the great debate which is going on with regard to the cultural domain there is not a lot we at the federal level can do except be persuasive and perhaps modify cable television legislation. We must win the hearts and minds of the people of Quebec on that issue. However, there is also something we can do in the economy. I have repeated that with considerable emphasis in the past year. I have not disregarded the cultural domain, by no means, but the cultural domain ties into the economy. I was in Trois-Rivieres and in Sept Isles on a trip not long ago. Quebeckers there told me that they wanted jobs. They were concerned about textile policy and about shipbuilding policy. They said they would respond just as Canadians in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Sudbury, to a national government which wants to deal with the national economy.
So if we want to deal with national unity, it is not a matter of separating something called national unity from the economy. Both go together. What we need, particularly now in our

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette history, is a sense of national purpose. We need to recognize that what is going on in French Canada and in English Canada is very similar to what is going on in Western Europe. Ordinary people on both continents, in advanced industrialized societies, are saying that they want a greater say within economic enterprises. They want more liberty in terms of economic institutions and in terms of controlling their own destinies. They are saying they want a greater degree of equality in terms of the output of those economic institutions.
If this is happening in both Quebec and English Canada- and I think it is-we must remember why Quebeckers voted for the PQ. Overwhelmingly, studies show they were voting that way because they wanted practical reforms of this kind. English Canadians want the same kinds of reforms. So if the Prime Minister wants to show national leadership-because he is in a position to do it; he is the Prime Minister-he should bring to this country a sense of great national purpose, a revitalization of the expectations of English and French-speaking Canadians alike, and establish anew in this land the belief that jointly we can pursue the age-old goals of liberty and equality, at the same time remaining Francophone or Anglophone in our basic culture.
I now move an amendment to the motion which has been moved. It has some bearing on what I have just said. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House regrets in particular the announced intention of the government to reintroduce the $1.2 billion in tax concessions provided in the March budget to large corporate interests, it being the view of this House that at a time when manufacturing is operating at only 80 per cent capacity, what we need instead are tax cuts for middle and lower income earners and an increase in direct job creation programs as requested by the premiers of all the provinces of Canada.".


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, as is the custom, I would like to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. During these two days, yesterday and today, we had the opportunity of seeing the political game at work. One day we listen to the Speech from the Throne and we hear one thing about one subject and, the day after, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) comes here to tell us the exact opposite of what was said yesterday in the speech. Today the Prime Minister started his remarks, in the short section he reserved to that issue, by saying that we did not need new economic theories, new economic stategies, whereas in the Speech from the Throne it was said, I quote:
High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times.
Therefore, we must change our methods. I was pleased to note that the throne speech gave us that new image, that new philosophy or at least the awareness that the economic systems of the 16th century should be altered to apply modern economic systems to our contemporary problems. Unfortunately, the

Prime Minister turned right about today and said that we must not proceed too quickly, that we must have a national conscience. There is no problem. Well, the problems due to unemployment are ascribable to the unemployed.
Foreign countries and not this government are responsible for the problem of inflation. Imports and other countries such as the United States, France and others are responsible. We forget to improve the well-being of the Canadian people and the blame is put on external causes. The same thing is true about the debate on Canadian unity. No, this government once again is not responsible for the problems. It is not an economic issue, but the Parti Quebecois is to blame. If there are some unemployed in Montreal, if Montreal is experiencing a Financial crisis, the Canadian economy has nothing to do with that, it is due to the election of the Parti Quebecois. It is as if we would say that New York is on the verge of bankruptcy on account of Negroes in the southern states. This emotive game is used to divert attention from the fundamental and central issue which is the economic problem and new solutions and theories to be applied to the economy. If Quebecers are not satisfied with Confederation and returns received from the federal government, it is not because the federal government spoke English or French but because economically they do not feel as if they were entitled to live honourably as others do throughout Canada.
When I travel in British Columbia or in the Maritimes and I meet someone who is poor and there are many in each province; in some they speak English, in the province of Quebec they speak French. Therefore, it is not a linguistic problem but an economic one. The problem is the following: some people cannot live in their homes the way they like. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said: Oh, yes, things are going just fine. Everything has doubled since 1945. Production has doubled in Canada, doubled here and doubled there. But he forgets to say that the cost of living has doubled and even quadrupled since 1945.
They claim they are improving our situation! Indeed, modern technology and the inventive skill of man are there to create automation and make the burden of the workers easier, but thanks to an economic system the right hon. Prime Minister refuses absolutely to change, these workers are made to suffer, because the inventive skill of man has created something to help them.
While, in this day and age, technology can improve productivity both quantitatively and qualitatively, it penalizes workers by depriving them of their right to work and the power to buy the end product of the machine. Here they say they are improving the situation! The government knows how to play with words, but as evidenced in the Speech from the Throne, the government is striving to lay the blame on somebody else's doorstep, refusing to assume its responsibilities. One cannot help being impressed by a phrase such as this in the Speech from the Throne: On a national scale, unemployment now constitutes a very serious obstacle to economic growth.
Now if growth is not as expected or does not move fast enough unemployment is to be blamed. Unemployment is a
October 19, 1977

consequence of mismanagement and lack of economic growth, not the cause of the lack of economic growth. That problem is created to begin with. Reference is made to an era of leisure, but the new developments which could give people the purchasing power to buy the production of machinery are overlooked. There are now very few slaves, but still we hear that there is too much unemployment, and then, investments are made in automation that indirectly creates unemployment; and whereas we give them more leisures, whether they be called unemployed or otherwise, nobody wants to give them the purchasing power which could be used to buy all that is machine-produced.
That is precisely one of the basic problems. When the government says: Well, we cannot do anything else but borrow in order to finance our development. But as long as loans are made, the finance people are not unemployed. When has the government ever mentioned that? Never. The government is willing to go on, unbridled, borrowing money, unconcerned with the interest rates, with the country being in debt, borrowing more to finance our own development, borrowing money in the United States or somewhere else in the world, that we can afford to do. There is to be no restriction on that, and we can even go further. In the Speech from the Throne, it is said, that as of today, we have to help our private sector undertake abroad projects requiring large investments. What is going to be saved by that?
How will this solve the unemployment problem, the economic problems of Canada, of Quebec, or of the other provinces? Absolutely nothing. Our companies are now being encouraged to invest money elsewhere, like Noranda Mines is doing, to cease production in Northwestern Quebec, and after reaping profits in Northwestern Quebec, they want to spend or invest this money in Brazil to the tune of $325 millions. Indirectly, we are paying for this.
However, as soon as we try to change this system, we create inflation. Social Credit members have been telling the government for the past 35 years that the present economic system is creating inflation and unemployment at the same time. Day after day, prices are hiked and workers demand higher wages. If we grant them higher wages, prices will have to be raised and, finally, we put in a machine that can produce twice as much as 10 employees.
Those employees are laid off; they are out of work and therefore are no longer entitled to live.
Full employment was suggested at one time. This is precisely where we must make a choice. Do we want full employment or do we want a system that respects the individual? If the government wants to solve the problem of unemployment, there is an easy answer. Tomorrow morning, let us hire the unemployed and have them dig holes and move mountains, and if there are too many machines around, we can always give the workers a pick and a shovel and have them work manually, and if there are still too many unemployed, they can use teaspoons; this will give work to more people. But this is ridiculous.
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette
If man had the intelligence to create a machine to replace him on the production line, our government should have the intelligence to find the way to distribute the production of this machine to meet the needs of Canadian consumers. This is a solution. But for this, we would need new theories or techniques which are not being applied at this time. Governments are more at ease imposing quotas and stopping production. At some point they told producers that their output was too high. There is one group of starving unemployed-I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is here-who would very much like to have milk on their tables. They cannot because it is too expensive and they cannot afford it. And in the meantime our dairy farmers would be quite happy to produce what is needed to help them. But they cannot, because of the quota system. At the same time we go on importing from other countries. Last year we imported 46 million pounds of cheese, representing some 500 million pounds of milk. That milk was not produced here, it was produced in the countries whose cheese we imported, while we were telling our farmers they were producing too much milk. And we curtailed production. Such is the government's policy.
My colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) referred today to another problem in that area. Instead of our farmers being paid subsidies, a conflict between various agencies is being fought on their backs because of the federal government. They are denied the possibility of expanding at home, of creating jobs at home. People are capable of creating jobs for themselves when they have an opportunity to do so. In a free enterprise situation they are capable of going a long way. But there is every tendency to belittle them, to deprive them of that potential through all sorts of regulations.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) stated earlier that federal control should be increased. The tendency is to squeeze the lemon. Unfortunately, there are here in Canada a whole lot of lemons that are sick and tired of being squeezed. Now about import quotas. In Quebec as in the other provinces, the textile industry is going down the drain, the shoe industry is in the process of being stamped out, but this government has been allowing massive imports: fifty-four million pairs of shoes were imported into Canada last year. This means roughly two pairs of shoes and one pair of slippers per capita. In the meantime we are plagued with unemployment. In the shoe industry, more than 50 per cent of the people lost their jobs. In 1968 there were 208 shoe manufacturers in Canada. In 1977, 150. Then people say: We have so many problems. What will we do?	.
The Speech from the Throne tells absolutely nothing, apart from phraseology like: If we have unemployment, blame it on the unemployed; if our economy does not work well, it is because the unemployed are idle; if the unemployment rate is so high, that is the unemployed's fault, not that of the economy as such.
On the other hand, the government can reduce taxes for financiers. As I was saying a few minutes ago, the government

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette
never had any qualms when it wanted to grant loans abroad in order to stimulate development in Canada. They never thought about imposing wage and price controls on that, no, no. When it comes to financiers, there are no controls, they are free to charge the interest rates they want. No discussion about that. Go ahead, boys, interest rates do not matter. They even go so far as telling financiers in the budget speech that they will give them some extra help, that they will get tax cutbacks. That is all right!
Those people get help; their taxes will be reduced. However, the poor little taxpayers, those who can hardly survive today, are not mentioned. It is dangerous to help them. They must be kept in extreme poverty because it is easier to control them. This is the position of the government.
What does the Speech from the Throne reveal on the whole? Absolutely nothing. Simply an attitude which has never changed. We could hope for a change in the economic position of the government until the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). After his speech, we understand that he wants absolutely no changes. He even gave us statistical data to demonstrate that we were in the best of all countries, in the best of all worlds, without any problem. There were several snags but they do not depend on the government. No. They are never concerned. Everyone is concerned except the federal administration.
The dollar has even been assessed today. We have been told that it has reached its lowest level since 1930. But once again it is not the fault of the federal administration. No! It is the fact of the other countries. If we have failed to maintain adequate productivity, if we have failed to encourage entrepreneurship by taking measures to stimulate individual creativity, if we have failed to do all that, it is not the fault of our government. No, it is always the fault of other countries. So the dollar is devalued and then we are told that now we will be able to export more. But I ask what will we export? Our manufacturers and our manufacturing industries have been ruined by imports during the last years and again this year. And what shall we export then? Our natural resources like we did before? This does not solve the problem, not at all.
We hear about energy. We must save our energy! We are going to build a pipeline to carry our oil products from the north to the Americans, and also a little for us in eastern Canada. Fortunes will be spent at that. In the meantime, one after the other the ministers tell us, just like the Prime Minister in the Speech from the Throne: Canadians will have to learn to tighten their belts, otherwise they will be forced to do so. That is the attitude of the government. On the other hand, has anyone been bright enough-and this is not the first time I have told them-to go and find out about the patents or registrations of new inventions meant to conserve energy, to decrease consumption of various sources of energy?
For instance, I refer here to gas in automobiles, or fuel for heating homes. In 1973, I told Minister Macdonald, who was then with Natural Resources: Have you had the decency- instead of telling Canadians to lower their thermostats and close their doors in winter when the weather is cold so that too

much energy is not wasted-have you had the decency to go and see at the patent office if there might not be new inventions that could be used to save energy? No! he had not had the decency to do so! He does not have any more today, even after having changed departments and all that. On the other hand, excuses are found. In a question on the order paper it was asked whether, since 1940, the patent office had received applications for registration of inventions meant to reduce the consumption of gas in automobiles or fuel for home heating systems? How many had been patented and rejected? Why? When? What savings were expected from those patents? The government, who is oh! so concerned about the economy, about reducing the consumption of energy, of pollution, replied: There have been 4,900 patents.
Second question: How many were accepted? How much was saved? It is estimated that it would cost about $10,000 and several man-days. It is absolutely ridiculous! We spend more than three million a day for oil products but we figure $10,000 is too much to try to find some ways to reduce gas consumption for automobiles.
In 1956, I drove a vehicle which could run 65 miles to the gallon as a mechanic had added some part to the carburator. He had obtained a patent. To protect the multinationals, at that time, they sent the RCMP to smash the "device" so that it would not be registered. That was dangerous! Today, nothing has changed. They do not look for a solution. They talk, they write down speeches from the Throne but when the time comes to solve the problem, they flatly refuse. And they try to blame Canadians. Tighten your belts, but you companies, keep wasting as ever!
Again in the Speech from the Throne, the federal government is saying that it will create a royalties' program for petroleum products. That would be better than the income tax scheme we have now. The only taxpayers who cannot hide their incomes are the wage earners. Maybe the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), but outside that... People who really have a high income or companies, let us not worry about them, they find a way to conceal their revenues. We would like the government to establish a royalties' program as Alberta did in 1935. In that way, the province of Alberta managed to straighten her economy cashing royalties on natural resources in Alberta.
On national unity, we heard all kinds of talks today, from every side, before it was finally conceded that this is an economic issue, which involves the rights of individuals-to a decent life-may I, as a Quebecer, as a Canadian, live in my province or in my country as a human being or should I starve in this country? The same question arises in different provinces, in Alberta as well as in Quebec. That is in the final analysis the issue of national unity. So what does the government have to do in this? It has to create a favourable economic attitude to the satisfaction of the people of a province or of the provinces or Canada as a whole. Then there will be no talk of separation and all that. When people are satisfied, see that
October 19, 1977

they have the right to live at home as they should, they will accept the economic basis that they will be given by the government.
I also read in the Speech from the Throne:
This discontent in such a wealthy country-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Are you a federalist?


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Yes, I am a federalist but not of your kind.
When I hear the prime minister say that they do not want the status quo, I say the status quo is not in the suggestions he made, it is in his attitude toward the provinces-that is where the status quo is. A new constitution where the provinces will decide among them what they want to put in common and what they want to keep within their own jurisdictions, in the way the present Confederation was formed. The federal did not create four provinces; four provinces created the federal. Until we come back to that spirit of confederation the problem of national unity in Canada will never be resolved. Not with attitudes of confrontation as the prime minister showed this afternoon. Not at all! Through arrogance such as the liberal party is now using across this country, never! It will be through the respect of the entities that form this country and letting them decide among themselves how they want to discuss what they want to put in common and what they want to keep under their provincial jurisdictions. Once we have accepted that, this aspect of the national unity problem will be resolved.
It is strange that when the province of Quebec-and I do not want to defend Quebec in this regard-introduces a bill, Bill 101, which restricts education within the province and its jurisdictions, the Federal government should react in this way since in the past, it did not take such a stand against provinces like Alberta or British Columbia when they denied French speaking children access to school. Once more, they try to blame someone else for the lack of administrative leadership by the Federal government in the past eight years. It is not a matter of confrontation but of frank and honest discussion, not the kind that can be found in the Speech from the Throne. They say that status quo is maintained by the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, whose attitude is to dictate, try to boss everyone instead of sitting and discussing with people, laying out some bases and saying we should discuss from these bases. This is where the problem lies.
And in the Speech from the Throne, it is still not clearly specified.
... the government will be proposing specific initiatives to be taken in collaboration with the provinces ...
The government is not prepared to sit and discuss with the provinces. On the contrary, they are prepared to take specific steps and this is an example of the status quo which is referred to and of this government's present attitude.
So, on the whole, what is there in the Speech from the Throne? They have tried precisely to put the blame on everybody's shoulders and failed to assume responsibility for their mismanagement. This mismanagement is not hard to prove;
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette
ten or 15 years ago, when you told Canadians about inflation, that the present economic system was creating inflation, that when they bought a house at a 10 per cent interest, it would take 10 years to double its price, ten years ago perhaps the people did not understand that very well, but today, they realize that inflation is at their doorstep, that their dollar cannot buy them a dollar's worth of goods. As I said in a question to the Minister of Finance and in a speech: the Canadian dollar is not even worth 18 cents of production.
The then Minister of Finance, Mr. Turner, stood up suddenly and said: "No, it is 22 cents". But this is where he made a mistake: Whether 22 or 18 cents, the Canadian dollar does not have the value of a dollar of production. That is the problem. If you want to buy products, your dollar does not have the value of those products so you have to give two or three to buy one dollar's worth of products. What we recommend is that the government base the value of money, of credit and of the bulk of Canadian purchasing power on production. It will then solve the problem.
When finance ministers tell you openly that one dollar is worth 22 cents of production, there is no need to look very far to see where the problem lies. It keeps on growing as time goes by, since we leave the financial community increase its rate of interest and since all this fuels inflation. Twenty years ago, one could buy a house at 5 per cent interest. Today, it is 10 per cent. At 5 per cent interest it took 20 years to double the price; at 10 per cent it takes just 10 years and at HV: per cent, as it is the case today, it takes eight years and even six years and a half in certain cases.
After that we are told that inflation does not come from somewhere else, that it is created in our country by the financial system, the economic system, and that we cannot do anything about it. From the outset they say we have to find new economic methods, but they hesitate when they have to sit down and discuss to try to put them in force. They do not want to go too far, they are afraid and they refuse to admit it.
Funny how things have changed everywhere. Cars are not what they were 20 years ago; there have been important changes in the production of food stuffs; everything has changed everywhere. Clothing has changed, construction has changed, techniques, aircraft, everything has changed. One thing that never ever changes is the economic system. You do not touch it. You must not touch it. It would be highly dangerous to touch it. We hoped, and here I conclude, that the Speech from the Throne would reveal a new attitude on the part of the government. Unfortunately, that attitude has vanished with the paper the speech was written on. It no longer has any worth. The government's intents were very well outlined by the Prime Minister this afternoon when he said that they want to make the guidelines, that they do not want to consult people. They still want confrontation and in the final analysis we see, as I have mentioned several times, that we still are confronted with Mr. Trudeau's and the Liberal party's status quo, that is arrogance in not being able to discuss honestly and honourably with a population. What they want is to back them up to the wall and then say: Well if you are

October 19, 1977
The Address-Mr. G. Caouette
stuck, we are your saviours, listen to us, follow us, we will help you. So I think that Canadians have understood that attitude and I think that on the whole-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. Unless the House gives its unanimous consent to allow him to complete his remarks, I will declare that it is six o'clock. Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Réal Caouette: In conclusion, I would like to say that Anglophones across the country understand-and I have felt it during my trips out west-they really understand that through discussions and not confrontation, it is possible to solve our problems. And I am pleased to repeat what our former leader, Real Caouette, used to say across the country: I do not believe that by teaching French to an Anglophone he
will become a Francophone. No. I do not believe that by teaching English to a Francophone, he will become an Anglophone. No, but, I think that by communicating together, by listening to one another or working together, it is possible to be and to become true Canadians; but again, we must have the decency to sit together, to discuss problems honestly and not through the use of the confrontation system. In meetings held throughout the country, the people readily agreed to discuss, to express some ideas and make concessions on different matters and issues. It remains for the Canadian people to sit down, as I said earlier, and discuss, analyze and work out a constitutional solution in a co-operative mood rather than in a spirit of confrontation as the government is doing at present.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being past six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 7.07 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


*

Thursday, October 20, 1977