1977-10-21

Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. The announcement by INCO metals company that at a time of record high unemployment in this country 4,000 workers will lose their jobs in Thompson, Manitoba, Port Colborne, Ontario and Sudbury, Ontario raises serious questions about Canada's industrial strategy, her future trade balance and the foresight of the Government of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence):
That, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Finance should meet immediately with representatives of the Canadian base metal industry to discuss means by which jobs and export potential could be retained and report back to the House by way of a statement on motions to explain what action will be taken by the government to repair the damage caused by its scandalous negligence of the industry and its workers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR STOCKPILING NICKEL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is with anger tinged with sadness that I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity. I seek the unanimous consent of all hon. members of this House.
In view of the fact that yesterday, the day on which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced his bootleg budget which is supposed to stimulate job creation by the private sector, INCO announced its Christmas gift to the Sudbury Basin in the form of 2,800 lost jobs, and in view of
the fact that these lost jobs will cost the federal treasury in excess of $30 million, not counting the loss in human terms to the many young families which will be affected, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the government of Canada immediately to set up a program of stockpiling nickel and copper in the same fashion as wheat, butter, uranium and gold have been stockpiled in the past to save both communities and workers from disaster until such time as world markets improve.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Ren6 Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move an important motion of pressing necessity.
Considering that the Prime Minister has announced that some assistance would be forthcoming to Quebec or Canadian citizens who wish to bring their grievances before a court in connection with Bill 101 establishing French as the only official language in Quebec; considering that this concrete assistance would be paid out of public funds by all taxpayers of the country; considering that this financial help of the Canadian government means that Quebec citizens who are mostly in favour of that legislation would pay out of their pockets their own prosecution; considering also the preposterousness of such an unjust and ambiguous situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the Prime Minister and the government forgo any financial or other contribution to help the citizens or groups of citizens who decide to bring before the courts their dispute about Bill 101 duly passed by the Quebec National Assembly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 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.

October 21, 1977
Amnesty International
[DOT] (U12)


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM REDUCTION IN MAXIMUM WAGE INCREASE-MOTION UNDER SO. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) indicated in Oshawa recently that it would be wrong "to ask workers to take less than the increase in the cost of living", 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House condemns the cruel unfairness and hypocrisy of last night's announced change in the controls program which will reduce to 6 per cent the maximum wage and salary increase permitted under the controls program at precisely the same time that increases in the cost of living are running at an excess of 8 per cent; such unfairness being totally repugnant to the Canadian sense of decency.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of importance to our nation.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House unanimously extend its congratulations to Amnesty International for having received the recent Nobel Peace Prize.


Mr. Speaker:: The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House for the presentation of such motion for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that my question must affect a number of departments and ministers it must be directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the rather ruthless decision of the board of INCO metals limited communicated to the world yesterday-a decision, by the way which has rocked the metal production and mining industry of the world today-that over 4,000 families in Canada alone, spread through northern and southern Ontario and northern Manitoba which is going to have very tragic repercussions in this initial phase only in respect of this massive layoff at INCO, I should like to ask the Prime Minister when the government of Canada received notice of this decision and what is the government doing about it? Have they set up a special Cabinet committee? Who is on it? Why in the world are they waiting until next Tuesday before they get any public reaction to this momentous decision?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was informed of this very serious decision yesterday morning.


An hon. Member:: For the first time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I immediately conferred with the Minister of Employment and Immigration and officials, and ascertained that they were already proceeding to organize meetings with the INCO people in the Sudbury region and seeking to find alternative solutions to this very serious unemployment problem.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Come on, now. Mr. Speaker, surely this House and the country have the right to know what specifics the government of Canada is proposing in relation to a solution to a problem that in its initial phase only is going to have very tragic repercussions throughout Canada, not just northern Ontario or northern Manitoba but in the Niagara region as well. If the Prime Minister is unaware of what his ministers are doing or what the specifics are, let us hear from one of the many ministers who should be involved in this. What is the government of Canada proposing to do about this economic tragedy? Surely, at a time when the federal government had more notice of it than any provincial government and yet the provinces seem to be moving much faster on it, we should have more than a general evasive answer such as the Prime Minister has just given.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I gave the hon. member my answer a moment ago. The fact that I was informed yesterday morning does not mean my ministers had not been informed before that. They had met the night before with the INCO people. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Labour tells me that as long as two weeks ago he was discussing contingency measures with the INCO people.
October 21, 1977

Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All the members opposite want is coverage.


MANPOWER
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my final question must be directed to one or other of these ministers who have been involved for so long in this matter. How about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources? What is the government doing about this tragedy in the mining industry and the metal industry in this country? What specifics does the minister have or what does his government have? What are you proposing to lay before the meeting next Tuesday? The Ontario officials met with INCO management last night, met with the Sudbury labour people this morning, and right now, today, there is an emergency debate in the Ontario legislature about this matter. Why the foot dragging at the cabinet level? What is the minister proposing specifically?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, when I hear the hon. member ask a question of that nature, it seems to me he is more interested in coverage than candour.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member indicated, first of all, that we are dragging our feet.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Mr. Paproski:: That is exactly what you are doing.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: In point of fact, the minister of labour for the province of Ontario called my office and asked if they could participate in the meeting we had arranged with both management and labour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is an admission right there.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Second, I met with two members from International Nickel who spelled out for us, the night before the announcement, the action they proposed to take. At that time I discussed with them some possible alternatives about how we might ameliorate that very, very serious situation. I indicated to them that in addition-


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: What about Gillespie?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. members opposite want to listen, I will tell them. The INCO people are prepared to listen, the union is prepared to listen, so surely the opposition should be prepared to listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Pierre, you are an old sly fox.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I spelled out to management that in the new Bill C-27 there was a provision dealing with work sharing. It struck me that this was a textbook case for the application of that provision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The INCO officials expressed very serious interest in this, because they were looking at other alternatives themselves. One example is a four day work week, as well as other mechanisms and machinery. I will discuss that with management and with labour.
In addition to that, we have notified all our Canada Manpower officers that they are to focus in on the Sudbury and Thompson areas, and any vacancies or job opportunities which occur in the mining field. Also in addition to that, we are carefully cataloguing those opportunities that are available to see if these individuals at INCO, most of whom have approximately two or three years seniority in that particular operation, are more mobile and would be in a position to move. It is unfortunate that they may have to move. Some of them will move, some of them will not move. We will do everything we can to accommodate them. Also, in addition to that, under our Canada Works program, we are going to look to spending more moneys-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, the hon. members say: "oh, oh", but the hon. members from Sudbury seem to indicate that it is not a bad alternative. In addition to that, we will be looking at using the emergency feature of the Canada Works program in the interests of assisting.
The hon. member has referred to foot dragging. The company has to give the union 16 weeks notice of this particular lay-off. On that basis, we have time to work. We do not believe in operating the way the hon. member is suggesting. We have to look very carefully at a most serious problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LAY-OFFS AT INCO-MEASURES TO ALLEVIATE SITUATION AT THOMPSON, MANITOBA
Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It appears we are dealing with a government that cannot see much further than the end of its nose. Just a few short years ago, during his flower years, of course, the Prime Minister said that those who are unemployed should go to Thompson for jobs. Yesterday massive layoffs were announced by INCO metals. The Minister of Employment and Immigration neglected to mention the Thompson area when he referred to creating some stop-gap employment. Thompson is seriously affected with 650 layoffs. Will the minister advise what contingency plans he has

October 21, 1977
Oral Questions
for the 650 people laid off who live some 500 miles north of Winnipeg and who do not have the means to move to other jobs. As the minister knows very well, jobs are very scarce in northern Manitoba. We just received the biggest grant of any constituency in Canada of $4.6 million under Canada Works. Is the government just going to keep adding Canada Works projects in a country that is alive with resources? What immediate action is the minister going to take to assist these 650 people?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, obviously the measures that I have indicated are equally applicable to Thompson. One aspect of the Thompson situation is-and I have discussed this in some detail with International Nickel management-that the turnover rate there is about 600 in the course of a year, which is about the work force affected. To some extent, attrition will play its part in that particular operation. The hon. member indicated that we recognize the difficulties in northern Manitoba. That is why his constituency received the $4.6 million. We would also look at the application of the emergency fund aspect of Canada Works and conceivably add to those figures if it will do anything to ameliorate a very serious situation, not only in Sudbury, but in Thompson as well.


Cecil Morris Smith: The other day the Prime Minister said that Canadians are soft and will have to toughen up. I say to him that Canadians living in Manitoba want jobs. They do not want stop-gap programs such as the minister has been announcing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESOURCES
Cecil Morris Smith: I wish to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to indicate what Canada's industrial strategy is, if in fact we have one. When was the last meeting held with the base metal industry of Canada? What are the future plans to meet with the base metal industry in Canada in order to keep it alive?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are meetings all the time with the base metal industry in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: You people-


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


Alastair William Gillespie: -do not seem to be very interested in the answers because you are just making noise. It seems to me if you had a little more concern for the workers involved, you would be prepared to listen.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this belated concern for the workers coming from the minister is very touching indeed. I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In the budget of last March, the government provided more than $1 billion in tax concessions to large corporations without requiring specific job creation to entitle them to receive the benefits. Since among those receiving benefits were Northern Telecom which became eligible for millions of dollars as a result of the budget of last March and has recently laid off up to 1,000 people, and since INCO corporation, which yesterday laid off some 4,000 workers, has received more than $10 million as a result of the same budget, I should like to ask the minister why in heaven's name he reintroduced last night the same provisions as contained in the budget of last March instead of taking an equivalent amount of money and spending it on direct job creation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the government should take upon itself to settle all problems. I believe it is important to give the corporate sector the possibility to develop by creating a favourable situation in the area of taxation so as to enable them to invest in Canada. Investments are important to Canada. It is impossible for the government to solve all problems. We need a sound private sector.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister's answer, I must say, is just stupid. They are not investing to create jobs. INCO got $10 million out of the budget of last March. But instead of creating jobs they are laying off thousands of workers. INCO corporation recently received from the government of Canada some $378 million in tax deferral benefits. It has received this year from the federal government via the Export Development Corporation $40 million in special assistance which it has used to create jobs in Guatemala, Indonesia and New Caledonia. If the minister is really serious about using the private sector to create jobs, why is he using the taxpayers' money to give to the corporations so that they can create jobs in other countries in competition with Canadian workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I am not sure whether the figures used by the hon. member are correct, but we in Canada are involved in export and we export Canadian technology, something we are doing very effectively. It is extremely important that we continue to export the technology available to us when it is needed elsewhere. We cannot run a closed shop operation. We have to live in the world. It is important to secure market accessibility elsewhere. The incentive given to industry was not to create jobs elsewhere; it was for development in Canada. I think that, as usual, the hon. member is confused.
October 21, 1977


SUGGESTION MINISTER SEEK DELAY IN LAY-OFFS AT INCO
John Edward Broadbent: 1 shall be checking the minister's statement with care and I am sure I shall be rising later on a question of privilege. The minister has said these firms are not using in countries abroad the tax benefits to which I have alluded. 1 can demonstrate clearly that he is wrong. They are. If they are getting $300 in Canada and investing abroad, what does it matter in terms of bookkeeping entries where they get the money if they are spending it abroad? If INCO corporation is getting all these benefits from the taxpayers of Canada, including those in the present budget, will the minister have enough sense to call the head of that corporation to Ottawa and insist that the corporation reverse its decision to lay off workers, at least until some alternative course can be worked out?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I do not believe the hon. member is very aware of the situation. The INCO corporation has already stockpiled reserves sufficient for seven months. The problem is that the world market is very soft. There is a cutback around the world at this time; it is not only in Canada. We have to live with that situation and the people have to realize the situation. We have to compete with other nations and if we are not in a position to compete we are losing jobs. That is a fact. The hon. member can put his head in the sand as much as he wishes but every country in the world is stuck with that situation and I cannot do anything if the hon. member cannot cope with reality.


HOUSING
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
In the last few months, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been refusing applications made by parishes and villages in designated areas by saying that such applications cannot be accepted before 1981 or 1982, within the framework of renovation of houses. At the same time, in the regions already designated, home owners have sent in applications a year ago and in some cases two years ago. Those are also refused and applicants are told that perhaps next year their applications may be analyzed. Following the minibudget introduced yesterday by his colleague the Minister of Finance, can the minister inform the House whether supplementary funds will be earmarked for this urban renovation project?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The budget for the program the hon. member is talking about has been tripled over an eighteen-month period. On the other hand, I would like to make a correction concerning the state-
Oral Questions
ment of the hon. member to the effect that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is the one that refuses to give municipalities the possibility of assistance for urban renovation. That decision falls exclusively to the provincial authorities and all the municipalities whose applications were not accepted but were turned down by the Quebec government.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.
Contrary to what the minister has just said, the letters from the Quebec departments and the Quebec Housing Corporation say that the province of Quebec accepts that they be designated. Follows a letter from the department of municipal affairs supporting the application, and the blame is put on CMHC. In fact, the replies followed meetings with the CMHC in my area, the Val-d'Or region. I should like to know whether the minister is to check the facts and give instructions or at least additional funds to an area such as ours which is very much underprivileged, or perhaps I should say blessed with unemployment?


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is willing to send me the correspondence, I shall be pleased to look further into the matter and see exactly what the situation is. I am convinced that if the Quebec authorities are willing to designate some municipalities as eligible for assistance under the housing renewal program, CMHC will be only too eager to go ahead and set up a program in the designated communities.


Gilles Caouette: Another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to admit that the provincial government accepts that but there is still a problem since there are no funds. That is the answer given to municipalities. We should know, therefore, if the minister has sufficient funds or if the Minister of Finance granted him more money so as to make it possible to designate those areas?


André Ouellet: We have the necessary funds to satisfy demand, and I would like the hon. member to tell me what municipalities have received information from the Quebec government to the effect that they were recognized for renovation purposes. The moment I receive this information, I will gladly check to see if there was indeed correspondence between the government of Quebec and my department about the designation of those municipalities.


ACTION TO REGAIN CANADA'S SHARE OF NICKEL MARKET
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister directly responsible for maintaining and increasing industrial production in this country, I would ask him whether he has been in touch with the management of INCO to ask them very strongly whether they would

October 21, 1977
Oral Questions
maintain production and employment at its present level? If so, what was the response of management? Would he also advise the House what he and his department have done specifically to try to regain the huge share of the world nickel market which Canada once held and which has been reduced from 85 per cent to 30 per cent under this present government. In answering these specific questions, would the minister give specific answers instead of the vague generalities he has indulged in so far this session?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question may I say my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration has clearly stated that he has been in conversation with management and the union. The problem with INCO is, as the hon. member has already stated, that most of its production is exported and it is meeting severe competition from new minerals and mines in what I might call the third world countries. We have gone out of our way to assist INCO in meeting world competition in every possible way.


Walter David Baker: What have you done then, Jack?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We have assisted in the export of equipment used in mines. I might say to the hon. member for Simcoe North that, on the one hand, he wants the government not to intervene, as I heard him last night, yet today he wants us to intervene. If he could make up his mind on which side of the fence he is, it would help considerably, but he cannot have it both ways. As I was saying, we have gone out of our way to assist. I might add for the hon. member's information that production is off in both Guatemala and Indonesia.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious from what the minister has said that this government does not intend in any way to try to maintain production at the INCO plant in Sudbury but is relying solely on make-work projects which everybody knows are not the answer to our industrial problems in this country today. As this government only seems to be interested in allowing jobs to be exported by international companies such as this instead of trying to increase our exports of the products which we produce in this country, is this not an example of a policy of defeat and nothing but?


Walter David Baker: Horner cannot answer.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but the Minister of Finance shows such a misunderstanding of the problem that I want to get back to the Minister of Finance. 1 am sure the minister must realize that Canada had 92 per cent

of the world market in nickel only 15 years ago. Today it has 42 per cent of the world market in nickel and Sudbury has 33 per cent of the world market in nickel. The problem in the nickel industry in Canada is not that of a short-term variation in world demand, but the fact the Canadian mining industry has become non-competitive, and one of the major reasons it is non-competitive is the tax policy of this government. What I want to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether the Minister of Finance is willing to re-examine the tax structure of the mining industry so that it can become competitive and compete in the world markets?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is very much aware of what is going on. In fact, there is a corporation in the United States called Amex which is selling at this time below cost of production. This is what has depressed the market to the point it is today. This is a fact of life that we have to recognize. Perhaps the only way to get around it would be to form a cartel to fight this depressed market. Then, after that hon. members would tell us that we are doing too much to protect Canadian producers. So they will have to make up their minds about this problem.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If the government wants to go in the direction of a producers' agreement, then they ought to bring it into parliament and not do it behind everybody's backs. Do it legally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James McPhail Gillies: I should like to ask the
minister of external affairs what the Government of Canada is doing to help Canadian nickel get into world markets in a more effective way. What is the government doing in negotiating at UNCTAD to get our nickel into world markets? Has he said anything to Japan about buying our coal as well as taking nickel at the same time? What is Canadian government policy in external affairs in regard to developing markets for nickel? That is where the problem lies.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. gentleman but I say to him frankly that I did not hear the question. There was so much hub-bub going on that I just did not get his point.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked the minister of external affairs is, what is the Department of External Affairs doing to try to get our nickel into foreign markets? That is the heart of the problem-to make us more competitive in our dealings in UNCTAD and our dealings with other countries which are buying our products. Are they in fact trying to make tied arrangements or doing something to induce

October 21, 1977

foreigners to buy more of our nickel? For example, what are we doing about selling nickel to Japan which wants our coal in such great quantities? What is the policy of the government in this respect?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are moving on virtually all of those fronts that the hon. member talked about.


George Harris Hees: But you are moving backwards, Don.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is better that we are moving backwards than be like the hon. gentleman who does not seem to have moved at all in the last 20 years and is still uttering the same vacuous comments that he was when he first came to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: You badly need new life, Don.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I started to answer that we are moving on a number of fronts and have been for some time. Within UNCTAD and the various meetings that have been convened in connection with the north-south conference we have been talking about various forms of commodity agreements, price stabilization and market access. It is a very complex subject. 1 think some of the documents have been published. I will be glad to make available what we can provide additionally.
In addition to that, of course, there are also our bilateral negotiations with countries such as Japan and the European Economic Community. We have been seeking in these markets to get greater access for our raw materials. I should also remind the hon. member that while this problem is pressing as of this moment, we have also been seeking, with the general encouragement of hon. members opposite, to develop a kind of commodity strategy so that indeed we will not continue to be simply supplying raw materials but will also be able to get into a sectoral approach which will give us some outside markets for our finished and semi-finished products.
If I may be permitted one other comment, Mr. Speaker, another most important area where we are very active at the moment is in connection with the Law of the Sea Conference and the potential impact insofar as seabed mining is concerned on land based mineral operations. This is as comprehensive an answer as I can give in the question period, but 1 will be glad to expand on it.


James McPhail Gillies: I am delighted with this dissertation but I would have liked an answer to my question, which is: Is Canada taking the leadership in the development of a producer's agreement in nickel? We do not want to be surprised.


An hon. Member:: You broke the law and you know it.


An hon. Member:: You gave us no answer.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This is exactly the same thing.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


EXTENSION OF CREDIT TO INCO TO DEVELOP INDONESIAN OPERATION-PROTECTION OF CANADIAN JOBS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Since INCO has invested $850 million in the first stage of its new Indonesian operation and the Export Development Corporation has provided a total of $90 million in credit, can the minister say whether there was any consultation within the government to ensure that priority is given to protect Canadian jobs before external commitments are made?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure that full weight was given to the impact of our assistance to overseas countries in terms, as the hon. member has put it, of the protection of Canadian jobs. But if I am not putting the wrong interpretation on the hon. member's question, I find it reflects the same kind of inconsistency in that on the one hand he asks us to do everything we can to protect jobs within Canada but on the other hand the hon. gentleman, who is the main spokesman of the party opposite, is asking us to help developing countries to get on their own feet and to assist them in those areas where they can have economic development. This, I believe, is one of the great difficulties. I do not recall at this precise moment what discussions went on as to the effect of Indonesian developments on the Canadian market, but I have no doubt that this was a consideration.


Douglas Roche: The minister is bold enough to quote inconsistencies, but nothing is more inconsistent than the foreign policy of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: May I ask the minister to explain to the House his reference on the national television three days ago to the effect that, with respect to foreign policy, Canada intends to carry a big stick and speak with a loud voice. Can he explain how that fits in with the whole question of commodity agreements, which is also at the heart of the answer he attempted to give to the hon. member for Don Valley?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In the first place, I did not say what the hon. member has attributed to me.


An hon. Member:: I wrote it aown.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: It was a conclusion drawn by the interviewer, and if the hon. member wrote it down, then I would like to see it. I would be prepared to make a total and abject apology to the hon. member if I am wrong, but I ask him to do precisely the same thing if he is wrong, and 1 suggest he is 100 per cent wrong.


Walter David Baker: This does not help the workers in Sudbury.

October 21, 1977
Oral Questions FINANCE


POSSIBILITY OF STOCKPILING NICKEL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but obviously the minister does not think these questions so important and he has left the chamber, so I will direct my question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that 2,800 jobs will be lost in the Sudbury Basin, 600 jobs in Thompson, Manitoba and another 700 in Port Colborne, and in view of the fact that the loss of those jobs will be a loss to Revenue Canada and, in terms of unemployment insurance pay-outs, will exceed $50 million, as well as in view of the fact that the minister has said that INCO has a stockpile of seven months and we know that the government has stockpiled uranium for seven years to save the community of Elliot Lake, is the government now prepared to make an announcement to give confidence to potential investors in the Sudbury Basin, in Thompson and Port Colborne- and I wish the minister would make it-in which the government will undertake to stockpile nickel and copper until the markets improve which, according to some projections, will likely take place late next year or early the following year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we considered this possibility when we met with INCO representatives here two days ago, but setting up a new nickel stockpiling program would be unwarranted at this time because it could cause the market to deteriorate even more. The buyers would then be in a position to offer prices which would be lower still, which would indeed compound the problem. The company refuses to move any further in this direction and does not request governmental assistance in this area.
I believe the best solution just now is that which was put forward by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, because he has already started negotiating with the unions and the company with the hope that, maybe through the introduction of a reduced four-day week and with government assistance, the families of the laid-off workers might still have incomes, though on a reduced scale because of the additional day off. These workers would be entitled to compensation from the government, but they would be working at least four days a week. The solution is probably more in this direction than in a stockpiling program, because the latter solution would be counterproductive at this time.


SUGGESTION MINISTER REQUEST DELAY IN INCO LAY-OFFS
John R. Rodriguez: Not accepting the preamble to the minister's answer, and keeping in mind that we have stockpiled in this country wheat, butter, uranium and gold for years and years to save these industries, and in view of the fact that the minister said that the government will discuss the alternatives to the situation in Sudbury, Thompson, and

Port Colborne, may I ask the minister whether he is prepared now to get in touch with the INCO chairman of the board and to suggest to him that he rescind the order for lay-offs until after he has discussed the alternatives so that they can find some modus vivendi for the industry because the latest developments have affected it so disastrously?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the company has notified us because it gave a 14- to 16-week notice to its employees, which will enable us to find a solution. It has to do so, and I think that until now both the company and the union have shown goodwill; so if everybody keeps calm, we hope to be able to find a solution. I think that the proposal the hon. member is making now is not really the solution, I am sorry to say, but we are always prepared to discuss the matter with the company.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Export Development Corporation lent PT Indonesia, which is a subsidiary of INCO, $100 million at interest rates less than commercial-indeed this is very secret and we cannot find out what that interest rate is-and in view of the fact that all these subsidiaries that have sprung up in Indonesia, New Caledonia and Guatemala are subsidiaries of the International Nickel Company and are in effect competing against themselves, is the minister prepared to drop the clause in the Export Development Corporation Act which permits that bank, using the taxes of the workers of Canada, to make loans to multinational mining companies at less than commercial rates of interest to create the eventual unemployment of those workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I think that if we were to follow that type of policy and not give opportunities to developing nations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: -when they are involved in such operations, then we would not be exporting goods and materials produced in Canada. If we do not participate in these ventures, the development of the mines will take place anyway but there will be no Canadian participation. I am not ready to say to the nations of the world that when there is potential growth in developing nations, Canadians will run away. We have international responsibilities, and we have been blessed with natural resources, but we should not do anything which would hurt the poor nations of the world, especially Latin American nations, about which the hon. member is always very keen to talk. We are preoccupied with creating some growth for the poor around the world.

|
October 21, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport or the acting Minister of Transport. At a recent meeting between members of parliament of the Niagara Peninsula and the Regional Council of Niagara Chambers of Commerce dire prophecies were made that the peninsula economy would suffer disastrously if tolls on the seaway, particularly the Welland Canal, were raised at the end of this year and that this would cause a great reduction in canal traffic and diversion of freight to other modes of transport. I do not share this opinion, but I would like to ask the minister if he would make a statement which would justify the raising of tolls and doubling them on the Welland Canal, a statement which would reassure the people of our constituencies that no economic hardship will result from this action.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on August 4 last, the Minister of Transport announced this raise in tariff for the seaway but of course we are prepared to listen to the hon. member's representations, and I shall personally put to the minister's attention this important matter which has been raised this morning by my hon. colleague.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, and it deals with the minibudget of last night which has been received by the outside market with a 5 point drop on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Would the minister be willing to elaborate a little more fully on the $100 million employment credit program to which he referred last night? Specifically, what has he in mind to put in place with respect to that type of employment credit, and when will it be felt, in view of the high unemployment we are now experiencing?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make final decisions regarding that bill during the next few weeks. We hope to be able to introduce it in the House before the end of this year so that it may be enacted in early 1978. The hon. member will at that time obtain the answers to his questions.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY AS TO PLANS TO RAISE MONEY OUTSIDE OF CANADA
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact that it was disclosed last night that there will be a new federal cash requirement in the current fiscal year of $8.8 billion, would the minister indicate where he plans to raise that amount of money, bearing in mind that in the March 31 budget the former minister of finance outlined where he planned to raise the financial requirements, which were $2 billion less at that point? Specifically, is there any plan to raise money outside Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: At this time, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member has some grounds for complaining, but had we followed the recommendations made by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech concerning a tax reduction and a lesser deficit, had we followed that particular policy, we would obviously have had many more problems. As to the way we will raise and borrow money, my officials tell me that no problem will arise. We will use the usual avenues.


INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF INCOME TAX BILL
Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last night in his statement he said on page 10 and 1 quote:
Long delays in passing tax bills add to uncertainty. We should move swiftly to enact the measures proposed in the last budget and the new measures I have proposed tonight.
Considering the concern of businessmen and taxpayers in general, and since the bill arising from the last budget was shelved at the close of the second session, could the minister advise the House of the approximate date when the tax bill will be tabled?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope the bill will be ready within ten days and it will be introduced as soon as it is ready. I certainly hope the House will cooperate to ensure speedy passage in November, so that the financial community and all Canadians may be fully aware of the incentives announced by the Minister of Finance last spring, as well as the incentives I announced in yesterday's minibudget.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. In August Mr. Morris of the CLC said that there would be no further economic consultations between labour and the government until the end of controls. In view of the fact that controls are to be gradually lifted beginning April 14 has there been any communication

October 21, 1977
Oral Questions
between the minister and Mr. Morris as to whether consultations will be begun at that date, or will that depend upon the ending of the collective agreements which will carry on past that date, which means there will not be any effective consultation for at least another year?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that the leadership of the labour movement has just had an opportunity to read the statement made by the Minister of Finance yesterday. After they have had an opportunity to study all the implications of that statement, I will be more than anxious to consult with them to see if they are prepared to meet again and to enter into discussions relative to certain advancements we wish to proceed with relative to the omnibus bill on the Labour Code, of which the hon. member is well aware, and other initiatives of the government relative to easing the burden on the unemployed in this country.


REASON FOR CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT'S ATTITUDE TOWARD ENDING CONTROLS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, on August 31 the minister said: "In the absence of agreement on voluntary restraint the government intends to keep the controls in force". In view of the fact that there is no agreement for restraint on the part of labour, what caused the government to change its mind?


John Carr Munro: I think it is clear what the policy of the government now is. We feel that the inflationary situation is very serious, and it has a severe impact on the organized worker. The treatment we are affording the problem is not one with which the leadership of the CLC agrees. However, as the hon. member may know, it certainly has a large degree of support amongst the rank and file, if the Gallop polls in which the hon. member and his party seem to have considerable faith, are any indication. Our approach is supported in various sectors as far as workers are concerned.
Now that we have indicated we are prepared to move into a decontrol period in April of next year, I hope that we can enter into further discussions with the labour movement relative to controlling the inflationary situation after we move into decontrol and after we are completely out of controls. Those discussions would concern the interests of labour, the business community and those of the government. That being the case I cannot see why we will not be able to get discussions underway again soon.


FINANCE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that succession duties and capital gains taxes mitigate

against the acquisition of family farms or family owned businesses by family members, does the minister intend to take the lead of the newly elected government in Manitoba, which has committed itself to the removal of succession duties? Would the minister indicate whether he favours the removal of capital gains taxes as a result of transfers of family farms or of small family owned businesses to close family members so that young Canadians especially will be able to carry on with the enterprises of their families?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I made my announcement regarding tax measures yesterday. Any new suggestions by any hon. member will be taken into consideration, and when I present a budget I will deal with those suggestions at that time.
 * *


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege has to do with the broadcasting of last night's sitting after eight o'clock on the CBC French network. The millions of dollars which were authorized by the Parliament of Canada for broadcasting the debates should serve the whole of the people. To do that it is essential that when a minister has a statement to make which is as important in nature as the one that was made last night by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) entitled Economic and Fiscal Statement the period of live broadcasting by CBC should be extended for as long as necessary to allow a representative of every party democratically represented in this House to make his point of view known on the minister's statement. Now, last night, the live broadcasting by CBC enabled Canadians to see and hear the Minister of Finance, the financial critic of the official opposition, and for a few minutes the representative of the New Democratic Party. Unfortunately, the public was unable to see and hear the representative of the Social Credit Party who also had interesting things to say. That injustice vis-a-vis our party shows that the media people want to continue to make Canadians believe that there are only three active parties in this House. It is a form of injustice against which I take strong exception, and I ask the chair to have the matter referred to the committee of the House appointed to supervise the broadcasting of the debates. I warn this House that a repetition of injustices of this kind will not be likely to promote good harmony in this House as well as national harmony. We have people to serve and we do intend to use the same tools as the other parties in this House to discharge our responsibilities. Parliament and Crown corporations must set the example in practicing justice. I hope we will not have to come back on this again. I hope the point is well noted.


Mr. Pinard:: If I may be allowed to make a short comment at this point, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the terms of reference handed down to the committee appointed to supervise the implementation of radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees provided for the introduction of television in this House with-
October 21, 1977

out determining or seeking to determine what the media should do. I do not think we should want to limit the freedom of the press in Canada, and if the media chose yesterday to broadcast in part what went on in the House of Commons I think that in a country where freedom exists that is still their privilege. I understand the hon. member's disappointment that his party should not attract more attention than necessary at this time but that is not the fault of the House of Commons.
In my opinion, Canada enjoys a freedom of the press which must be respected and, as far as we are concerned, our duty as members of the TV and radio broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its committees is to see to it that everything said in the House be taped to form a kind of electronic Hansard available to all people, be they Social Credit members, citizens or news broadcasters.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, the journalists used to choose what they wanted to report from Hansard, so I would humbly submit that they did the same yesterday when broadcasting what they found to be most proper or most interesting in what went on in the House of Commons.
On the other hand, as a member of the committee I am prepared to discuss the question and I feel this is a privilege we have; but unfortunately we did not have time to look in depth into that question on account of the urgency and of your dispatch in presiding over this committee in order that the TV and radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the House could begin six months after establishment of the committee and at the very beginning of this session, last Tuesday.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Never would I have thought a French Canadian could abet injustice to that extent!


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker;: The hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to report that a Crown corporation which is allowed by the committee of the House of Commons to film the debates in the House of Commons systematically refuses to report the position of a political party which was elected the same way any other political party in this House was. This situation cannot be tolerated. This is why the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) made it a question of privilege.
On the first day when the debates were televised, the CBC did indeed show the intervention of three political parties but refused to show an image of the fourth political party. The next day they finally agreed to show a short sequence. Yesterday, during the debate on the minibudget, the same thing happened again, that is the CBC refused once again to report the position of the fourth political party and went even further than that. What cannot be tolerated, Mr. Speaker, is when a commentator on the French network takes away the remarks made by the representative of the Social Credit Party of Canada and puts them in the mouth of the representative of the New Democratic Party. We therefore ask you to make
Oral Questions
representations to the committee in order to correct this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) has raised a question which directly deals with the actions of the CBC, but not precisely the actions or specific procedures of the House of Commons. In such a case, it would not exactly qualify as a question of privilege with regard to the actions of the House of Commons. However, this is a rather complicated subject which we will certainly discuss on a permanent basis in the special committee on the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House and its committees which was recently reconstituted by the House. This will certainly be one of the most important subjects of discussion for this committee on which, it goes without saying, there is a spokesman for the Social Credit Party of Canada, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), so it is clear that this subject matter will have to be discussed in that committee. But obviously as it directly relates to the actions of the CBC but not to the actions of the House of Commons, this matter cannot be raised as a question of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege which pertains to the Minister of Finance. But he has left the chamber, so I shall wait and raise the issue on Monday, when I expect he will be here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I meant to preface my remarks in recognizing the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby as he had telegraphed the nature of the proposed question of privilege. It seemed to me to be a classic disagreement in interpretation of the actions of the government vis-a-vis the Export Development Corporation. One of the things about which the hon. member would have to persuade the Chair is that it is more than a disagreement and extends to a question of privilege if and when it does arise.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I hope is a question of privilege. It affects the operation of the House, it affects the rules of procedure, and in an important way concerns the procedure adopted by the government last night with respect to the statement made by the Minister of Finance.
I am not going to deal with the merits of the statement, adequate or inadequate as it was, depending upon one's point of view. Something happened in this House, however, which I think impedes the rights of members, and, if allowed to continue, could impede the rights of members to make comments on budgetary matters. In addition, it merges into the tradition of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, which is a broad and searching consideration of the government's whole policy, fiscal and monetary and budgetary considerations.

Oral Questions
It becomes important because, in effect, what happened was that the government heralded this as a budget, in its proportions and in its importance, and had the Minister of Finance speak during the debate on the Speech from the Throne when, traditionally, statements of this nature have been brought to the House in a budget speech, which would give six days of debate specifically related to budgetary matters.
That is one aspect of the question upon which I rise, namely, that members have been deprived of that kind of debate by this procedure. It may be completely legal, but it is questionable in the parliamentary sense.
The second matter I should like to deal with is that the usual courtesies were not extended to all the opposition parties in terms of consideration in advance of budgetary matters which have traditionally accompanied what has been a budgetary speech. I am not talking about time, because there was to be a 30-minute preview. That was extended to an hour because it was requested. I am talking in terms of the documents themselves, which have traditionally been allowed to be viewed in their entirety by the critics of the parties during the lock-up. That did not occur on this occasion.
The document I have in my hand was tabled with consent because of the situation we were in last night. The document is entitled, "Economic and Fiscal Statement". It was available then. It was not dealt with in the meeting but it was referred to in the speech of the Minister of Finance. By failing to do that, and by operating as if it was dealing with a budget, the government denied one of the traditional avenues to the opposition parties and, indeed, to all members of parliament.
We cannot allow this practice to continue. The government cannot have it both ways. If matters are to be dealt with in a budgetary way when we are dealing with budgetary matters- which was the purport of the speech-members of parliament are entitled to all the protections and courtesies with respect to budgetary matters that have been traditionally extended, unless there is agreement to the contrary. I must say there was no agreement to the contrary.
Our understanding of this entire matter was that there was to be a speech delivered on economic matters through the course of the throne speech debate. If it was to be otherwise, the government owed opposition parties, the Parliament of Canada and the people of Canada, the courtesies they would otherwise extend on budgetary matters. This is something which has to be looked at carefully, because they have smuggled a budget into the throne speech debate, without the courtesies or examinations which are traditionally allowed.
I rise on this occasion because it came to my notice this morning, after the time in which I could give Your Honour formal notice, the fact that parliament had been sidestepped. I may be wrong. I am not suggesting it was done in bad faith. It might be viewed as smart politics or slick parliamentary procedure, but however it came about, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance should convey these views to his minister.
(Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).]
October 21, 1977
The Minister of Finance is not here. Therefore, I feel he should be made aware of the fact that we believe parliament has been sidestepped in a very important way. Perhaps there are other members who want to deal with this matter further, because it is quite serious in terms of limiting the rights of members of parliament to deal for six days with items which are budgetary, outside the usual throne speech debate.
We all talk about proceeding within the rules of the House of Commons, shortening speeches, limiting time, working on semester systems, in order that parliament may function better. Also, we would like a better committee structure, and private members' hour to be improved. There is a whole host of things which will be dealt with at some time when we look at the procedures of this House.
I say to the parliamentary secretary that this is not the way to go about it. This place operates properly with reasonable consultation and consideration. It is not only what ministers and members would like it to be, but what it, in fact, is. In terms of the budget, parliament was short changed by the government. I take this opportunity to bring the matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary so that he will take it to his minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. No notice has been given to the Chair of the intention to raise this point by way of a question of privilege. This question relates to something which happened yesterday, and not something which happened during the proceedings this morning. If I permit that to be done, without notice, on one occasion, I will have to permit it to be done again and again, without proper notice. The matter does not constitute a question of privilege. No motion is attached to it. I cannot permit expanded discussion on something which is not a question of privilege and does not conform to our procedures.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the first report of the examiner of petitions for private bills, praying for the passing of an act authorizing Bell Canada, city of Montreal, province of Quebec, to increase its capital stock, and for other purposes.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on two counts.
October 21, 1977

The first count is this. In short, I should like to say that I am fully in favour of TV broadcasting, for it will bring about procedural changes in the House, an essential one of which should prevent hon. members of the opposition from making their views known, as some did today, while the government has no right to reply, thus showing the viewing public only one side of the coin.
The second reason 1 rose on a point of order is that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 came to a decision-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You cannot question the Speaker; sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Alexander:: You do not question the Speaker around here, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: I made a decision with respect to the possible question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton. 1 indicated that it does not constitute a question of privilege. It is something 1 rarely do. It has been contributed to by only one side. The matter is closed.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, I feel further comments could be made because it is, indeed, a matter of order. I am referring to additional comments which would help to elaborate on the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the point was raised adequately by the House leader for the official opposition. It is a point which deals with attitudes of co-operation in the House. It does not deal with procedure, because there is no compulsion or requirement that the matter be dealt with any differently than it was-except the subject of co-operation which was raised. It was raised in the spirit of notice to the government with respect to attitudes of co-operation in the House. I do not know if that is a valid statement or not. I have to decide whether it is a procedural matter. If it is to be raised, it will have to be raised properly within the procedures of the House. It has not been done in that way, and the matter is now closed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.
Concerning the reply made to the question on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) which appeared in Hansard for October 17, 1977, on page 8213, I have checked and been assured that it was only by an oversight that this reply was shortened. The complete reply appears in Hansard for yesterday on page 62.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am glad the parliamentary secretary has again raised
Petitions
this matter, which was originally raised yesterday by the Postmaster General. I wish to speak to the point of order.
The action taken by the Postmaster General in effect places in question in this House the role of the parliamentary secretary vis-a-vis the executive, or cabinet, in the House. I find that a rather peculiar procedure is now being brought into the proceedings of this House. At any point in time a minister on the treasury benches can, in fact, rise and disclaim responsibility for an answer provided on behalf of the department by parliamentary secretary.
If we are to have a system of parliamentary secretaries and a system involving ministerial responsibility, I very much doubt that it is in accordance with the procedures of this House that an answer by a parliamentary secretary can be disclaimed on a subsequent date by a minister. There are other vehicles and other ways by which a minister can admit the incompetence of his department, himself or his parliamentary secretary, other than bringing it in under a point of order.
We now have answers provided by parliamentary secretaries to legitimate questions on the order paper. It is not proper for ministers then to go around this country and say that it was not the minister who answered, but a parliamentary secretary, and what does he know? He can say he has been misinterpreted, the parliamentary secretary is not very bright, or there was a mistake and therefore it is not binding, on the government.
If this practice is to be carried to its logical conclusion, the only attitude that we on this side can take is that anything provided by a parliamentary secretary is not to be believed or accepted as a valid response by the government, and that unless we ask the minister himself we cannot use the answer for the basis of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I understood it yesterday- and 1 want to keep this matter in correct perspective-the Postmaster General was saying that the answer he provided was not the one the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council gave to the House. It was not his own parliamentary secretary who was involved; it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, whose responsibility it is to table answers, on behalf of all ministers, to written questions.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the time of the House is being spent on a matter such as this. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar could have cleared this up himself if he had read the context exactly. He is following in the footsteps of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-misusing the time of the House in order to get some publicity in front of the cameras.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I know that Your Honour is very much aware of that. I hope hon. gentlemen on the other side will employ a little more judgment in the use of House time, in view of the fact that we are experimenting in this House with a very powerful medium. They should practice more responsibility than they are. The hon. member's position-I refer to the hon.
8002s -9

October 21, 1977
Petitions
member for Saskatoon-Biggar, because it is very difficult to differentiate between what he is advancing and what is advanced by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton-is something that is permitted to all members of this House, including members of the treasury benches, namely, to correct a reply that has been provided where the information given to the House was inaccurate.
My right to do so was even more enhanced by the fact that there had been misinterpretation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council in the reply he provided to the House.
In order to speed up the process of replies given in the House, especially when questions are asked of all government departments relating to certain information, it has been the custom of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to gather the replies from the various departments and compile them in a form which is intelligible. This is the first time, in my memory-and 1 occupied that position for 18 months-that such an error has been committed. It created some impact in my department because the information in the misinterpretation was detrimental to personnel in my department. As the hon. member knows, it is not only my right, but my duty, to correct any misinformation or misinterpretation provided to this House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I am sorry that the Postmaster General has taken occasion to impute a motive that somehow the point I was raising was other than proper, suggesting the only reason 1 rose was because I was trying to get publicity for a particular position before the television cameras. I know the disability-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is not going to suggest that every time somebody accuses another member of seeking publicity or wasting the time of the House, I am going to recognize it as a question of privilege. If that is the argument that is going to be put forward, it is asking me to take a course of action that would be extremely drastic to both sides of the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The minister went on to suggest that I somehow went on to mislead the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I never said that at all.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Your Honour knows that we are involved in a debate on the question of interpretation of questions and answers. It is a matter of interpretation-nothing more, and nothing less. The Postmaster General is attempting, by this procedure, to bring in the treasury benches truth squad with respect to whether answers are, in fact, accurately reported or whether there are nuances. Are we to continue with this kind of correction, at the expense of the time of the House of Commons, with the Postmaster General getting up every day and saying that an interpretation was not correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: As you
know, Mr. Speaker, because I have given you the required notice, 1 intend asking for leave to introduce a motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 26. Before doing so, may I emphasize that a similar motion, under a similar rule, was accepted this morning by the Speaker of the Ontario legislature. I think I am forbidden by the rules to indicate anything more than the fact that I intend to ask for leave to move the adjournment of the House under the terms of Standing Order 26.
1 do so in view of the very real emergency that exists and will continue to exist over the next few months in the economies of northern Ontario, the Niagara region of Ontario and northern Manitoba, among others, because of the ruthless and unexpected decision by the INCO metals company drastically to cut back production and mining operations in Canada, resulting in the loss of between 3,500 and 4,000 jobs in Sudbury, Ontario-a place Your Honour is well acquainted with-Thompson, Manitoba, and Port Colborne, Ontario.
I do so, sir, because I firmly believe that this House should have the opportunity to consider immediate, urgent remedial action which really can only be discussed in a sensible and meaningful way in a special debate of this nature.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Having given the required notice, the hon. member has conformed with the requirements of Standing Order 26. The hon. member asks that the debate be set aside in order to give immediate and urgent attention to this problem. The hon. member is quite right; it is obvious, as the hon. member for Sudbury, that I am, personally, deeply affected and deeply aware of the gravity of this problem, for it touches my community more severely than any other community in the country.
The application has been recited by the hon. member in terms of the Standing Order, and I have no hesitation in
October 21, 1977

agreeing with him as to the gravity of the matter. I am, of course, aware that the Ontario legislature is sitting today in special session on the subject. Nevertheless, 1 have to enforce the rules consistently. Standing Order 26, under which this application is made, reads in paragraph (5) as follows:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration Mr. Speaker shall have regard to the extent to which it concerns the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action and he also shall have regard to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within reasonable time by other means.
The subject matter before the House at the present time is, of course, not only the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, which has always been an occasion for the widest latitude in debate, but an amendment which was moved on behalf of the hon. member's party. It is one which relates directly to economic matters, and it would add the words:
-but this House regrets that the incompetence of Her Majesty's ministers has damaged Canada's economy and undermined confidence in it at home and abroad.
The terms of that motion, it seems to me, permit discussion of this subject not only this afternoon, on one day, but in the six remaining days-today, and all of next week. Further, when this amendment is disposed of, presumably on one of the scheduled votes next week, pursuant to Standing Orders, another amendment can be moved by any member of the House; and 1 would certainly invite hon. members to consider the possibility of doing so if they so desire. Amendments can be directed to any industry or to any aspect of the economy. If it is the intention of any member to bring this subject to the forefront of discussion in the House, he has six days in which to do so: it is open to him to put forward an amendment should he so desire. But even if a specific amendment is not to be put forward, this matter can be discussed, beginning when orders of the day are called within a few minutes.
To the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham and to all members who are interested-I have in mind, for instance, the hon. member for Nickel Belt, whose constituency borders mine and who, I understand, intends to speak today-I say that 1 am perfectly prepared to give recognition to him in a few minutes, on orders of the day, and to consider carefully, this day and during the forthcoming days of this debate on the Speech from the Throne, recognition on a fair and proportionate basis of any members whose intention it is to concern themselves with this problem and to address themselves to it, and of any government members who are in a position to respond for the government in regard to this crippling blow which has been dealt to Sudbury and to the economy of Canada by the action of the International Nickel Company.
It appears to me that to rule otherwise would be inconsistent with any past ruling on the application of Standing Order 26. But instead of having only one day, we now have six days in which hon. members have my assurance that if they wish to address themselves to this very serious problem, the Chair will see to it that they have the floor at the appropriate time.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: On the point which has been raised, Mr. Speaker, I find that the ruling Your Honour
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
has made is one which affects my privileges and rights as a member of the House, as it affects those of other non-government members. I call attention to a situation I have noticed for some time, and I regret that the decision should have gone this way.
The debate on the address traditionally gives hon. members generally the opportunity to raise various points. Discussion is not limited, and this affords an opportunity for backbenchers to address themselves to the problems of their constituencies or of the nation. I would point out that already, quite legally, a minibudget has literally been dumped into the throne speech debate. This, in itself, pre-empts a portion of the time available for speeches by backbenchers. Now, as a result of Your Honour's ruling, a further subject has been introduced with an indication that priority will be given to it. In my view, this has the effect of foreclosing comments and speeches and the right of hon. members to speak-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seeks the floor on what he calls a question of privilege. The hon. member's privileges have not in any visible way been affected by the ruling by the Chair today. If at some time they are, I would think the hon. member would have the opportunity at that time to raise a question of privilege. The Chair has indicated that, in proper proportion to other subjects and to other speakers, it will recognize those who wish to address themselves to the very serious subject which has been raised. Those who are directly concerned with it compose only a small number of members. Other members are interested in the general question as it affects the economy.
It seems to me perfectly reasonable to expect that the Chair ought to be able to accommodate that point of view and to recognize those hon. members during the course of six days of debate, without in any way doing an injustice. But if there is an occasion on which any injustice is done to an hon. member, I will deal with it when it arises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to indicate that my hon. friend from Nickel Belt does wish to speak on this subject today, and I hope he can be recognized at least among the first three speakers.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 20, 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; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Clark, (p. 30).
Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne, deliv-
80025 -9 */2

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
ered so graciously by the Queen, emphasized the central importance of energy to our economic future and, indeed, to the very coherence of Canada. Speaking of the field of energy, it stated:
It will continue to be the determined poiicy of the government to work with the provinces toward the goal of self-reliance by encouraging exploration and conservation to reduce our dependence on imported oil. Further encouragement will be given to the development of energy-saving technology, of renewable energy sources and the application of solar energy.
I should like to direct my remarks to the passage in the Speech from the Throne which I have quoted. I suppose that 110 years ago it was transportation policies, transportation decisions and transportation projects such as the CPR which forged the links holding this country together and established the basis of our economic development. Transportation policies and projects are, of course, still fundamental to the economic future of this country and to its unity. But increasingly, I believe, Canadians are recognizing a relatively new policy area, that of energy, as having the same kind of importance both today and for our future as transportation questions did in the past. Indeed, it seems to me that coal fields, natural gas fields and oil fields are going to be as important in the future as the wheat fields of Canada have been in the past. I believe that oil pipelines, natural gas pipelines, slurry coal pipelines and high voltage transmission lines will be as important in the future as rail lines and waterways have been in the past.
Canada is blessed with huge potential resources-I emphasize the word "potential"-but we shall not be able to develop those resources easily. It will not be cheap energy. For the most part it will be difficult to locate the potential supplies, expensive to develop them, and very costly to transmit them to markets because, for the most part, those resources exist in far away places remote from consumers.
We in Canada have an opportunity which many, if not most, countries do not have. We have the opportunity to use our engineering ingenuity, and the opportunity to marshall the financial resources, management and manpower to undertake really significant projects, projects which can have a compelling and determining effect upon our future. Those projects, for the most part, are going to be aimed at reducing our dependence upon foreign oil.
As hon. members know, oil represents very close to 50 per cent of the primary energy consumed in this country. Hon. members also know that we are becoming more dependent upon imported oil for the consumption of energy. Indeed, in the past six months our imports have been running at the level of about 600,000 barrels a day. Our economic future, indeed our future as a federal nation, is going to depend upon how we meet the energy challenge, upon how we establish ourselves as a self-reliant nation. For let there be no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker: there is a looming energy crisis which is not far away. It may not yet be perceived by the public. It is not unlike, in many regards, the iceberg which sank the Titanic. It is no less real because there is no public perception, or strong public perception, of this looming energy crisis at the present time.

Indeed, the fact that there is no significant public perception of it at the present time is, I believe, an additional danger for us in the future. I refer hon. members to the Gallup poll which was published within the last two days, indicating that just about 50 per cent of the people of Canada do not regard the next five years as being a period in which we will be faced with a serious energy crisis. Clearly, the perception is not there.
Not very long ago-within the last two weeks-I had the privilege of chairing the International Energy Agency meetings at the ministerial level. It was the first meeting of the International Energy Agency at the ministerial level in 2'/2 years. It was a meeting of ministers from 19 countries, the major oil importing and energy-using countries of the world. I think the two themes which probably dominated our discussion more than any others were, firstly, the stark reality that we will not have a choice as to whether or not our energy consumption-our oil consumption in particular-will be reduced. We have the choice as to how we reduce it, but we do not have a choice about its being reduced. Because if we do not take action ourselves to reduce through conservation measures, through substitute energy measures, through the development of new sources and through reduction of our consumption of imported oil, then others will take that decision for us.
The second stark reality was that all ministers of the consuming countries recognized explicitly, in most cases, that perhaps the biggest problem they have is conveying this sense of impending crisis, this looming energy crisis, to their people and getting the public support that they need in order to introduce measures to avert the kind of crisis situation I have been describing. It is a crisis which most of the industrialized world is forecasting to take place in about the year 1985, a period when the OPEC nations will not be able to deliver the kind of oil upon which the economies of the western world have been based. The economies of the western world have been growing in economic terms and in energy consumption terms.
For that reason, ministers took the decision to limit oil imports. The target was set of 26 million barrels a day, which compares roughly to 22 million barrels a day at the present time. Canada made the same political commitment which a number of countries made to limit our oil imports by that date. Our commitment was the commitment, which we put forward in "Energy Strategy for Canada" a little over a year ago, to reduce our imports to one-third our consumption, or to 800,000 barrels a day, whichever is the lesser.
Again, let there be no misunderstanding, Mr. Speaker: if we-that is to say, the western world-fail to understand the magnitude of this problem and fail to react to it, the change which is inevitable will be a very much more painful one. Our choice is that of being able to take measures to ease the pain, to ease the cost, to smooth as far as possible the transition from what has been an economy ever-growing in ways which, in terms of energy, has been ever-wasteful.
Failure to solve this problem will have profound effects upon the standard of living of Canadians, as it will upon those in other countries. It will have a profound effect upon the world
October 21, 1977

trading system. We are already starting to see protectionist attitudes develop with respect to world trade. Many of those protectionist attitudes are being developed as a result of the oil import bill which countries are increasingly having to finance in a deficit way because they have not been able to develop their own merchandise account to cover the increasing cost of their oil imports.
If we do not avert this crisis, we will be faced with increasing world tensions, particularly with the Third World countries which for the most part are not going to be able to deal with this problem in the same way as the industrialized nations. They have fewer choices. Indeed, I do not think it is too much to say-and this was reflected by ministers at the conference-that the very future of western democracy itself is at stake. It is not over-stating the position to say that unless we find a way of managing this impending crisis, the fragile nature of our democracy may not be able to withstand the shock.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to re-emphasize the remarks the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made in his address last night. He emphasized a number of very important things, particularly in regard to energy. He stressed the need for investment in Canada to create jobs. He emphasized the need to take measures which are going to help improve the serious balance of payments problem with which Canada is faced. It seems to me that in the energy field we have an opportunity of doing some of these things but it is going to require some changes, and I think his remarks last night reflected the kind of changes to which Canadians should be looking. For example, he referred to the rather special area which he described as the critical energy area, along with several other areas such as housing and fisheries. The minister said, as reported at page 101 of Hansard:
In all these, and many other areas, much more has to be done by investment policy and basic structural changes. We intend to promote such changes, to seek the active co-operation of the provinces, and to engage as widely as possible in consultation with business, labour and other economic interest groups.
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, there is a signal that the government is prepared to re-examine some of its policies in this critical area which affect investment in this country. So far as energy is concerned, I think the best way to put the government's policy would be to summarize it around four basic thrusts. The first thrust is through energy supply polices which are aimed at stimulating the private sector to undertake huge energy projects across this country. I will deal with those in a few moments.
The second area of thrust is through energy conservation and renewable energy initiatives by the federal government. I will deal with those in a moment. The third is through legislation and other initiatives aimed at protecting the public interest in three specific areas: firstly, providing information on cash flows from the petroleum corporations, to ensure that those cash flows are reinvested in conformity with the government's policy for new energy supplies-that will be covered by the legislation, the petroleum corporations monitoring act-
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
secondly, ensuring a fair return to Canadians for the successful exploitation of Canadian Crown lands in the development of oil and natural gas-that will be covered by a new act, the oil and natural gas act. The third area of protection to Canadians, in the public interest, is ensuring the most effective methods for the regulation of the nuclear fuel cycle. That will be covered in a new act, the nuclear control and administration act. The fourth area of thrust is to work with the provinces toward the attainment of these objectives.
I would like to turn quickly to the supply side. I would like to run down a few of the kinds of projects which I think are illustrative of the projects for which we should be aiming, the kinds of projects we should plan to undertake in the next few years, the kinds of projects which are anticipated in the huge forecast of $180 billion in energy investment between 1975 and 1990. The kinds of projects I am talking about are the Foothills (Yukon) pipeline-which I hope in part will start very shortly-a project which runs, in 1975 dollars, at around $4 billion and which should generate roughly 100,000 man-years of employment; and the Tar Sands III plant. The bill for it is much in the same order; it will amount to around $3 billion, in 1975 dollars. There is every indication that in terms of man-years of employment it will be comparable, perhaps even significantly greater, because the permanent employment associated with the Tar Sands III plant would be significantly greater than that of a major pipeline.
Another project is the expansion of the existing Syncrude plant, which should come on in the next year, by another 75,000 barrels a day, the expansion of the GCOS plant, the first Tar Sands plant, by another 25,000 barrels a day, and a major investment in Cold Lake for the development of heavy oils, roughly $2 billion to $3 billion for a 100,000 barrels a day upgrading plant. There is the opportunity of another heavy oil upgrading plant in the Lloydminster area, of the order of $1 billion in investment and a 100,000 barrels a day. Electrical generation projects in the Atlantic area, the Gull Island project, for example, a $2 billion project and for example a tidal power project in the maritimes which would run close to $1 billion. These are examples of the kinds of projects which we should be planning to put into place over the next few years.


James McPhail Gillies: That should have been done ten years ago.


Alastair William Gillespie: I believe the projects can largely be undertaken, in the sense of being financed and managed, by the private sector. Clearly, there will be a need for the provincial governments and the federal government to participate in the development of some of these projects. I do not suggest that these projects are by any means the totality, but I indicate them as the kind of really major projects we shall be undertaking. In total, in 1977 dollars, just the ones I have mentioned would add up to $20 billion. That is a significant investment challenge for the Canadian people and primarily, 1 suggest, for the private sector.
I believe there are a number of other government initiatives that should be mentioned at this time. As I have already

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Gillespie
indicated, we need to work out the fiscal terms with Alberta and Saskatchewan which will ensure the development of a third tar sands plant and which will encourage and ensure the development of future heavy oil plants. Of the ones that I have mentioned, clearly there should be one in Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan government has already expressed an interest in that and Petro-Canada is discussing the project with them. Two more could be started too in the Cold Lake project and perhaps another one in Alberta.
Through its budget, the government has already provided fiscal incentives for more heavy-cost exploration in the far north. 1 believe that Petro-Canada can play a useful role with respect to a heavy oil plant, as I have indicated, and 1 think Petro-Canada can also play a useful role in helping to develop the market for natural gas in Quebec. Let us face it: if we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, we shall have to do it in many cases by substituting natural gas for foreign oil.
There are other legislative initiatives which the government will be undertaking. I have already mentioned the oil and natural gas act. There will also be the northern pipeline bill which will be placed before us. Much can be done through the establishment of the maritime energy corporation, a corporation in which the governments of the maritimes and the federal government would participate. I see it as being absolutely essential to the planning, future development and co-ordination of major energy projects in the Atlantic area.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been agreement, as was mentioned by the Tory House leader a short while ago, to permit me to complete my remarks, which will only take a few more minutes. I would appreciate your ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is it agreed that the minister continue until he completes his speech shortly after one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mentioned the legislative initiatives that the government will be undertaking.
I have referred to the maritime energy corporation as being key to the development of the whole future of the energy supply situation in the maritimes and, indeed, could be a significant factor in export sales as well in the exporting of surplus power. I would say to the hon. member that the maritime energy corporation is absolutely essential to the development of Fundy tidal power, because that project will be too big and will have surplus energy. We have to find a way of bringing the various interests of the maritime provinces together, and I believe that through the corporation this could be achieved. That will be one of my priorities in the coming months.
I believe there is a role and a possibility of involving the federal government in equity financing of some of these projects. I do not want to raise the expectation that the federal government is prepared to put large amounts of equity financing into them, but I am saying that we are prepared to consider equity financing. In the past we have looked at the

financing of major energy projects solely in terms of loans. That would make it possible to bring some of these projects to fruition.
I believe hon. members would want the government to continue, despite the initiatives of certain opposition members who at least cast doubt on the importance of our export policy on uranium. Indeed, in the question period today it was quite clear that there is a major contradiction in their policy with respect to the export of minerals. The government will continue to place pressure on conservation projects all across the country.
Consistent with the home insulation program, which has now been recognized as the leading program of its kind in the industrialized world, we will be active in exerting pressure for higher insulation standards in new housing. We will be extending our activities and our initiatives to the industrial side, as well, with respect to such successful programs as the energy bus program, which uses a computer and which is of major assistance to small business. This has been tried out very successfully in the maritimes. Agreements are being negotiated at the present moment with a number of provinces with respect to that program. We will be offering the Enersave program to a wider constituency as well.
The government will be placing increasing importance on research and development of energy, particularly renewable energy, and conservation. We will be increasing our budget this coming year by $15 million. This represents more than a 10 per cent increase in the total energy budget of the government for the next fiscal year. Almost all these moneys will be directed toward accelerating the high priority areas of renewable resources and conservation. Increased sums will be available for the demonstration of solar, space and water heating, and for technological development in the budding solar industry. We hope to have a significant demonstration project at the Rideau Falls, where a number of renewable technologies can be demonstrated.
We also believe that our forests and our forest wastes represent perhaps the most significant renewable energy source, after hydro, in Canada. We will be placing greater importance on combustion and gasification, and perhaps later on forest waste, as a source of synthetic fuels, in our energy research and development. On solar energy, the federal government has adopted the principle that there will be a strong preference for the use of renewable energy sources, specifically solar, in all its building and renovation programs wherever it can be demonstrated that there are no substantial differences in life-cycle costs over conventional sources. That is a significant change in government policy.
These initiatives and policies are capable of contributing very significantly to the solution of our looming energy crisis. They can also collectively make a major impact on the economy in terms of more permanent jobs. They can make a major impact upon improving our balance of payments by reducing our imports and increasing our exports. I referred to maritimes
October 21, 1977

power as part of that program. I believe they can make a big impact on regional development and regional security. Above all, I believe these policies, measures, initiatives and major projects can have a major effect on national unity.


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The House has been gracious enough to extend the time for the minister, and I listened intently and with great interest to what he said. I wonder if it would be possible for me to have the permission of the House to ask one brief question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Muir: The minister dealt with energy, naturally; that is his portfolio. He spoke about natural gas, oil, solar energy, tar sands and pipelines, and another important feature was the maritimes energy corporation. However, only once did 1 hear him mention the term "coal field." 1 wonder if the minister would advise the House what the government is going to do as a catalyst, psychologically or monetarily, to encourage the opening of new coal mines, particularly in the eastern coal fields in Cape Breton and in Nova Scotia in general.
I was hoping he would elaborate on that, because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) hardly mentioned that at the Canadian Coal Conference. I do not think he knows about coal fields in the east. He talked about Alberta and British Columbia. Would this minister be good enough to advise if he will use his influence within the cabinet to make sure that proper funds are made available to the Cape Breton Development Corporation to establish and open new coal mines on Cape Breton Island, which would provide employment in a very quick way, because of the high rate of unemployment we have in that area? I hope the minister will have something encouraging to say about that.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, ! am very pleased to respond to that question. It is a very good question. I am not in a position to say that I can promise any additional funds to the Cape Breton Development Corporation. As the hon. member knows, it is already receiving substantial funds from the federal government. However, I can tell the hon. member that we are very interested in a proposal which has been put forward by the Premier of Nova Scotia to change some oil-fired thermal generating plants to coal-fired generating plants.
We have indicated we think that would be a very proper use of federal funds provided to the province of Nova Scotia under the agreement we reached earlier this year to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and the vulnerability of Nova Scotia to that foreign oil. I hope the talks we are presently having with the Nova Scotia government will result in a greater market for Nova Scotia coal. To the extent that takes place, there will be greater activity in the Cape Breton coal mines.


Robert Muir: We need new coal mines.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could call it one o'clock.
The Address-Mr. Hees


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.09 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the most serious of the many problems facing the country today is a stagnant economy which has caused unemployment to rise to 8.3 per cent of the work force and will go considerably higher in the months ahead as the stagnation drags on.
Unfortunately, the government has put forward no effective plan for stimulating the economy. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) told us recently there is no indication that the economy will be able even to absorb the new entrants into the work force during the next 18 months, let alone reduce the present high rate of unemployment.
I believe the only practical way to stimulate the economy and increase jobs is to make our products more attractive in price, quality and design. It is obvious that no Canadian, or anyone else, is going to buy a Canadian product if they can find a better product made in some other country at the same price, or a similar product at a lower price. I believe that the only way the job can be done in the conditions which will exist during the next few years is by offering incentives to reduce costs, and thereby selling prices, and improve quality and design. If we can do these things, we can increase our share of the existing purchasing power in the hands of Canadians and potential customers abroad, and increase production without increasing inflation in this country. The kinds of incentives I have in mind would do the following: first, lower labour costs; second, increase productivity; third, induce more research and development; fourth, expand export trade.
First of all, what must be done to reduce labour costs of potential new business to levels which will enable Canadians to compete successfully for that business? There is a great deal of business which Canadian companies are unable to compete for because of low labour costs in the foreign countries where the products are made. If Canadian companies are to be able to compete for a good proportion of this business, and thereby obtain additional employment for Canadians, they must have an incentive which will enable them to reduce their labour cost on this potential new business to a level where they are within striking distance of these low foreign rates. Then, by accepting a lower than normal margin of profit on this extra business in order to get started, they can compete for orders and stand a good chance of obtaining a reasonable proportion of them.
Now, what kind of incentives will do the job? The government should say to all business-not just manufacturers and processors-that it will reward over-all increases in employ-

The Address-Mr. Hees
merit during the year by way of an employment incentive which will be paid in direct proportion to the increases that are made. It is simply a matter of comparing the total number of man-years of employment by the company in the tax year under consideration with the last full year before the plan is put into operation, which will be the base year. The employment incentive would be paid in proportion to the increase in employment and the general wage level of the plant concerned, and the company would thus be able to calculate well in advance just what amounts of money it would require for various increases in employment. This would enable Canadian businessmen to calculate in advance how much their labour costs would be reduced on additional business which the employment incentive would make it possible for them to go after. All such business obtained in this way would be a net gain for Canadian employment.
As Your Honour knows, persons receive two-thirds of their former pay or salary when they are out of work and receiving unemployment insurance benefits. If one-third of their former pay scale is made available to potential employers who can then bid on previously obtainable contracts, and in this way provide work for those unemployed persons, they would have the satisfaction of working instead of remaining in idleness; they would be removed from the UIC rolls; they would be making a positive contribution to the economy, and they would begin paying income taxes to the government. To pay for this employment incentive we would have available to us a considerable proportion of what the government pays out each year as its contribution to UIC benefits. This year it is estimated that the government's contribution will be at least $2 billion of the more than $4 billion which will be paid out as such benefits.
The second matter I should like to deal with is the need to induce greater productivity in our economy so that we can further lower costs, selling prices and become increasingly competitive in the marketplace. To do so, we must offer incentives which will persuade producers that they will be able to pay for the new plant, machinery and production systems they will have to buy in a reasonably short space of time, and in this way make it as easy as possible for them to make the usually high expenditures involved.
The kind of incentive I have in mind would be one whereby all capita] expenditures may be written off in two years, and a plant would be rewarded, in the form of a cash bonus at the end of the year in proportion to its increase in productivity during the year, compared to the base year, the last full year before the plan goes into operation.
This form of incentive has been very effective in increasing productivity in such countries as Japan and West Germany, where spectacular results have been achieved since the end of the Second World War. There is no reason why such an incentive would be any less successful in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 21, 1977


George Harris Hees: I should like to deal with the steps which should be taken to increase the amount of research and development work which is carried on by industry in this country. One of the reasons we have had to rely so heavily on foreign investment in the past is that investment brought with it technology which was produced by research done in the country where the capital originated. In order to be less reliant on foreign investment, to capture new markets which are looking for new and better designed products, and to lower costs and become more competitive, it is obvious that we must carry out a great deal more research and development in this country.
To bring this about, we should allow industry to write off 200 per cent of the cost of current and capital expenditures on research and development in excess of those made in the base year, the last full year before the program is introduced. In addition to writing off the full cost in one year, it will put a considerable cash reward in the pocket of the company undertaking the research. This kind of program has been successful in significantly increasing the volume of industrial research in countries where it has been introduced, and I am convinced it will prove equally effective in Canada if the government will introduce such a plan.
The fourth incentive which I suggest is one designed to promote greater sales in the export market. Because of this country's great dependence on the United States market-we make 70 per cent of our export sales in that market-and the steady move of that country toward protectionism, the development of additional markets has become particularly necessary if we are to increase our volume of exports or even maintain our present level of export sales.
Making sales in other countries depends to a very large extent upon doing four things successfully: first, going abroad and making personal contact with potential buyers; second, finding out what is required to meet the competition in those markets; third, returning to Canada and producing a product which can compete successfully; fourth, displaying the product effectively before potential customers.
The incentive would allow producers to write off 200 per cent of all expenses connected with making trips abroad, displaying their products at foreign trade fairs, and any other expenses incurred in sales promotion in the export market in excess of those made in the base year, the year before the plan goes into operation. Not only would all such expenses be completely written off in the year when they are made, but a considerable cash bonus would accrue to the company for its additional sales promotion activities. The kind of incentive I have mentioned would greatly encourage the kind of activity which is essential if increased sales are to be made.
Another thing the government should do to help increase the sale of Canadian products abroad is to organize "fly and buy" missions, whereby the important buyers from the principal foreign markets would be brought to Canada once a year to see Canadian products displayed in giant trade shows in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver, and our heavy machinery in the factories where it is made across the country. Such operations have produced spectacular results where they
October 21, 1977

have been used, and have paid for themselves many times over through the additional business which they have generated.
In conclusion, I am convinced that if these incentives are offered to industry, they will produce the kind of economic stimulation which is so badly needed today, and we can begin the long climb back to a vibrant and healthy economy.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, there is a question which arises in my mind after hearing the Speech from the Throne and now that we have entered into debate. That is, "Who wrote the throne speech?" I think if a Martian were visiting this planet and had listened to that throne speech, he would not have realized that the people who wrote the speech have been sitting in the government benches for 45 out of the last 56 years. Since 1963 the same people have been sitting across the way; the Liberal party has been the government of this country for 45 of the part 56 years.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Too long.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, far too long. One could comment that they are slow learners, but we appreciate that they are at least starting to learn. However, it may just be a political gimmick, because we find on page 5 of the Speech from the Throne these pearls of wisdom:
High rates of unemployment and inflation are clear signals of the inadequacy of economic strategies appropriate to simpler times. They are also signals of the urgent need for important structural adjustments in the economies of Canada and other industrialized countries. More than that, they are the symptoms of an illness which can be cured only by a readjustment of our values, and by a re-discovery of the merits of self-discipline and fair sharing.
On page 7 it is stated:
The human hardship imposed by the current level of unemployment in Canada is deeply disturbing. It is neither just nor tolerable that in this country there should be so many men and women deprived of the dignity of self-supporting work, unable to meet their financial commitments and plan confidently for the future. It is intolerable that so many are deprived of their right to secure productive lives, and that their families bear an unfair burden of worry, uncertainty, and deprivation. On a national scale, unemployment now constitutes a very serious obstacle to economic growth.
I am glad they finally recognize that. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office in 1968, the rate of unemployment was about 3.8 per cent. Today, it is 8.4 per cent. As you go across this country you find that the unemployment rate, in several regions far exceeds that; it is often triple, and sometimes quadruple, that rate.
Since I joined the New Democratic Party we have been telling this government that there is a need for economic planning. However, the government has refused to involve itself in planning the economy so that the citizens whom they govern may get the benefit of such planning.
It is outrageous that the corporations, the mining corporations, and one in particular which I will discuss in detail a little later, are being treated the way they are by this government. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) admitted that he was called the night before this major lay-off announcement. He was told of the number that would be laid
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
off in the Sudbury basin and in Manitoba. We know about the wheeling and dealing that goes on on this Hill. Any time the government is considering a change to the Income Tax Act which might affect the corporate structure, one of their members runs over to the Rideau Club to have a confab with the banking and financial groups. They go back and forth to visit the cabinet ministers, and before you know it the lobbying has begun.
Insurance companies are a perfect example of that. Consultation takes place before the legislation is brought down. In this instance it is the mining corporations. It is a one-way street. In effect, the government is at the beck and call of the mighty corporations.
I invite the Prime Minister to come to the Sudbury basin and make the speech he made in London. Let him tell the people of the Sudbury basin that it is only a figment of their imagination that they are going to be unemployed; that the 2,200 people who have two years and 161 days of employment, or less, with the International Nickel Company will not really be laid off. I want him to tell them that they have been dreaming in black and white and it really is not so.
We have lost ten miners in the Sudbury basin this year because of unsafe conditions in the mine. The government has been promising, since time immemorial, that it will do something about reducing the danger to the health of workers. Incidentally, 1,000 miners have been lost in the past ten years.
I want the Prime Minister to tell those miners that they have become soft because of their high living, and that they have been overpaid for the work they do. It is those across the way who are the experts in soft living.
The other day I heard a radio clip of a speech made by a former minister of finance, John Turner of Bay Street. He said that Canadians have to learn to tighten their belts and live within their means. He said they have to trim the fat. At the end of the clip, it was stated that Mr. Turner had been addressing the Association of Canadian Chartered Accountants in Hamilton, Bermuda.


Mr. Orlikow:: Earning $50,000 a year.


John R. Rodriguez: He has joined the Bay Street barons; he has joined the boards of directors of several major corporations. That same gentleman is now organizing a $125 a plate dinner at the Royal York hotel in Toronto for the Liberal party of metropolitan Toronto. Twelve hundred persons will pay out $125 a plate. Who will pick up the tab? The taxpayers. I bet my bottom dollar they will put in for receipts in order to get tax rebates under the Election Expenses Act.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: Instead of heckling, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, in New Brunswick, should be joining me. Unemployment in his riding in New Brunswick is now over 10.8 per cent.


Andrew Hogan: It is higher than that; it is 30 per cent.
134

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez


John R. Rodriguez: Members opposite should be pushing to get some changes in the economic planning of this country. Yesterday the community of Sudbury received a disastrous blow. We have consistently stated in this House that this government has permitted the Canadian economy to develop as a resource economy. I have here a booklet entitled "100 Years of Trade and Commerce between Canada and Japan", put out by the Japan trade centre. I have looked at the 1976 figures for Canadian exports to Japan, and Canadian imports from Japan. It is a microcosm of the situation we find ourselves in.
We have been ripping our resources out of the ground, putting them into a semi-processed state and shipping them abroad, where they are made into a processed state or final product. On page 20 of this booklet, it shows that total Canadian exports to Japan in 1976 amounted to $2,387,942,000. All the items are listed, with the amounts, which we exported to Japan. No less than 95 per cent of these items are raw resources. When I look at the imports we buy from Japan, I find that in 1976 the total figure was $1,525,560,000. All the items are listed here, with specific amounts against them. I found, as I looked at them last night and made a calculation, that 96 per cent of those amounts consist of finished products, primarily cars, cameras and electronic equipment.
e (1432)
That is where the jobs are. They are in the manufacturing sector. They are not in the resource sector at all. Just yesterday I happened to be holding one of the microphones attached to our desks, the new equipment we have brought in and for which we have paid, 1 don't know how many millions. I found that it was made in Austria, a country which has a population of about six million. What is the unemployment rate there, I wonder. Mr. Speaker, I bet you there is Canadian copper from the Sudbury basin in these microphones. Here is a prime example of Canadian parliamentarians speaking right into a symbol of our problem, the hinterland economy. These products have crept right into the House of Commons, not only on the government side but on the opposition side.
I do not think the answer lies in saying, as did one spokesman for the official opposition, that we ought not to be ashamed of being hewers of wood and drawers of water; that we ought not to be ashamed of selling our raw resources. That is a lot of baloney. One of the official critics for the Conservative Party, the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) said, and I quote him: "There is nothing disgraceful about being hewers of wood and drawers of water if that is where you find your competitive advantage."
We in the mines of the Sudbury basin have been hewers of wood and drawers or water, and every time the multinational mining companies want to pressure the government for tax concessions they diversify their operations into Third World countries and say, "Either you give us a tax break or we lay off workers". They do not even give notice. They call ministers in the dark of the night before making the announcement. I think this is treating the people's representatives in a most cavalier manner. I would point out that the minister of labour of

Ontario, Betty Stephenson, was also notified the night before the lay-off announcement.
Today we asked questions in the House about the whole subject of jobs and the Sudbury basin. Some of the answers given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) were really revealing, and I would like to deal with them. First of all, though, I wish to bring the House up to date on exactly what is the Canadian investment in the International Nickel Company. I would like to put it into the context of INCO's lay-offs. INCO will lay off, by the end of January, 2,200 hourly-rated and staff employees in the Sudbury basin. They will use attrition to wipe out 600 additional jobs in the Sudbury basin, and 600 in Thompson, Manitoba. We must bear in mind that for every permanent job there are about three service jobs which go with it. In effect, then, one is looking at some 6,000 to 7,000 jobs. Failure of the income from that number of jobs to flow into the community will certainly be a massive economic blow to the Sudbury basin.
What is our investment, as taxpayers, in INCO, Mr. Speaker? We have allowed INCO, to date, to defer $378 million in taxes. That is the amount of tax they have not paid to the people of Canada and, in effect, it becomes an interest-free loan because it is only a paper entry; that money is not set aside in any bank. So INCO has been getting the use of that money. That is one of the investments we have in the International Nickel Company of Canada.
Then, again, under the March budget which was brought down by the previous minister and reiterated by the present Minister of Finance, INCO, using 3 per cent depreciation on its reserves, in terms of inflation accounting, plus the other goodies contained in that budget, received a benefit of $10 million. So they owe us $10 million. As well, we have loaned INCO over $70 million through the Export Development Corporation; over $70 million was loaned in Guatemala to a subsidiary of INCO called Exmibal. It involved a two-phase loan; the first phase was $17.25 million and the second was $3.5 million.
I remember, when we were considering Bill C-9 which was intended to increase the capitalization of the EDC, back in 1974, I raised the question of INCO's loan from EDC to their subsidiary in Guatemala. The question I raised was whether, in fact, this would have a disastrous effect on the INCO operations in Sudbury. I also raised the question of the $128 million loaned to the Argentinian government in connection with the CANDU reactor, a deal which we now know was so smelly it was like a barrel of fish which had been left in the sun for six days.
Then there is the loan made to an INCO subsidiary in Indonesia by the name of P.T. International Nickel (Indonesia). Again, under a two-phase program it involved some $17.25 million and $40 million. We raised questions about that loan earlier this year during the committee hearings on Bill C-47 which was to further increase the capitalization of the Export Development Corporation. We also loaned INCO an additional $20 million through a New Caledonia subsidiary
October 21, 1977

in which 1NCO was participating as a part of a consortium called Le Nickel.
The question we raised in committee with respect to the loan was the rate of interest INCO was paying on that money. Well, that was a state secret. That was a most secret thing, and we could not find out that rate of interest for INCO to borrow taxpayers' money. Now we know that the American EXIM bank rate was somewhere between 6.5 per cent and 7 per cent, and the president of the EDC admitted that our interest rate was below that because we have to be competitive. He told us he was out there reaching for business, so the interest rate had to be competitive and therefore less. Mr. Speaker, see how we have come full circle. That money, which really is the taxes of the workers of Canada, including workers in the Sudbury basin, has now been used to create their own unemployment. They have, in effect, funded their own unemployment. I do not think that is good enough.
We are going to see 2,200 workers laid off, whose average income is about $15,000 a year, and the average income tax payable would be about $2,500. The treasury of Canada will lose that tax revenue, and then we will pay them unemployment insurance. If they draw benefits for 50 weeks, and there are 2.200 of them, the cost to the unemployment insurance fund will be in the region of $22 million. That is not counting the spin-off effect in the service sector and that is not counting the human misery which follows these lay-offs.
I have been in the Sudbury basin long enough to know what happens. We went through the bust of 1972 when INCO cut the number of hourly-rated workers from 18,000 to 13,000. I was there; 1 taught in the schools. I saw families broken, and alcoholism taking over. I saw the drive onto the welfare cheque. The party to which I belong, Mr. Speaker, has never supported the paying of welfare cheques. We think workers should earn pay cheques, rather than be given welfare cheques. We do not support a situation whereby the mining industry creates a bust, lays off its workers here in Canada, and then demands that the community pick up the pieces.
With regard to Guatemala, the Minister of Finance today told me that because I come from Latin America I ought to understand that we were really helping Latin America when we did this; that we were really helping Latin America with technology. Well, the technology is not being transferred. The loan to establish the subsidiary in Guatemala will be used to scoop up the lateritic ore from the surface, put it into a semi-processed state and ship it out to Great Britain or to the United States for processing. The fact is that the Guatemalans will not get their hands on the technology. That is the whole question facing the Third World-the whole question of a new international economic order. It is the question whether rich countries like Canada and the United States are prepared to transfer, or sell the technology to the developing countries. That is the crux of the problem.
When the Minister of Finance says, "Oh, we have been so good hearted; all this money is really to help the Guatemalans,
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez
the Indonesians and the New Caledonians get the technology", let me tell him they are not going to own the technology. What is being done to them is exactly what has been done to us.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how does Guatemala benefit? INCO is involved in Guatemala with a "small" mining company called Hanna Mining Corporation, which is a United States mining corporation. INCO owns 80 per cent of the Guatemalan subsidiary, and Hanna Mining Corporation owns 20 per cent. It was Hanna, by the way, which discovered the lateritic ores in Guatemala. I want to place these facts before the government because the Minister of Finance said that as a Latin American 1 should understand that Latin America benefits. I am saying to him that Latin America does not benefit, because the multinational mining companies have developed a pattern.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, it was Hanna which discovered the lateritic ores in Guatemala and had connections with the dictatorship in Guatemala at the time, headed by General Carlos Manuel Arana. It is of interest to know that he was nicknamed "the butcher of Zacapa". In other words, Mr. Speaker, he respected no human and civil rights on the part of his citizens. Indeed, torture was a way of life in a country which could offer Hanna and INCO security of supply. It could offer them a malleable work force. If there were any arguments from the work force, those persons would disappear in the night. Indeed, around the site where this lateritic ore was developed he consistently placed an armed camp so that the workers could not leave the site or slip off if they wanted to stop working there. So he provided a service to Hanna and INCO by providing a captive work force.
History has now made very clear that the CIA was involved in Guatemala with the United Fruit Company in the overthrow of President Arbenz, who tried to bring some social justice to the country, which did not suit the purposes of the CIA. So the government was overthrown. It was INCO and Hanna which drafted the mining act of Guatemala, and under that act INCO was not to pay taxes for 40 years. That is exactly the way they have operated in Ontario. They were allowed accelerated depreciation allowances and the whole bit. We have been through that. INCO used, in Guatemala, the same approach which they have used in Canada so successfully.
There were several well-respected and well-known professors at the University of Guatemala who opposed the mining act developed by the "butcher", INCO and the Hanna Mining Corporation. For example, Adolfo Mijangos, a law professor, was machine-gunned in January, 1971, while he was leaving his office in his wheel-chair one month before the mining act was signed by the "butcher", INCO and Hanna. Julio Camey-Herrera, a lawyer, was machine-gunned in November, 1970, while he was driving a car. Afonso Bauer-Paiz, a lawyer and professor, survived a point-blank attack in November, 1970. These were men all well-respected in the community who opposed the INCO operation in Guatemala. They were eliminated from the scene. We know now who in that republic engineered that machine-gunning.
80025 - 1014

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Rodriguez I am quoting this from the arguments that I raised when we were discussing Bill C-9 in committee in 1974. 1 asked, "If the Export Development Corporation is interested in the development of the Third World, do its officers actually investigate on the site; hold discussions with local people? Is the particular development welcomed by respected and knowledgeable people in the community?" The EDC said it was not, rather, in the business of judging local politics but, when, they were in the business of lending money.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it is our money they are lending. If the money is lent to help the Guatemalans take control of their economy so as to develop it along the lines they want, then I am all for it. But, in effect, it is not. And what about Indonesia? Amnesty International has just published a list of people who are kept in prison in Indonesia without trial, and are often tortured. This is another area of the world in which IN CO is interested and has obtained Canadian taxpayers money. In every instance where INCO has moved there has been a dictatorship. There has been a malleable work force. INCO is given iron-clad agreements with respect to mining acts. They exploit those countries' resources and then they turn around and say to the Canadian government, "Give us more tax concessions or we shall have to lay off Canadian workers."
I do not pretend to know all the ins and outs of being in government or in cabinet, but here, for example, is what Eric Kierans, who was a cabinet minister in the Liberal government, and he is well versed in the economics of this country, said:
There has never been a period of such unparalleled growth in assets and income in the corporate sector as that obtained by the 311 largest corporations in Canada and, equally, there has never been such an outpouring of hostility toward elected governments.
He went on to say that the irony of the situation is that the corporations have profited because of government policies, and that these policies have given them the power to curb potential competition. He continued:
It is obvious (by looking at tax policy) that the government favours corporate concentration and mergers in Canada-
That is what they keep telling us, Mr. Speaker-that we have to have our own multinationals to compete with the American, German and Japanese multinationals. Mr. Kierans continued:
Large-size firms... (and) established firms are accorded privileged status that compounds the difficulties and barriers facing new firms . ..
Existing corporations are cementing their grasp on future resource development by being able to write off huge sums ($1.6 billion in 1973 and 1974) for exploration and development investments.
With regard to the situation in Sudbury

I know my time is coming to an end and that I will not get unanimous consent to continue, nor would I ask for it, Mr. Speaker-there is an immediate solution which it is incumbent upon this government to supply. The government ought immediately to announce the stockpiling of nickel. This has been done in the wheat industry and with butter. It has been done in the uranium industry for seven years, and it has been done with gold for years and years. I see the Minister of Employment and Immigration shaking his head. What he proposes is job-

sharing. INCO loves job-sharing because that means the taxpayers of Canada subsidize, through unemployment insurance funds, the payment of the workers, while INCO gets the nickel produced at even lower cost.
This government has the responsibility to restore confidence in the economy of the Sudbury basin as well as in Thompson, Manitoba. What it is going to cost to keep the workers will far exceed what it will cost to buy the nickel. At least, when we have bought the nickel we will have the value in the product itself. When you pay the workers unemployment insurance, you have nothing at the end of 50 weeks. Once the workers get on the treadmill of not being productive and not working, then I am afraid it may become a way of life.
What do I have to say to this government? I beg them to say right now to INCO, "Withdraw the announcement of cutbacks, and we will sit down and look at the alternatives for the long term. At the moment, to secure those jobs and the economy of the basin, we will stockpile nickel". This is not unknown in the Canadian experience, and the government should do it because it was the government that got us into this mess in the first place.
I see you resting back in your chair, Mr. Speaker, so I must have another minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, to respect an old tradition, I wish to congratulate the mover and seconder of the address in reply to the throne speech. First of all, 1 must say that 1 was not at all surprised when I listened to the Speech from the Throne. Since it came straight from the Prime Minister's office, no wonder his senior advisers emphasized the basic tenets of the Liberal party in dealing with inflation, unemployment, controls and decontrol, temporary job-creating programs and its next big issue, national unity. What surprised me most, Mr. Speaker, is that the day after in his speech, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recognized that basically the province of Quebec was not a province like the others, but that it must be treated like the others.
For many years, we have tried to explain to him and to have him understand that the province of Quebec was not a province like the others with a majority of English-speaking people, because of its language, its culture and even its Civil Code which is different, while all the other provinces have the common law. What is even more surprising, the Prime Minister has yet to recognize that all Canadian provinces are different because they all have their own characteristics. Indeed, that is the earmark of Canada, namely that its provinces all have their own identity and have decided to live in an economic union while preserving their own personality, as the children of a large family who have different characters but are close to have a better family life.


October 21, 1977

Each province is losing its identity, in a word each is self-governed as regards domestic matters in order to better contribute to this economic union that the Fathers of Confederation advocated. When we look at our history since the beginning of Confederation, we can see how strongly all the provinces have defended their independence. Young people in the English provinces feel that only the province of Quebec is fighting for its independence, which is completely wrong. I will surprise many of you when I say that it was one of Ontario's premiers, Mr. Mowat, who was the first one to launch discussions in favour of self-government in his province of Upper Canada, fearing Quebec or Lower Canada which had a much larger population than Upper Canada.
And here is another surprising fact: in 1886, Premier Fielding introduced a bill in the Nova Scotia provincial legislature calling for the separation of his province because he thought the independence of the province was threatened. All this arose from the fact that the right hon. Prime Minister of the time, Mr. Macdonald, was too much in favour of centralization. History is always repeating itself, Mr. Speaker. The provinces have always feared an overly centralizing federal government and the situation has grown even worse in terms of threat to Canadian unity since the coming into office of this government, which continuously encroached upon provincial territories and jurisdictions, taking unto itself all the best taxation fields to make full use of them. That is the real political and economic picture of Canada today. And what is even worse is that the usurper refuses to leave those territories he has violated in an attempt to hypocritically invade them through the back door. That is why national unity is jeopardized, Mr. Speaker. The federal government, established by the provinces to be responsible for some areas that were well defined by those very provinces has become the dictator of those who have created it. Before coming to the federal bureaucratic dictatorship as we know it today, there were three stages: from 1867 to 1887, there were lieutenant-governors who were the link between the provinces and the federal government; from 1887 to 1937, there were interprovincial conferences which the federal government did not attend; from 1937 to 1967, it was the time of administrative conferences between federal and provincial officials. It was in the heyday of bureaucracy, and finally came the federal-provincial conferences as we know them to-day and in which civil servants still play the leading role. According to some knowledgeable critics, those conferences have been and still are increasingly nothing but economic compromises. In short, those meetings are endless squabbles about who can tax and control the most. All the provinces, Mr. Speaker, want to win back their full autonomy in their respective jurisdictions. And to do so, they will have to have back their exclusive right to direct taxation.
However, the federal government does not want to withdraw from a field that brings it so much money. The only possible solution is therefore an interprovincial meeting so that the federal government may turn over a new leaf. We therefore suggest a constituent assembly of all the provinces, just like the one we had in the early days of Confederation, to deter-
The Address-Mr. C. A. Gauthier mine what sectors they want to pool together and designate once again the federal government as administrator of those sectors.
I am convinced that only then shall we be able to live in harmony and in a new economic union which will respect the complete autonomy of each province. Canada will become a strong country only when all its members, the provinces, will be perfectly healthy, strong and free in their own realm of life.
When the Prime Minister tells us about the dissatisfaction which is felt throughout Canada, he seems to imply that this situation has been prevailing only since November 15, 1976, with the coming into power of the Parti Quebecois. The Prime Minister did not feel the years of frustrations the people of Quebec went through under the previous administration of Mr. Bourassa who was even called "hot dog eater" when he was reluctant in submitting to the will of the federal government.
The explosion of November 15 was the expression of a feeling of disgust first towards the economy. Is it possible to understand this properly? And this feeling was the consequence of the federal dictature because the present government no longer respected the man the people of Quebec had elected democratically. Everyday the federal dictatorship was looking more menacing for Quebec which it seemed to treat as a second rank area without our premier being able to fight back.
Of course, the awakening of November 15 was brutal but when a man is awakened by being kicked what kind of awakening can he have, Mr. Speaker? What I am saying is hard to take but I am doing so reluctantly. My only purpose is to awaken the conscience of a government if that is still possible, to make it see reality to make it stop precipitating the destruction of Canada for the only purpose of saving face.
Mr. Speaker, that boxing bout between two fighters, Levesque and Trudeau, must end while one awaits the next blow from the other, countering a referendum with another without clearly defining what those referendums will be. And, powerless, the people have to watch that fratricidal fight. I say that the people of Canada are powerless because the only referees are the governments of the provinces that must get together at the earliest to come up with concrete solutions that will satisfy the province of Quebec so it may find its economic interest in the renewed constitution. That was done for Nova Scotia in 1886 when it threatened to leave Confederation. The same ills call for the same remedies because the aspiration of peoples does not change, Mr. Speaker. They simply want more freedom.
The Prime Minister pitied the people of Canada, particularly the English-speaking group, by saying that Canada is going through a very dark period. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) talk about Manitoba the other day. He did it very timidly but still he mentioned it. For an Anglophone, that is great. Has the Prime Minister only read our history of the late nineteenth Century?

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. C. A. Gauthier
Has he even imagined the distress felt by our forefathers, as well as by all French Canadians who still made up half of the Canadian population, when all the governments of western Canada, which were majority governments through the well-organized federal immigration policy, decided to abolish all the linguistic rights of our compatriots by compelling them to become English if they wanted to survive, after they had settled in those provinces? Even today, our compatriots cannot put in a plea in their own language before western courts. Not even in Ontario. This government knows what I am talking about since its supporters are presently suffering from this situation.
Mr. Speaker, that is why 1 cannot ignore the childish statement made the other day in this House by the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy), who said he was very pleased with the linguistic situation of Franco-Ontarians. I think the hon. member should stop looking at his shoes and hold up his head to see what is going on in Ontario. That is the kind of complacent statement by white negroes which harm all those people who for the past century in Ontario have been fighting to obtain for Franco-Ontarians the very same treatment Anglophones have been getting in Quebec for the last 110 years.
That is what happens when a member wants to save his party instead of his constituents. He brags about the fact that in Timmins 40 per cent of the population is French-speaking and that they have French elementary and secondary schools. 1 suggest to the hon. member that if Anglophones accounted for 40 per cent of Quebec's total population, they would control all schools, whether it be secondary, college, pre-university or university. In fact, despite the low percentage of Anglophones in Quebec, just count the number of English universities in Quebec and the number of French universities in Ontario, and then let us draw a comparison.
Instead of inviting us to his riding, the hon. member for Timmins should visit with those French-speaking groups who struggle daily to obtain the same justice which Quebec has always rendered to its Anglophone minority.
No one can deny that the people in Quebec have been patient for over a century. For one hundred and ten years, we have been patient and Quebecers have been acting as Good Samaritans in their province in the hope of an anglophone conversion. And where are we now, Mr. Speaker? A Quebecer cannot visit the western provinces even today without someone shouting at him: "Speak English!" 1 ask all members of this House what progress their provinces have made as concerns respecting minority rights, amd more particularly, as concerns the recognition of both official languages throughout Canada.
All sincere Anglophones will admit that there has not been in fact that much progress. Of course, there have been some attempts, studies, promises, agreements in principle, but all in all, what are they worth to people who have been waiting one hundred and ten years? Put yourselves for one minute in our shoes and in those of your fellow citizens who now live in Quebec and ask yourselves what would be your reaction and what are the reactions of this group of Anglophones who are
[Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).J
temporarily going through what we have experienced ourselves in the past.
Moreover, put yourselves in the shoes of our young Quebecers who have much less patience than we have because they were not under the same religious influence as we were and do not believe in self-denial and resignation in the face of discrimination. I would like to add something to make the Anglophones who advocate Canadian unity-and thank God some Anglophones advocate Canadian unity as we do ourselves-understand why Quebec is now less patient than it was before. I believe that if something must be done today, it is up to the Anglophones to do it, and this, on the economic level of course, since it is useless to try to make a point with someone who is starved.
The young people in Quebec are hungry; they hunger for economic and social justice in Canada. I know that many have shown goodwill, but this is not sufficient, action is needed. First, our respective governments must be urged to hold meetings with the Quebec government to draft new provincial agreements. I fear that there will be no more dialogue nor any more hope and that would be serious for Canada.
It is not by referring our current problems to the Supreme Court of Canada that we will improve our relations with Quebec. Indeed, what about the Supreme Court itself faced with the precedents created in every western province in the past? If the government at the time did not dare say a word, how can it intervene today for a minority, while it allowed the rights of nine minorities to be denied. All this to convince the House that a confrontation before the courts will not settle present conditions, but intelligent, honest, free and far-sighted men will save Canada.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has spoken about the third option in order to warn all those who would venture in that direction. This is regrettable but we are among those who want to go in that direction, because we do not believe in his status quo although he had tried to prove that this is not a status quo but an evolutive status. It is evolutive in a sense that it will increase federal powers but regressive as it tends to diminish provincial powers. This is why we cannot accept it. What we would propose are reworked agreements with the provinces. I have here a very interesting article published in Le Devoir of October 18. If you will allow me I will quote you some passages:
The third option calls for compromises, states John Robarts.
The way towards Canadian unity calls for compromises and the members of the Commission for Canadian Unity will not forget it in their recommendations which are also inspired by various elements of psychology, sociology and economy.
Commission Co-Chairman John Robarts was in Montreal yesterday and explained to the members of the Canadian Club how complex is the task that awaits the eight members of that commission and how wide is the scope of their mandate.
"The commission, he reminded them, believes in the idea of a Canadian federation where the powers of the state are shared between two levels of government, both sovereign and partners under a single constitution. At the
October 21, 1977

same time, it intends to present concepts and policies likely to constitute the elements of a third option for Canada."
The first inquiries of the commission have led to recognize that the various organizations of the federal government did not effectively represent provincial and regional interests. Those signs of dissatisfaction have led members of the commission to become aware that it is becoming urgent to define and work out changes to the institutions and to the political practices in order to make them more suited to the true needs of our time.
Therefore the commission has directed itself towards the search for an alternative, a third option, which will include listening to the population and experts but which is nevertheless inspired by certain principles.
The first of these principles is that Canada owes its origin to two founding peoples, one of which-the French-Canadian-has always recognized the principle of cultural duality while the other, on the contrary, never could accept it as exemplified by some recent events: the crisis over bilingualism in air traffic control and communications, the dispute over a French secondary school in Essex, etc.
For those who are claiming linguistic rights for Italians, Germans, in short for all other minorities, Mr. Robarts recalled that language is not a right that can be classified in the same category as freedom of speech or freedom of religion.
These two words are very, very important, Mr. Speaker.
Historically and constitutionally, French Canadians have the right to safeguard their language and their culture, and this right is inseparable from the "contract" signed in 1867.
Besides taking into account linguistic differences, the members of the commission will also be called upon to review regional differences and disparities.
During these consultations with Canadians, the commission will determine whether Anglophones are fully prepared to recognize the Canadian duality.
The first indications make us believe that it will be so, states Mr. Robarts, and tend to show a great gap in this government policy on bilingualism: the teaching of French in the English sector of Canada failed to gain prominence and that could have changed the whole picture.
After consulting the various groups, the members of the commission will present recommendations ...
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is the government-appointed commission. Such are the ideas put forward, and I think they are the result of the commissioners' travels. The other day, when I heard the Prime Minister suggesting we should not be deluded by that third option, I wondered if his statement does not hinder the commission from doing earnest and sincere work. I am anxious to see the results. I am especially anxious to see how the government will receive the commission's conclusions.
I would now like, Mr. Speaker, since 1 have a few minutes left, to deal with the unemployment situation referred to in the throne speech. Just recently the government pushed through a series of amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. That once more harms the workers, who will pay more and get less.
That was a good deal for the government. They will be getting more money from the workers and give less in UIC payments, once more passing the buck to the provinces which are not the only ones responsible.
Looking at total benefits paid to the unemployed versus salaries received by the hundreds of technocrats and bureaucrats, we wonder whether the unemployment insurance program was created to the benefit of the unemployed or that of civil servants, because unemployment benefits deteriorate in direct proportion to the improvements in civil servants' monetary and other rewards.
The Address-Mr. Collenette
If benefits were on a universal basis or in the form of a guaranteed annual income with equal treatment for all, we would finally start on the way to the distributory justice we have been advocating for years. The Prime Minister gave us notice of an additional amount of $150 million to fight against unemployment; if that kind of money were directly earmarked for the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors to create new industries, do you not think, Mr. Speaker, that such an investment would be much more profitable than to try once more to promote all kinds of make-work projects across Canada? 1 did not say that the minister took a wrong way, he is doing the best he can, but I think that the government's policy is not properly directed.
As for inflation, which is this government's main argument,
I think they were unable to control inflation because this argument was borrowed from the Progressive Conservative Party. As we all remember, the Liberal Party went into the last election campaign saying that it was opposed to price and wage controls as recommended by the Progressive Conservative Party; what a surprise, for us, to see the Liberals use the Progressive Conservative argument as soon as they came to power. It was not the first time the Liberals had tried to lift the weapons of their enemies, they even attempted to have them cross the aisle-unsuccessfully as it turned out because they did not know how to handle them.
Government members are still wondering where inflation came from, yet they should know because they started the ball rolling ten years ago when they removed interest ceilings for banks and other credit institutions. Another reason is that the government did not control corporate prices and profits. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to stand up. 1 will simply say that if we do not work together to try and fight against inflation, and if the government does not take action to invest in primary industries, unemployment will keep on rising and our dollar will keep on sinking.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks I should like to congratulate the mover (Mr. Dawson) on his fine speech. Also 1 should like to take a few minutes to thank Her Majesty the Queen for making such an exhilarating visit to Canada in the past week. In my constituency in the east end of Toronto we have perhaps one of the last old, strong, British communities which has great links with the monarchy, and these people were extremely happy that Her Majesty's visit was such a success. As well, there are large numbers of newly arrived immigrants from Commonwealth countries in Asia and the Carribean who have their own ties with the monarchy.
The throne speech provides a forum for the government to outline its general direction of thought in the governance of the nation. Similarly, the throne speech debate, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) this morning, provides an opportunity for backbenchers to talk on the general issues of the day. On Wednesday afternoon of

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Collenette
this week in the Chamber we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) give one of his most brilliant and effective speeches.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: In that speech he outlined succinctly the government's position on the economy and national unity. He demonstrated to the House how these two problems were intimately related and how they have an impact on both Quebec as a province and on the nation as a whole.
In contrast, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), analysed the Quebec situation and the problems of the country generally. Both concluded that the source of all evil facing this country today emanates from our so-called poor economy. In my opinion these two hon. gentlemen and their parties are making a fundamental error in judgment.
As the Prime Minister stated on Wednesday, it is wrong to place the emphasis on economics and to dismiss perfunctorily the cultural and linguistic causes of today's dilemma.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: In fact the only bone the Leader of the Official Opposition threw into the national unity debate was his rather shrill and sabre rattling cry for an instant referral of Bill 101 to the Supreme Court. This represents a callous attitude which is openly playing to the extreme point of view in English-speaking Canada. There is a vast array of moderate people in this country, both English and French-speaking, who are looking for rational approaches from Canada's leaders. They are looking for statesmanship in dealing with the national unity problem. On Wednesday the Leader of the Opposition demonstrated that he has forfeited any claim to provide effective and rational leadership in this entire national unity debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: I should like to talk about the government's strategy on national unity. There has been much criticism in the English-speaking media that the government is taking no action and that it is sitting on its hands. That is not true.
I have been travelling around my constituency in order to speak at various service clubs and Rotary clubs. I have been talking about the government's strategy in dealing with the separatist threat. On the night of November 15 the Prime Minister said that the voters had done their democratic duty; they had elected a government, as was their right. He indicated that this government was a provincial government and, like all other provincial governments, it must abide by the constitution of Canada, which is the British North America Act at this particular time. In late last winter and early spring of this year the Prime Minister took his case to the country and attacked the basic premises of separatism. He defended and promoted the cause of Confederation. In fact he took his case to my own constituency on February 17 and made a stimulating address to the students of East York Collegiate.

The third phase in the government's strategy has been as dangerous as it has been necessary. It can accurately be described as marking time and waiting while the Parti Quebe-cois comes to grips with the real problems of government, and while the honeymoon with Quebec voters began to end for Mr. Levesque. Although this phase in the strategy has caused some disquiet in English Canada over the past few months, we have seen that Mr. Levesque's preoccupation with language and culture, and his neglect of economic issues, have seriously weakened his own position in Quebec. The Quebec economy is in serious trouble.
As has been pointed out by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), the Parti Quebecois has caused a flight of capital, technical know-how and skills from that province. The summer has allowed Quebecers to focus on their own problems without the diversion of federal intervention, and has exposed the idealogical division within the Parti Quebecois. This is demonstrated by the public cabinet decision-making now being engaged in by Mr. Levesque over the appointment of a language commissioner, by the rather frustrated views of Mr. Parizeau, and his nasty attacks on our own Minister of Finance.
The latest phase in the government's strategy began in September with the Prime Minister's offer to entrench minority language rights in the constitution. This was severely criticized by the opposition and by English-speaking Canada. The Prime Minister's offer demonstrated his own flexibility and demonstrated the flexibility of this government and of the Liberal party in dealing with the problems of the country. As the Prime Minister pointed out on Wednesday, the government is quite open to further changes in the constitution to accommodate the real needs and aspirations of all provinces, and not only the province of Quebec.
The next phase in this general strategy dealing with Quebec separatism will come forward in the next election. The next election will not be about what party is best suited to deal with national unity. No one on this side can convincingly argue that the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the New Democratic Party are any less committed or any less sincere in their desire to keep this country together. No one in his right mind would make this claim. The essential question for Canadians to decide next year is not which party is more dedicated to Canadian unity than the others, but which party offers a program of new constitutional and economic arrangements which will satisfy the west, the Atlantic region and, indeed, all the regions of Canada, and not only Quebec.
The NDP argues that the present constitutional arrangement, with some minor tinkering, will suffice. The New Democratic Party, with its natural Marxist bias, argues that an economic solution is the only way to preserve Confederation. The Progressive Conservative party appears to be following its traditional philosophy which favours a greater decentralization and a greater devolution of power or authority to the provinces.
October 21, 1977

As I stated earlier, the problems affecting Canada today are not only economic. They are also less obvious, certainly to the NDP and the PC's. Canada's problems also have to do with language and culture, their dignity and place is Canadian society. They have to do with the responsibility and responsiveness of government to the electorate. They have to do with the equalization of resources and constitutional power. Finally, Canada's problems also have to do with regional expression and regional identity.
Only the Liberal party, as the Prime Minister has shown, recognizes the duality of the challenge which faces Canada. Our party recognizes that there must be a re-arrangement of constitutional powers which will satisfy cultural, linguistic, and regional aspirations. But, Mr. Speaker, our party also recognizes the paramount need to preserve a strong central government, one that can act beyond sectional desires, to represent the collective interests of all Canadians and, Mr. Speaker, a central government which has the constitutional power to act in this fashion. For my part I am an avowed, unabashed centralist, and I have no qualms in telling the House why.
Over the past 20 years the proportion of government expenditures out of the total Gross National Product has increased to about 42 per cent. During this time federal expenditures have grown but, Mr. Speaker, they have not grown nearly as much as expenditures by provinces and municipalities. Since 1955 federal government expenditures have increased sevenfold, provincial expenditures 20-fold, and municipal expenditures ten-fold. Although the public sector portion of the GNP has increased in absolute terms to 42 per cent of all Canada's goods and services, the federal portion of total government expenditures has decreased from a post-war high of 60 per cent to about 40 per cent today.
We see a startling fact. The Government of Canada takes 40 per cent of all government expenditures, the provinces and municipalities the balance. This compares to the 60/40 ratio found in two comparable industrial confederations, the United States and West Germany.
A fundamental error is being made in the national unity debate. Critics of the present constitutional arrangement argue that many Canadians across the country are alienated from the federal government. They feel removed from the federal decision-making process. Therefore it is argued that more power should be vested in the provinces. 1 agree with the premise, but I disagree with the conclusion. Surely if federal institutions and the federal bureaucracy are not serving the needs of Canadians, then those institutions, the Senate, the House of Commons, the Supreme Court, the Public Service Commission, should be reformed. We should not devolve more powers to the provinces as a response.
In a speech made in this House last year I proposed certain institutional changes that could be made with respect to the House of Commons, such as a system of proportional representation which could effectively restore the confidence of Canadians in parliament. We can only do this by changing the method of election to the House of Commons. As the Prime
The Address-Mr. Collenette Minister stated, we can also make changes to the Senate and the appointment of Supreme Court judges.
We could also decentralize not only the administrative plant of our public service, but also decentralize the decision-making process in the bureaucracy so that regional directors have the authority necessary to adapt government policy to the various needs of the regions.
As a federal state, Canada is the most decentralized in the world. Any further devolution of authority to our provinces would so weaken national decision-making as to allow Canada to become little more than a loose commonwealth of independent states, with wide differences between the quality of government services offered in medical care, in treatment of the elderly, in higher education, in housing standards, and in a host of other fields. Mr. Speaker, is this what Canadians want? That is not what I want, and I am sure that is not what the Liberal party wants. I am sure it is not what the government wants. That will be for Canadians to decide in the next federal election.
If it is our duty to restore the confidence of Canadians in the parliamentary process in the country in order to deal with the problems of national unity, it is equally important that we, as parliamentarians, encourage Canadians to restore confidence in our country as a whole, but in our economy in particular.
Contrary to the opinion of the opposition, I believe the government has done a pretty good job in managing the economy during the difficult period of the past few years. Indeed as the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) have pointed out, our economic problems are the problems of all the industrialized countries and, with a few exceptions, are not nearly as serious as those faced by our major trading partners.
It is not the Government of Canada which should take the blame for deteriorating economic confidence in Canada. Surely critics in the business community, in the media, and in the parliamentary opposition should be castigated for their negativism, their pessimism about such a great country with such a great future.
The leader of the NDP has talked in terms of Canada facing another great depression. This is absolute rubbish. I wonder what Canadians think of such a political leader as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby whose resort to hyperbole and hysteria has seriously marred any respect he may have had from the public and from the members of this House.
Let us look at the facts, Mr. Speaker. Over the past ten years Canada has outspaced the United States when one takes into account all economic factors. It is true that over the past two years Canada has lost its competitive edge because of declining productivity and higher wage rates. However, the high costs of Canadian labour are now being corrected by the anti-inflation program, and by the dollar's decline in value.
On the question of lagging productivity in 1976 and 1977, we must remember that productivity reflects not only attitudes toward work by employees. To listen to the Conservative party you would be led to believe that all Canadians are lazy. If they

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Collenette
are going to say that in the next election, good luck to them. Productivity reflects not only worker attitudes. It also reflects lack of capital investment and poor management methods.
According to the OECD, Canada has created more new jobs in recent years than any of the world's industrialized nations. In not one year of the last ten have Canadians seen their standard of living fall. Even in 1975 when the U.S. GNP declined by 2 per cent, Canada's GNP actually increased by 1.1 per cent. This could possibly be called no growth, but no growth in a difficult period of time is preferable to a decline in the standard of living as we saw with our major trading partner, the United States.


James McPhail Gillies: We have gone to tenth place.


David Michael Collenette: I hear the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who will be following me. He is my next door neighbour. He will have adequate opportunity to say what he wants on the subject.
We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the effects of the 1975 recession in Canada were cushioned by the phasing in of energy price increases, by our generous system of social benefits, the indexation of pensions, family allowances, and personal tax exemption rates.
It is my conclusion that Canada has not done as bad as our critics would have us believe. Sure we have to be careful. The growth in government expenditures must be in line with the general economic growth of the country. In fact more than $3 billion has been shaved off the government's spending estimates over the past two years.
We must continue to restrict the growth in the public service so that it does not exceed the general growth in the population. In fact over the past year growth in the numbers of public servants has been held to 1 per cent less than the population increase.
We must be careful not to allow federal public service compensation to outpace compensation in the private sector. In fact over the past 20 years the complaint that the federal public service has been the pace-setter for wages is not entirely true since both the average provincial and municipal public sector salary increases outpaced federal public salaries, with the municipalities being most guilty. So, Mr. Speaker, let's get our economic facts into some perspective. Our economic performance, while not great, has been far from bad.
What of the future? Well, Mr. Speaker, 1 agree with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. Our prospects are excellent. With the revaluation of the dollar, the export of manufactured goods should increase substantially. With the winding up of controls, business should feel more confidence to invest and broaden their entrepreneurial skills.
The building of the pipeline will create between 6,000 and 8,000 new jobs in the next few years. Pipeline materials will be made basically in Canada, for the Canadian portion of the line by Stelco in Hamilton, perhaps, and in Sault Ste. Marie near

the hon. member's riding of Nickel Belt. In addition, nearly $500 million a year will accrue to Canada through maintenance fees and royalties, thus bringing about a more favourable balance of payments position.
Major defence procurements of such items as the Aurora patrol plane and the new jet fighter, much of the work on which will be apportioned to Canadian companies, means an injection of between $4 billion or $5 billion into our economy over the next ten years, and no doubt there will be a further investment in plants such as Syncrude, perhaps through government in partnership with private industry.
Canadian technology in several fields has recently created business for Canadian companies. I am thinking, for example, of the Lear executive jet which is being built by Canadair and is giving work to the aviation industry, especially in Montreal. Then there is the joint venture between Canadian National Railways and a Spanish consortium to build a new railway in Venezuela, an enterprise which, by the way, will have the effect of recycling some of the oil money.
In the field of foreign aid, CIDA grants are being tied to the purchase of Canadian goods and services. Witness, as one example, our involvement with the construction of a railway in Zambia.
In short, Canada's future is bright and I believe we have much to look forward to. If there is any impediment to the economic recovery of this country it is not the government's management but the doom and gloom, the pessimistic attitude of the opposition.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I know I must keep my remarks short because the Minister of Employment (Mr. Cullen) has a plane to catch and he wants to gather every pearl of wisdom I have for him, so 1 must finish before he has to leave.
I do want to express my gratitude for the opportunity of having the Queen in our country during these past few days. I think the Canadian people appreciated very much seeing her and having the opportunity to hear her personally read the Speech from the Throne. I think it is too bad the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did not see fit to give her a little more freedom of movement in this country; I know there are a lot of people in the west who would have loved to have her visit that part of Canada. I know the people of Surrey-White Rock would love to have had her come and visit us there.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: She will be in Edmonton next year.


Benno Friesen: Yes, she will be in Edmonton next year. "During the campaign?" says the Postmaster General (Mr. Blais). I don't think the government will have the nerve to call an election even then. But we will welcome her back to our shores at that time.
It is too bad the Queen had to read such a vacuous statement as the Speech from the Throne. However, that document has already been sufficiently belaboured by hon. members and by the press, and I will leave it alone for now. But to have it followed up by the tedium of a two-hour speech, so-called, by
October 21, 1977

the Prime Minister was another plague on this House. The one benefit that television brought is that we could see clearly the collective ennui in the faces of government supporters as they listened to what the Prime Minister had to say, or not to say.
1 recognize that the only cabinet minister who had the fortitude to sit for the whole length of that address was the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). I can understand why he possessed that kind of fortitude; he is used to speeches of that kind because he reads his own. It is too bad we had to be harangued in that way and listen to the kind of statement the Prime Minister made. Out of what was said in those two hours we got two statements, one where the Prime Minister, to use his own words, scooped the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) on the announcement of the SI50 million make-work program, and the other when he scooped not only the Minister of Finance but the entire cabinet on the question of the referendum. I say this because, as it became evident during the question period yesterday, the entire cabinet knew nothing about that particular proposal. But there are certain problems inherent in that proposal for a referendum. The Prime Minister has problems with members of his own caucus.
A year ago we were debating the Speech from the Throne, as we are now, and I recall that the hon. member for Lafon-taine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) was the member who moved the address in reply. Today I looked up Hansard and could not help but be amused by what the Prime Minister had said by way of a compliment to that hon. member. He complimented the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont and his colleague for the eloquence with which they had spoken, and went on to say-
The presence of such outstanding young men among us demonstrates the ever renewed vitality of the House of Commons as well as its ability to reflect the varied regional and cultural concerns of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: That was on October 30. One month later, on November 15, Hansard records the remarks of the same member, the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont. It so happens that the day before 1 had presented a motion to the House asking that a referendum be held on the subject of capital punishment. The Prime Minister had already spoken of him as a very intelligent young man who added vitality to the House. Now let me read the remarks the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont made regarding a referendum. He said, and I quote from page 1003 of Hansard for November 15, 1976:
I do not think it would be appropriate to use such a dangerous tool because a referendum is very dangerous. It can divide a population into two factions and afterwards it is extremely difficult to heal the wounds.
I trust that all the members from Quebec will keep in mind what the hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont said a year ago on the subject of a referendum.


Mr. Roberts:: Does not an election do the same?


Benno Friesen: The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) wants to respond. He has already presented himself to the House as an
The Address-Mr. Friesen
authority on sex and reproduction, and we find all kinds of examples of his philosophy on Yonge Street in Toronto. He would be better advised to keep to the subject of broadcasting and assistance to the arts rather than talk about sex.
The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont went on to say, as reported on the same page:
Without that experience, and on such a touchy subject as that one, it is inadvisable to experiment. I am not ready to tackle that adventure. Why not? I will tell you right now. The idea of a referendum is not a new one. In Quebec we know what they are because people have been talking about them for some six years, now.
He went on to say:
The real concerns of Quebecers are shelved. Economic problems, consumer issues, problems relating to industry, fishing, transportation, all that is thrown to the basket because what is important is the referendum, the basic option: people voted in 1970, in 1973 and again in 1976 for or against that option.
He went on to say as reported at page 1004:
Mr. Speaker, a referendum is dangerous ... It is serious, and when 22 million people are involved, experiments are out of the question ... I do not want any referendum but still less on the occasion of an election, because then you have the situation we are witnessing in Quebec: People do not have any choice; they no longer vote for a party, they no longer vote for ideas, they vote for an option, Mr. Speaker.
And what happens over the years? In the case of the province of Quebec, this creates dissensions, factions, and the province can no longer operate with factions. And if factions are created in Canada on the basis of the results of such a referendum, or of one option, or another, Mr. Speaker, there is no room for Canada in the world.
Those are the remarks of the hon. member for Lafontaine over a year ago on the very day of the election in the province of Quebec. His remarks were followed by those of the hon. member who is chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). We know he is an esteemed lawyer who knows the law. I recall very vividly his taking me to task about the word "referendum". He gave me quite a little lecture on what is a referendum and what is a plebiscite. As reported at page 1005 of Hansard for that day he said this:
I find it hard to understand that hon. members could rise in this House and urge us to change our whole parliamentary system merely because they are not satisfied with a particular vote.
Those are the words of a supporter of the Prime Minister who, two days ago, suggested that we should hold a referendum. The hon. member went on to say:
If we were to have a referendum, it would have to be followed by an act of parliament, with the members of parliament being bound by the referendum not having the right to vote independently on the issue. In effect, they would be bound by something that happened outside this House, and that would be destructive of the whole parliamentary system.
That is what the Prime Minister is suggesting, Mr. Speaker, and I am waiting to see how the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville will vote if that measure ever comes to the floor of the House. Certainly I will be watching how the hon. member for Lafontaine will vote if the measure comes to floor of the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You are comparing apples and oranges.

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Friesen


Benno Friesen: That is the best the Postmaster General has to offer. Then, as recorded at page 1006 of Hansard, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville said this:
If we were to introduce a device of this kind we would be in a position where at least all issues of moral content, in the generally accepted sense of the word, would have to be submitted to the vote of the people. There is no possibility of isolating a single vote of this kind and treating it as something separate.
It seems to me that in our system the only case in which a referendum could be justified would be one dealing with the system itself... If we had a similar case here which was changing our future course, or a vital question dealing with the government itself, that would be different-
Does the Prime Minister have in mind the changing of the system itself? He has suggested that on previous occasions. He has said that the government will have to take some action in the marketplace. As Prime Minister does he have in mind changing the system? Then 1 assume the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville would feel justified in supporting the Prime Minister's ideas on a referendum.
The speech of the hon. member was followed by a statement from the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne), who was here a few minutes ago but has now left the Chamber. As reported at page 1007 of Hansard he said:
A number of complex issues to do with the questions at issue cannot be solved by referendum.
There in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, is the problem which the Prime Minister faces within his own caucus on the matter he proposed so glibly in the House the other day. Just a few months ago we had an occasion in the House when members from Quebec voted en masse against the opposition because our famous Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) failed to produce a document in both official languages. They still supported that action even though it was a denial of the very principle they have been espousing all these years. What is a mystery to me and to many people across Canada is that the Prime Minister says that on matters relating to the economy the law cannot restore economic equilibrium in this country, that what we need is the collective spirit of all Canadians. It is not the law that will change the economy, just the collective spirit of Canadians. But when it comes to the language issue, he says that only the law can provide equality.
Just a few evenings ago we had the privilege of attending a gala performance in the National Arts Centre. I count it a privilege because it was a great performance from beginning to end. I think whoever it was who was in charge of planning that occasion, as far as the talent assembled there was concerned-


John (Moody) Roberts: Me.


Benno Friesen: The Secretary of State says it was he. 1 compliment him on that, because the talent from beginning to end was of the very highest quality and the spirit was great. I note there were about 150 Conservatives, New Democrats and Social Crediters invited, and 2,150 Liberals and their hacks and money raisers from across Canada. As a matter of fact, I sat next to one of them from the Yukon, the official agent who had been told by the PMO that he was going to meet the Queen, on the plane coming down here.
[Mr. Blais.)
The climax came with the Andre Gagnon performance, which I thought was superb. It was an exquisite expression of creativity in music. We saw it last year at the Olympics. It illustrates my point that for 300 years our French culture has been flourishing and thriving and has been creative. There has been a flowering and a burst of activity in the last generation as never before, without legal support, without the need for constitutional rearrangement. We have seen the flowering of the expression of French in that province as never before, and I think this is to be welcomed. I applaud it and I enjoy it. Andre Gagnon's performance the other night proved it.
But the next day, Mr. Speaker, we attended not only an ecumenical but a bilingual church service, and I could not help but be amazed at the contrast. There were some people taking part in the service who obviously were brought up in the French language, which they used in the most beautiful, limpid tones of which that language is capable. It was beautiful to listen to, and I enjoyed it. Then we heard those trained in recent years; butchery, mutilation of a beautiful language, killing it. Why anybody would want to decimate that lovely language by using it in the way it was used, and as it is constantly used by people trained late in life, I will never understand.
That language and that culture have been preserved for generations, indeed for centuries, because the people love and enjoy them. People will only preserve such things when they have esprit de corps and love for their culture. No one in this country can make that happen. I can see what the Prime Minister is going to do. Like Elmer Gantry he is going to take his religion of culture across Canada and peddle it in each of the shrines of the provinces.
He will probably begin in the maritimes where there is already something of an agreement to preserve bilingual education, an agreement which was easily reached. Then he will come to Ontario. Ontario has been in the vanguard of providing bilingual education for the people of Ontario. Then he will move on to meet the newly elected premier of Manitoba. That is a province where, I understand, during the provincial campaign about a month ago the Liberals spent $1 million trying to get a few Liberal members elected. One was elected and they managed to reduce their share of the popular vote to 12 per cent. They have the same investment policy for the economy, incidentally, and they get the same kinds of returns.
That is the province where a gentleman by the name of Forest-for a decade he has been called Forest but now, all of a sudden, he is called Foret-received a traffic ticket some months ago which he is now refusing to pay, even though he has been convicted, because the traffic ticket was not written in both the official languages of Canada, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has been sending men from his staff over to Manitoba to protect that man's rights. I wonder if that is what the Prime Minister had in mind in his Speech from the Throne, although I do not know how a traffic ticket can be

October 21, 1977

considered a criminal offence. I suppose it depends on how the man drives.
Incidentally, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Guay) is reported to have gone to his riding of St. Boniface. He realized there is one thing he can do. Ele cannot read his answers very well, but he can think ahead to the next election. Apparently he went to his riding and he said to the NDP members there, "Look, we have an election coming a year from now and you are going to face a tough battle in this riding. We will not put up a very strong opposition now, but next year we will ask you not to put up too strong an opposition against me". He knows how to think ahead.
The Prime Minister will go to that newly elected government and say, "Look, let us make an arrangement here", and then he will go to the beleaguered socialist leader in Saskatchewan and will say to him, "Look, we have this arrangement", and he will talk about it politely while the television cameras are grinding and the newspaper reporters report him, and he will try to make some arrangement. But after he has been there, the gremlins from his office will follow hard on his heels and will say, "Look, we understand we have a disagreement on the cablevision policy here. We would really like to solve that, we would like to come to an agreement. We also know that before the next election the Liberals will be in third position and surely you, Mr. Blakeney, will want to be re-elected, so let us come to an agreement. We will not put up too strong a candidate in opposition to most of your members so that you do not fight us too hard on this issue". He will come out with some kind of arrangement regarding the bilingual education program.
Then the Prime Minister will move on to Alberta, and that is where he will find the Farm Credit Corporation.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Watch out, you are on television.


Benno Friesen: That is right.
He will find the Farm Credit Corporation in the metropolitan area of Camrose. You see, that place will now require bilingual education, so he will go to the premier of Alberta and say, "Look, we must have bilingual education here. We will supply the bucks if you supply the program", knowing all along that nobody wants to be known as a bigot, and knowing full well that a few years ago the Prime Minister called the former premier of British Columbia, W. A. C. Bennett, a bigot because he did not agree with his bilingual policy. Nobody wants to be called a bigot, so the Prime Minister will try to bring each of these premiers into line.
Last on the list will be the premier of Quebec who, according to today's newspaper, has already rejected the idea and said that the whole thing will be settled in Quebec anyway, and that the Prime Minister can do what he wants. The man who started the unity group in Quebec said that a referendum will do nothing but create more problems. I suggest to you that the Prime Minister has problems, but the gimmick is that he will try to get unanimity from all nine premiers, then he will go to Mr. Levesque and, voila, he will not get it. Then the rest of the premiers will have to decide whether or not to go ahead
The Address-Mr. Friesen
with the program. If they do not, the Prime Minister will call them pikers. If they do, he is that far ahead. This is the kind of game that the Prime Minister might play.
The Prime Minister has already said in the House that this referendum is binding. But what are they going to do with the Tessier group in the PMO? What are they going to do with the group that is travelling across Canada participating in hearings-the Robarts-Pepin group? If the referendum is binding on parliament, why bother to have those groups discussing and working on this subject? Sooner or later the Prime Minister will have to come clean on this issue. As I said at the outset, why is he saying that no law will restore the economy- it has to be the collective spirit of Canadians-but when it comes to language and culture he says, "it must be inextricably bound within the constitution", when for three hundred years we have had proof in Quebec that that is not the case?
The second part of the Prime Minister's statement had to do with job creation programs, and that included one of the greater absurdities in his speech because he was flailing the NDP-I do not mind that much but I wish he would do it with some consistency-for their lack of conscience about productivity and saying that the Canadian workers are only 80 per cent as productive as the Americans. I should like to ask the Prime Minister how one million unemployed can improve their production percentage points. That would be a great solution.
At the same time he announced a job creation program of $150 million. We in Surrey-White Rock know something about job creation programs, because in the last batch of money that the minister of employment sitting over there gave us he promised me that I would be very happy with it, and yet I got only half as much as in the one before. I do not know what he thinks it takes for me to be happy, but 1 want to assure him it is not that. The hon. member for Skeena, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Cam-pagnolo), received $4 million while I received only $214,000 for an area with 140,000 people.
The minister tells me that there are around 175 people looking for work, but when I checked with the local Manpower office 1 found that there are nearly 6,000 people on the active rolls. I do not know how he works his statistics, but certainly no maths major is working in his department. As 1 said, people in Surrey-White Rock know something about job creation coming from this government, but when it comes to productivity and the complaints of the Prime Minister that Canadians are not sufficiently productive, he has the gall to announce another job creation program, which is the least productive area of government in the whole country. He knows that every job that is created through this department costs $5,000 and the person only makes $3,000. You are spending $5,000 so somebody can earn $3,000. Under the DREE programs it costs $50,000 to create a job. When it comes to productivity, 1 wonder if the Prime Minister is the one to lecture us about 80 per cent productivity.
This government does not deserve the support of the Canadian people. The bankruptcy of the two hour speech of the Prime Minister the other day is absolute proof that the

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Flynn
government has run out of ideas, that it is exhausted, that the Prime Minister has joined the geritol generation and has no energy left. That is why 1 support my leader's motion that we cannot have confidence in this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Flynn (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy today to take part in the speech from the throne debate. First 1 should like to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mr. Dawson) and the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood).
This debate takes place at a time of great importance in Canadian history when Canada faces a crisis of confidence in its economy and in its ability to survive as a united nation. In the weeks and months ahead we in this Chamber will make decisions which will inevitably determine the future shape of the Canadian federation.
The Speech from the Throne outlined the major policy directions the government will take in this session of parliament, and my reading of the speech indicates to me that this session will be both productive and very exciting.
I am especially pleased with the announcement of the government that the control period will terminate in 1978, on a staggered schedule. Probably the happiest news a diversified constituency such as mine, with many industries which are anticipating a problem as these controls come off, could receive would be that the controls will be taken off carefully, slowly and in a determined fashion, and we expect the result to be our well-being. It is important to the price stability of the Canadian economy that controls are lifted on a sector by sector basis so that the effects of a free pricing policy are gradually absorbed.
The creation of a monitoring agency to replace the AntiInflation Board will add greater depth to the arsenal of the nation's economic planners.
I think there is little doubt in the minds of most Canadians-although hon. members opposite rarely find anything good to say for it-that the Anti-Inflation Board has rendered a valuable service to all Canadians. The annual rate of inflation in Canada decreased from 11.1 per cent in August, 1975, to 6.2 per cent in August, 1976, largely due to the efforts of the AIB. Although the present year's inflation is expected to be approximately 8 per cent, the over all target has been attained due to the better than forecast reduction in the first year. Over-all, the performance of the controls program has been encouraging. The double digit inflation of 1975 is now a thing of the past, and the prospects for economic recovery have improved.
I was also glad to hear the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announce in his speech to this House last night that the proposed tax on death benefits accruing from life insurance policies is not to be proceeded with. I have always been of the opinion that this proposed tax would not be in the best

interests of average Canadians. In the period of grief immediately following the death of a loved one the government has no right to impose further grief by taxing whatever is left of the deceased's estate.
I think most hon. members of this House will agree that the two most important problems for us to resolve are closely related to each other. Our continued concentration of effort toward the preservation of national unity will be greatly assisted if we direct an equal concentration of effort to matters in the economic sphere. It goes without saying that a strong and prospering Canadian economy will help unite Canadians.
With respect to economic problems I would like to make several observations on factors which I think will contribute to an economic resurgence in Canada in 1978.
At its present level our devalued dollar will make Canadian products and services more attractive to foreign buyers, and the resultant increase in the volume of our exports will stimulate domestic economic growth.
A total of $1 billion will be spent this year and next by the federal government on direct job creation, thereby significantly reducing the number of unemployed in Canada.
The spring of 1978 will mark the beginning of one of the largest civil engineering projects in the history of the world; the northern pipeline to carry gas to the energy-hungry south. This will provide immense benefit to Canada in terms of our foreign trade deficit, as well as substantial employment opportunities. It will also result in a marked production increase for Canadian manufacturing and service industries related to the project.
In this session we will be re-introducing tax reduction and investment incentive legislation to stimulate the economy further and create needed jobs. Properly administered, these initiatives should lead to increased confidence in the Canadian economy.
The $100 tax reduction announced last night by the Minister of Finance should cause a spurt in economic activity in early spring, 1978. I am sure all Canadians will benefit from this initiative. Also of primary importance to any recovery is Canada's competitiveness in the international market place. Canadian workers must make a concerted effort to increase productivity and to engage in responsible negotiations when it comes to wage increases. Every Canadian is acutely aware of the gravity of the situation in this regard. All around this nation we hear that we have been pricing ourselves out of business. I am not sure whether the reason is our minimum wage law, but we are surely in trouble if we do not take a real look at ourselves.
Of equal concern to Canadians is the issue of Canada's national unity. Since the election of the PQ government in the province of Quebec on November 15, 1976, the national unity question has become the predominant concern of many Canadians. During this session of parliament we will be increasingly involved in the course of our national development.
October 21, 1977

On October 19, 1977, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told the House that the federal government would also consider holding a referendum on the question of Quebec independence. This announcement comes at a time when the PQ in Quebec is preparing its referendum machinery. It is a time for all Canadians to become involved in the debate.
We will also be dealing in this session with several proposed constitutional changes which will ensure the strength of Canada's duality. Such a task will be long and difficult.
Mr. Speaker, 1 promised to be brief, and 1 shall keep that promise. In closing 1 would like the House and all Canadians to reflect for a moment on the following description of Canada given by Her Majesty the Queen in the Speech from the Throne. She said, and 1 quote:
Whenever I am in this wonderful country of Canada, with her vast resources and unlimited challenges, I feel thankful that Canadians have been so successful in establishing a vigorous democracy well suited to a proud and free people.
Speaking at Government House she said:
From the viewpoint of history this is the great Canadian achievement: not just that you have prospered, but that you have done so as a diverse society, and in peace.
In a world divided by differences of colour, race, language, religion and ideology, the Canadian experience stands out as a message of hope.
Canada, like any other nation, does have serious problems. Some are of a purely domestic nature, and some are due to external conditions which are beyond our control. As we begin this new session of parliament, let us not forget that we are here, first and foremost, to provide for the people of Canada good, responsible government. Our task is great, and though our problems are many, our resolve to succeed is limitless.
We will put to rest Canada's crisis of confidence.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, this has been a most unusual day in the House of Commons. It is unusual that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) can stand up and speak on a day on which one of the major industries for which he is responsible reports the largest lay-off since the end of World War II and have absolutely nothing to say about it. It is very unusual that the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who represents the area concerned, should make the statement that he does not really believe that the natural resources industry needs support and encouragement in this country. What an unusual day it has been!
This afternoon I want to speak about the Speech from the Throne. I want to go through the ritual-because ritual is often much more important than substance in this place-of thanking the mover and seconder of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for their fine remarks. I do that with some depth of appreciation because, as I read the Speech from the Throne, I know that anybody who had to speak in favour of it had to use a great deal of ingenuity to praise it. Both members showed a great deal of ingenuity in their remarks.
The Address-Mr. Gillies
It is a fatuous document, Mr. Speaker. There is nothing in it, which has become the hallmark of such speeches made by this government. It is really astonishing, at a time when people are asking the government and parliament to be a responsible forum for the conduct of the business of this nation, that the government did not even bring down a list of bills, an agenda for performance for the forthcoming session of parliament. We cannot look at the Speech from the Throne and assess from it what is going to happen in this country because there is so little in it.
We have to look at a troika of activities-the Speech from the Throne, the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the day before yesterday, and the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) last night to try to obtain some feeling for what the government is going to do about the great problems of our nation-problems about which there is very little dispute-the economy, national unity, and I would put as a third and very, very important problem, the reform of this institution. These three things are very much interrelated.
Canadians can take very little confidence from the speech of the Prime Minister. I disagree totally with the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) because I suspect there has seldom been a time in the history of parliamentary democracy when the leader of a country spoke with such little analysis of the problems, with such little emotion, and with such little call to duty to the people of the country than was the case by the Prime Minister the other afternoon.
To say that the Prime Minister's analysis of our economic problems was at the level of Economics I is to do a great disservice to the teaching profession. It was well below that. There were some interjections to the effect that he was quoting Adam Smith, but he obviously has not even read Adam Smith very carefully. If this were not such a serious matter, a duo like Wayne and Shuster could take what the Prime Minister had to say about the economic problems of this country and make a fine sketch out of it.
The Prime Minister said that we do not need a new theory of economics. But he was proposing one, Mr. Speaker. He was saying it is our collective responsibility because of our collective guilt, that we are in economic trouble in this country. In his ten years of maladministration he has given us Marshallian economics, Keynesian economics, Neo-Keynesian economics, Galbraithian economics, and now he wants to give us Freudian economics.
A psychological theory of economic activity is what the Prime Minister is proposing because the fault, as Brutus would say, is in ourselves. The problem, according to the Prime Minister, is not the way in which this government has operated the economy but is among Canadians. They want too much. They do not work hard enough. We have not had theories of economics like this since William Stanley Jevons and the sunspot theory in 1870. It reminds one of 1930 when people sat around saying, "Don't worry, things are going to be fine if we just talk about prosperity." I have forgotten who said it this afternoon but someone did say that if we would just be optimistic things would turn out well. That is what people did

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. Gillies
in 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and it didn't work.
No serious student of economic problems believes the sort of thing the Prime Minister was saying the other afternoon-that if we think things are going to be all right, then they are going to be all right. That simply is not true; it never has been true, and it never will be true. The psychological theory of economics which the Prime Minister is advancing certainly is not going to work.
The Prime Minister is telling Canadians that they ought to work harder and get less. For 200 years, Mr. Speaker, the theory has been that you work harder and get more. He said that Canadians are living beyond their means. What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? How do you live beyond your means? An individual cannot live beyond his means because his credit is used up and then he is finished. Even a provincial government-upon which this administration likes to put blame for our economic difficulties-cannot live beyond its means because eventually debts are called.
The only organization that can live beyond its means in this country is the federal government. It can do so because it can print money. The myth that has been spread that inflation in this country has been caused by people wanting too much, by unions demanding too much, by corporations demanding too much, is wrong. The reason we have had so much inflation is that we have a profligate government, an irresponsible government that has never felt it had a responsibility to keep the spending programs it put before the public in proportion to what the country could produce. The federal government has created the problems we face in this country today, no one else. When I see an $8 billion deficit in this country with 8 per cent unemployment, 1 know Lord Keynes is twirling in his grave.
How does one make a government responsible when it does not require any backing for the currency it prints? Two thousand years ago Demosthenes said that democracy will never survive because democracy means that people elect those who will give them the most. Once you start giving and giving and giving you will bankrupt the country and it will collapse. The essence of an efficient, operating, democratic system is responsibility on the part of the government. It is a sad fact we have had no responsibility on the part of this government that has had the authority for the past ten years.
The Minister of Finance was correct when he said last night that he did not have much room for manoeuvring. I agree he does not, with an $8 billion deficit going to $10 billion, and 8 per cent unemployment. If he hopes to go ahead with the same sort of budgetary policies that were followed by his predecessors, he will fail.
The former Minister of Finance brought a budget down last spring. There was nothing in it whatsoever. I does not make a bit of difference what the Minister of Finance said last night about the economy if what he said indicates the direction of economic policy in the future.
[Mr. Gillies.)
We must recognize what our problems are. They are deterioration of the balance of payments, a huge drop in the exchange rate, and this has meant more inflation. High inflation means uncertainty and low investment; low investment means low employment. What must we do to resolve this situation? $150 million of make work expenditure programs this winter will do nothing towards solving our fundamental problems.
Of course, 1 support the proposition that no one in this great country should be allowed to starve or not to have housing. But we need a completely new type of budgetary approach to solve our problems. The government must look at the industries that are the foundation of our strength in this country, at fishing, mining, pulp and paper, and find out what has to be done to make them competitive again so that they can export anew. The government must bring in representatives from all areas to find out what must be done and then go ahead and do it.
We ought to have one of the most magnificent fishing industries in the world, and indeed we have some of the most efficient fishermen in the world. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) made a fine speech in relation to this industry the other day. How is it possible that we can negotiate the 200-mile limit and not be ready with programs for a modern fishing industry which will provide employment in the Atlantic provinces?
How is it that the mining industry has opened only one new major mine in the last five years? Why is it possible, in this country that has the greatest potential for mining of any country in the world, that we import twice as much mining machinery as we export?
How can it happen that we are a net exporter of pulp manufacturing equipment? What has gone wrong? Why is there no industrial strategy in the country at all, absolutely none? If we are to turn our economy around, we have to support those industries where we have a competitive advantage.
We have heard over and over again the litany of problems the manufacturing industries face in Canada. It is alleged that markets are too small, distances are too long, and productivity is too low. The reality is that when we have reasonably large markets such as in auto parts the productivity in Canada is as high or higher than any place in the world. In agriculture no country in the world can match Canada as far as increasing productivity is concerned.
Unfortunately, we do not have a climate created by the government which encourages investment, hard work, and which stimulates people to be as productive as they possibly can.
Perhaps the most incredible situation we are faced with, because of our delinquent government, is in our energy policy.
I find it incomprehensible, as I am sure other hon. members do, that the government is still working on a strategy of self-reliance-that we are going to import energy, particularly oil, in the 1980's to meet our domestic needs. We have in
October 21, 1977

Canada in the tar sands the largest known reserves of oil of any country in the world. The reserves are greater than in the Middle East. Yet we have no crash program to get that oil produced. If we have to depend upon the importation of oil, as is planned by the government, it will have enormous negative effects on this country.
The exchange rate in Canada in the 1980's could drop to 75 cents. The government cannot be aware of the dangers in its current policy. It must be and 1 hope it will be changed.
What we require in this country is constructive production. We must have a budget policy to make it possible for the people who are producers in this nation to start producing again. If we do not, the trade deficit will increase, the exchange rate will fall, there will be more inflation and more unemployment. This afternoon the hon. gentleman opposite told us not to be gloomy but surely the only hope we have for finding solutions is to analyse our problems. Anybody looking at Canada from outside or inside has to conclude that we are facing the most serious economic crisis we have had since the depression.
The problems can be solved. The legacy of the Hon. John Turner as minister of finance was the attitude that nothing could be done. That was his motto of operations-do nothing. Of course something can be done. We can have a new budgetary policy based on needs of various sectors of our economy and that type of policymaking could give us a chance to turn this country around.
Referring to national unity, I am concerned with what the Prime Minister said about national unity in his speech because I am afraid that we may be trapped in rhetoric, language and words. He referred to the fact that there is no room for a third option and the people who are talking about a third option are making a big mistake. The Prime Minister should move around this country in order to find out what people are thinking.
In British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick people are looking for a third option. Let us not get caught up in the semantics of federalism. The reality in this country today is that people are not content with the constitution as it now stands and are not content with the manner in which federalism has been administered by this government. Also, they will not accept the interpretation, belief and understanding of federalism put forth by the Prime Minister.
If the Prime Minister suggests that there is not to be a third option, which is the way I read his speech, that will not satisfy the Canadian people. In my reading of his speech I see a suggestion that we have had a moving federalism, but the Canadian people do not believe this. They do not believe federalism has been flexible enough in the manner in which it has been administered by this government. They want a total new look. They want a total new look for this country, the way in which it is governed the constitutional relationships among areas of the nation.
The Address-Mr. Gillies
Associated with that demand and there is no question-and this must be a matter of great concern to everyone-that the Canadian people do not believe parliament is operating effectively. I have sympathy for the remarks made by the hon. gentleman opposite when he was referring to an elected Senate. We have to find a way so that the people in the regions of this nation can have an input into the making of federal policies. Perhaps one way to do that is through an elected Senate on a regional basis, but it must be a Senate with power. The people of Canada are aware of the fact that far, far too much of what goes on in this House is a sham. When the estimates come into the House, there is no one in the House of Commons who knows what that money is being used for and how it is being spent. The checks and balances of our system are not working. The legislative function has been destroyed to a considerable degree because so much has been taken into the hands of the executive. It is essential that we return a true legislative function to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James McPhail Gillies: It is interesting to note that anyone who looks at any committee of this House knows that most committees find it difficult to perform their functions, except when they get a special reference. The committee which performs the best work in the House, by and large, is the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Why is that committee able to function so well? It is because it has the Auditor General reporting to it. Why does that work? It works because the Auditor General has a staff and he is able to examine what is going on so he may bring relevant information to the Committee so it can do its work.
We can fool ourselves because we are very isolated in Ottawa, but the people know that the functions they think are being performed by parliament are not being performed. As a legislative body, when the people of Canada need to have trust in the functioning of their federal system, more than ever before in history, we must find some way to bring about reasonable reforms in the manner in which this organization operates.
It is indeed unfortunate that the government did not bring in an agenda of legislation with the Speech from the Throne. We must be the only organization in the world which cannot put together an agenda of what it is going to do and how it is going to do it. People are losing confidence in this body. We do not have much time to make major reforms before all confidence is gone. Committees will never operate unless there is a staff attached to them so they can proceed in a manner which has some real relevance to the conduct of the business of this country. We have lost the real element of checks and balances which makes a democracy work and work effectively.
It may well be that in a simpler time, with a simpler form of government, that an election every four or five years was an appropriate form of check. It is not enough today.

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan
I believe very sincerely that much of the problem we have in Quebec is not associated with the fact that there is a French element in our country as well as an English element. It is associated with the fact that we have not had the courage, wisdom or strength, to adjust our institutions to accommodate to changing needs. There are many countries in the world where people live together who happen to speak different languages, who have found effective ways of governing themselves. Surely we can do as well as others.
One final thought. It is a great mistake for the government not to take Bill 101 to the Supreme Court of Canada and I will tell you precisely why. If we must have constitutional change to keep this country together, this country has to mean something. It has to stand for something. It has to stand above everything else for the proposition that to be a Canadian means that you have certain protections, rights and privileges that are inalienable, that no one can touch. This fundamental principle has to override all else, or what is the country for? What is the use of having a country? It is not acceptable for 1,100,000 Anglophones in the province of Quebec not to know their constitutional rights.
What I say is a fundamental belief that I have, that if you have a country it stands for something. It must mean something. It does not mean much if the people do not know their rights and privileges.
There is a great responsibility on this government to find out clearly for the people of the province of Quebec who are English speaking, what their rights are and what it means for them to be Canadian.
No one can ever accuse me of not being totally sympathetic to the aspirations of the Francophones of this country. They have developed their own culture. It is not a French or English culture. It is a French-Canadian culture. It must be preserved. Language must be preserved. However, a country must be certain that its citizens are all protected under the constitution and know what the constitution guarantees them.
It is not going to be easy to keep this country together. However, if we are not prepared to defend the fundamental rights of everyone, even if it is only one person, the task will be even more difficult.
We can continue to be a great nation. We have been unbelievably mismanaged in economic terms. We have great resources that are not developed. There is no imagination in our budgets. Trying to rely on the same procedures of economic management that were used in the past, will not work. And most unfortunately increasing unemployment, inflation and unrest, make it much more difficult to keep the country together. I say to everyone in this House of Commons that if you believe in this country and want to keep it united, you cannot support the motion contained in the Speech from the Throne.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate on the Speech from the Throne and to congratulate the mover and

seconder of the Address in Reply, my colleagues, for their fine contributions.
1 would not have chosen to participate in the debate in such a constrained time frame, but I understand that my colleagues in the other parties have agreed that if a little additional time is needed, that will be agreeable, given the fact I have to be at the United Nations next week and cannot complete my speech if not today. If that is the case, I promise I shall not trespass upon their time very long.
My constituency is representative of the whole country in its French origin, in its continuing French presence, in its multicultural constitution, and in its industrial light.
The city of Windsor is rightly proud of the tradition, tolerance and good feeling which it has demonstrated over many years. One indication of that is the twinning arrangement which it has had with the city of Granby, Quebec, in the Eastern Townships, for some 20 years. The relationship has not always been as active as it might have been, but it has recently been restored.
Granby citizens have officially visited Windsor, and on the first week end of this month I participated in an official visit by the mayor and members of the city council of Windsor and many citizens, including members of the Richelieu Club, to Granby. We were extremely well treated there and made to feel like brothers.
We believe this type of contact between citizens in Ontario and Quebec and those of other provinces with the citizens of Quebec, and indeed between Ontario and other provinces of Canada other than Quebec, is very helpful to national solidarity.
My constituency and my city of Windsor are willing to contribute to the solution of all our Canadian problems. However, in order to do so we must have our strength protected. We must build on our strength.
I therefore want to turn for a moment to problems of the automotive trade which are so vital to my part of the country. My constituency contains substantially the whole manufacturing operation of Chrysler Canada, although the new truck plant is just outside the boundaries. It contains plants of Ford and GM as well. It thus contains all the big three and many feeder plants as well.
We have different sets of figures with respect to the auto trade pact at the present time, or perhaps more exactly, we have different interpretations of the same set of Statistics Canada figures. As I understand it, the most accurate figures are those which Statistics Canada released on October 6. They show a slightly lower deficit in automotive trade for the first six months of this year than for the corresponding six month period last year.
Even if the deficit turns out to be slightly less this year than it was last year on an over-all basis, it is still $597 million, as opposed to $654 million for the first six months of last year. It is much more than we can possibly afford to have continue. If we look at it from the viewpoint of the auto parts industry, the deficit becomes spectacular.


October 21, 1977

We consistently have a surplus, an advantage of 2 to 3 per cent over our share of the market with respect to auto assembly, and a disadvantage of 5 per cent in our share of the market with respect to automotive parts. If it is true, as many believe, that the trade deficit that we have over-all, including the automotive trade deficit, is one of our most serious basic problems in this country, then the deficit in automotive trade is indeed a very serious matter for all Canadians, not just for those living in automotive centres.
In an address in Leamington on September 14, the then minister of industry, trade and commerce, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), said that government policy was to correct the trade deficit without re-negotiating the auto pact. I do not think we should foreclose the possibility of re-negotiating the auto pact entirely. This is an option we should keep open as at least a possibility on a fair share basis. However, I am prepared to accept at least in the first instance that we try to redress the balance without doing that.
Here again I might refer to the minister's comments on that occasion when he said the government would put pressure on the big four to source more auto parts in Canada. This is probably the most important constituent of a new and helpful policy. It is certainly a fine beginning for a new automotive trade policy.
We also need investment incentives of various kinds, particularly in the form of loans to enable capital expansion to take place and also to assist in re-tooling and other matters which are vital to the continuing development of the industry.
We should have a third-country duty remission of the kind we have with the United States which induces manufacturers to incorporate Canadian auto parts in foreign assembled vehicles, or even if the vehicles are assembled in Canada. Canadian assembly is of much less assistance to us than it would be if we not only had that assembly, but also a share of the parts production as well. Such a duty remission would undoubtedly be a considerable inducement to non-American automobile manufacturers to produce their parts in Canada.
In addition, in my view, remission of duty to the big four automotive companies in excess of that earned by them according to the strict rules should be made conditional. We should not be in a position where the target needs rigidly to be achieved each year, but on the other hand, when the government does make a concession of that kind it should be upon conditions as has sometimes been the case in the past. 1 believe this should be a general policy. As a member from an automobile constituency I eagerly await the enunciation of a new automotive policy by the government.
I should like to turn, now, to a broader national question with which I have been associated this year. I refer to the subject of penitentiaries. I begin by saying we on the sub-committee have been highly pleased by the response to the report by experts in the field, by the public and by the media across Canada. I would add that I personally find the response of the minister to be most gratifying. I think his support for the
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan report is very great and I have complete confidence that he will bring about its implementation. His official response to our report was in somewhat general terms but it was very positive and encouraging in tone. There was, perhaps, a little ambiguity in that response with respect to which precise recommendations he was rejecting and which ones he was deferring for further consideration. I have had this matter clarified with the minister's office and, without going into detail, I should like to put on the record of the House the numbers of the recommendations concerned so that they will be publicly available.
The recommendations of the sub-committee which the minister has rejected are as follows: 29, 33, 58, 60, 62 and 65. Those which have been deferred for further consideration are: 18, 21, 22, 24, 26 and 59. It is these latter recommendations, presently under consideration by an interdepartmental task force and to which the minister has still to announce his adherence, which are the heart of the report. I said from the time the report was presented on June 7 that the government should be allowed some six months in which to reply-we should expect an announcement to be given this calendar year but that the government should be given six months in which to make a response. We are now, of course, in the final third of that period.
There is already an inherent difficulty attached to the implementation of the report in the sense that basically the recommendations aim at the changing of attitudes, primarily on the part of the staff in the penitentiaries, and something of this kind may take many years, perhaps even a generation-a staff generation-to bring about. This being the case there is already a certain delay built into the recommendations themselves. There has to be. I would hope there would not be any further delay which would intensify this inherent problem through anything of an artificial nature with respect to the time frame of the response made by the minister and, indeed, by the government as a whole. We fully recognize that some of our recommendations, such as the one concerning the setting up of a fully independent penitentiary service, the crucial recommendation in our report, would require an answer from the government as a whole, not just from the minister. We look forward to getting a response before the end of this year.
1 would mention briefly a judgment which was handed down this week in the Dodge case by Mr. Justice Keith of the Ontario Supreme Court. This is an extremely important decision which strongly reinforces the recommendations of the committee. According to that judgment, three Millhaven guards had used excessive force in October, 1972, while escorting a prisoner from one cell to another, and $15,000 in damages was awarded against them, half of it representing punitive damages. This reinforces what the sub-committee had to say in its report. It establishes the irreducible character of justice which has a primary application to all men, whether guards or prisoners, in or out of prison. It is one of the things which those who are in prison do not lose-they do not lose the right to justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 21, 1977
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan


Mark R. MacGuigan: I was unfavourably struck by a comment this week with respect to this decision by Mr. Paul Caouette, the executive director of the Solicitor General's component of the PSAC. He was reported by the Globe and Mail of October 20, at page 10, as saying: "How could anyone think of joining the penitentiary service knowing they will face civil actions against them?" I should like to tell Mr. Caouette that people in all walks of life always face the possibility of civil actions being taken against them-and criminal actions, too, if they are not prepared to follow norms of conduct usually accepted-if they are not prepared to use only reasonable force. I would hope there would be no exception for prison guards, for policemen or anyone else in the conduct of their duties. This decision, the first of its kind in Canada, would be an excellent means-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: However, at the beginning of his remarks I understood there was general agreement that he might carry on. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I thank the House, Mr. Speaker, and I shall pass on to my third and last subject, which is that of national solidarity. 1 propose to treat it briefly under the three headings: structure, strategy, and spirit.
First, with respect to structure. The report of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, which was presented in March, 1972, has stood up very well over the years. I believe that only two modifications need to be made to that report in order to make it entirely relevant to the situation today, both a further spelling out of certain things which at that time were not as apparent as they are now. We did not then feel it necessary, because of the provision which already existed in the constitution with respect to immigration, to spell out further details in this area. That should be done and, indeed, the Minister of Employment (Mr. Cullen) is co-operating with ministers in the provincial governments to try to work out just such an arrangement.
The other area is that of communications. Here again, further specification is needed. With those two additions, I think the report of that committee, one which the government has been following for the last five years although it has not had the opportunity for introducing it to a full scale constitutional conference, is most applicable. It advocates a great deal of decentralization. But it also recognizes there must be some centralization and that to some extent there must be an exchange of powers when we have constitutional changes.
I do not anticipate radical structural changes. I do not think they are desirable. Nor do I think they are necessary, because it seems to me that where there are active provincial governments, where there are provinces which take full advantage of their power, there is not a great need for constitutional change.

Such governments can do almost all that needs to be done for the people of their provinces, and on this premise I do not think we need constitutional changes in order to bring about changes in political life in those parts of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: The other condition is that of fuller consultation by the federal government. The federal government has begun this, as it has indeed begun the decentralization of our federal services. Consultation is extremely important. The various areas of the country must be made to feel that they are being consulted, and this brings me to our recommendation with respect to the Senate, which was to increase that body to give more representation to western Canada, and also to change the method of appointment. But in general we do not need radical structural changes; we do need some changes and they are spelled out in this report.
At the moment, strategy is of more importance than the structure itself. It seems to me that there is a lot of naivete in English-speaking Canada about what the Parti Quebecois is about in Quebec. Surely in the light of recent statements by ministers of that government it is no longer very necessary to persuade public opinion of what the PQ government is about. Claude Morin, on March 19, said that the PQ government was committed to independence and did not believe that any constitutional reform within confederation could meet the province's demands. He also said that there would be no possibility of any constitutional discussions before the referendum. Mr. Levesque on October 19 said the same thing, that before the referendum constitutional discussion with other parts of Canada could take place only on the basis of the Parti Quebecois proposal of political sovereignty combined with economic association, hardly a very palatable basis for the rest of us.
The PQ strategy is the plebiscite or referendum. We must have an answering strategy. Here part of the answer was given by the Prime Minister this week when he spoke about the possible necessity for a referendum. I am pleased, by the way, that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen), who 1 am sorry is no longer in the House, introduced my position on this with so much fanfare. I owe it to him that he read enough of my remarks from the previous occasion to indicate that I did say that there could be a referendum when our very system itself was at stake. I am not sure he appreciated the significance of those words, but what I was saying then is precisely what the Prime Minister is advocating now. When the country's government or the country's future itself is at stake, a referendum, of course, can be extremely appropriate. It was matters of ordinary policy which I was suggesting should not be taken from parliament and handled by way of referendum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 21, 1977


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) showed what I have to call, I hope not unkindly, a naive understanding of the benefits of a referendum yesterday when he said that if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had taken action on his motion in February which called for consideration of such referendum, much of the uncertainty which pervades the country today would never have occurred.
The point, Mr. Speaker, is that we cannot decide on a referendum now. It looks as if the Parti Quebecois is determined to have an unfair referendum in Quebec, one which will not safeguard the rights of assembly, of association and free speech. In those circumstances, obviously the results of the referendum will not be reliable and we may have to use a federal referendum. But that is a decision to be made then. All we are talking about now is the power to have such a referendum; we are not making a decision to go ahead with it.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, just a word about spirit. It seems to me this is really much more important than structural changes. After all, we have no one to negotiate with right now while we are awaiting the referendum. It is really the spirit of our country, the spirit of our government, the spirit of our people which counts.
It seems to me that we ought to have a national nationalism-not one of Quebec, nor of the west, nor of the maritimes, nor even one of Ontario which likes to regard itself as the heartland of the country; not nationalism of that kind, but one which tries to embrace the whole country, one which gives all people in the country a feeling of "at homeness". It should be one based upon survival-the survival which we achieved over so many centuries here-upon the land and the people-upon the French fact and also upon the multicultural nature of our
The Address-Mr. MacGuigan country. It should be based on the social tolerance that we have. In some ways, perhaps the most important of all, because it sums all the others up, is our sense of liberty, as meaning variety or diversity, a kind of fullness which allows us to choose among various kinds of life modes and lifestyles and ways of living in our country.
The Canadian sense of freedom stems in part from the British tradition, which is more relaxed than that of the American because it is less conceptualistic. But I believe that its principal source is the French fact in Canada, which has compelled the recognition of diversity from the Quebec Act on. This in-built diversity has never been entirely welcomed by some Anglo-Saxon elements, but it has had to be accepted as the condition of national existence. In my view it is the foundation stone of our political independence from the United States and of our national uniqueness. The English tradition prepared us for the intellectual acceptance of diversity; the French Canadian presence rendered diversity a necessity.
Our national experiment is only beginning to mature. It arrived at formal acceptance of official bilingualism in the sixties and of multiculturalism in the seventies. It needs to be understood and consciously embraced by the mass of Canadians. It also requires an expansion of outlook to include equality, so that the colourful mosaic does not remain fixed as a permanently vertical one. Here is enough for decades of national striving. It is a goal well worth the efforts of a free people. It justifies, even demands, the preservation of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. According to the unanimous consent received earlier I see it is now five o'clock. This House stands adjourned until Monday until 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(2).
At 5.09 p.m. o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, October 24, 1977