1978-10-18

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing public necessity, namely, that unless the strike of the 800 maritime engineers and deck officers which has stopped shipping on the Great Lakes is ended without delay, it has been estimated by the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that 150 million bushels of wheat that were to be shipped on the Great Lakes between now and the end of the shipping season will not be shipped, thereby resulting in the catastrophic loss of $400 million to western farmers and a most serious blow to the economy of the western provinces.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That as the seriousness of the situation will not brook further delay, the government should forthwith introduce legislation to end this strike.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Turned down by Liberal members.


ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES SALARIES OF ACTORS AND ACTRESSES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which affects this nation's cultural health and the increasing unemployment among creative artists.
In view of recent reports issued by Statistics Canada that Canada's full-time actors and actresses are paid less than
one-half the average industrial wage across Canada, and in light of the failure of the government to act on the recommendations of its own study entitled "Federal Tax Issues of Concern to the Arts Community in Canada", known as the Disney report, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That this House refer the Disney report to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts for immediate study, where the Secretary of State, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Employment and Immigration may be called to appear and explain their lack of action in resolving the financial hardship of some of our country's most creative people.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
Given the fact that the bilingualism bonus has always been an incentive for employees who have to work in both official languages either in the public service or in the House of Commons, that abolition of this bonus is unfair to those who invested their time in learning the other language and considering also that Francophones are more penalized by this since they represent the majority of those receiving bonuses, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the House urge the government to change its decision and to maintain the bilingualism bonus program until 1983 as it was previously set up.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 18, 1978


FORESTRY
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, involving the welfare of pulpwood producers in some areas of the Atlantic provinces such as New Brunswick and the need for establishing alternate markets abroad. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That Canada, as a member of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), make every effort, on an urgent basis, to facilitate exports of pulpwood from provinces such as New Brunswick where the forest industry is so basic to the economy and offers an opportunity for utilizing surplus labour, as well as helping our balance of trade.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CUSTOMS
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and urgent matter.
As I know from reliable sources that Mirabel airport customs officers work to rule because they are forced to wear a cap and that tourists are welcomed in such a way that, for example, the head of a foreign corporation who had come to Canada to invest $15 million has changed his mind because of the reception he got from customs officers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Jean (Mr. Smith):
That the House devote 20 minutes to discuss this urgent matter which seriously harms Canada and Quebec in particular.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have delayed seeking the floor under the provisions of Standing Order 43 because I hoped that the Prime Minister might arrive in time and be one who would give support to the motion I should like to offer. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls on the government to introduce legislation to provide for pensions under both the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to be available to all persons between ages 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market, and this House expresses the hope that the Prime Minister will give full support to the introduction of this legislation in view of the fact that today he is 59 and that he could, and probably will, be unemployed before he reaches 60.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MOVEMENT OF BARLEY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgency. In view of the fact that this is the second successive year that western barley producers have experienced serious problems due to lack of co-operation on the part of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and the weatherman, leaving large stocks of barley on farms, and plugged elevators, with piles of grain deteriorating on the ground, creating financial losses through fire-sale prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board take immediate remedial steps to move barley at board prices or, if he is too busy or unwilling to accept his responsibility, to turn it over to somebody who will.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
October 18, 1978


BROADCASTING
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 in the hope of providing a greater sense of participation in the country. In view of the fact that seven of the ten provinces have no full-time representation on the CRTC, while six of the nine full-time members come from one province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the Prime Minister create openings in the CRTC by inviting resignations, especially since he showed such singular success in having one of his candidates in Toronto resign.


FORESTRY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgency and national interest.
In view of the announced intention of the government to close the Petawawa forestry station as of next March 31, in view of the nationwide importance of this station for forestry research and development in the country, and also in view of the fact that this decision contradicts the decision taken by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology to give national priority to research and development, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House instruct the government to appropriate the funds necessary for the operation of the Petawawa forestry station, in order to ensure the availability of forest resources and permanency in the area of research.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion put by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgency. The government's announced intention to repeal the
Oral Questions
Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act is in direct conflict with the arguments of the former minister of finance that the act would avoid inducing provinces to nationalize their private utility companies.
Since the repeal of the act would result in discriminatory taxation against certain Canadians and inhibit the development by private enterprise of future power sites, as well as alienating tens of thousands of Canadians, particularly western Canadians, on the grounds of unity, energy supply and tax equity, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the government announce its intention to retain the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act and that alternative and less discriminatory means be found to accomplish its announced reduced spending goals.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question follows the excellent motion presented under Standing Order 43 by the right hon. member for Prince Albert which was rejected by the Minister of Transport and his colleagues on the other side.
In view of the concerns expressed by the Canadian Wheat Board, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the United Grain Growers, the Canada Grains Council and Premier, pro tern, Blakeney of Saskatchewan, amongst others, who are expecting immediate action to end the strike that is presently tying up the movement of grain on the Great Lakes, could the minister please advise the House what assurances he is giving these various agencies, particularly the one under his responsibility, that he will be getting the grain moving on the Great Lakes again, immediately?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to note that after the right hon. gentleman had finished putting his motion under Standing Order 43-which as usual was given a negative response-the right hon. gentleman went over and handed the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar the question and told him to ask it.
8006S-1S

October 18, 1978
Oral Questions


Mr. Lawrence:: What do you expect him to do-mail it?


Otto Emil Lang: Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar called in aid the premier of Saskatchewan who has asked me to see that this strike ends, which I found a little funny after he took four months to end a strike in the construction industry in the province of Saskatchewan, under his jurisdiction.
The fact is that at this moment, under the auspices of the Minister of Labour and also because of my strong interest in this matter, the parties are meeting. There is a significant chance of a settlement. I hope that hon. members of this House will agree that if a settlement can be achieved, that is the right result.
In addition, in accordance with exchanges in the House on earlier days, it is very clear that we on this side know the importance of this matter and will act as we have to act. But without any doubt, unless they are suggesting a complete throwing out of the collective bargaining process, the best possible solution is for the meeting of the parties today to produce a satisfactory settlement. That is what I hope will happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I advise the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that when it becomes time for me to decide from whom to take advice, I will take the right hon. member for Prince Albert over him any day of the week.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In view of the continual vague answers that the minister continues to give in this regard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would ask hon. members on the other side to quieten down so that I may ask my question of the minister. The last time we had a strike involving the grain industry, with the grain handlers, we had something like 84 ships in the Vancouver port and 70 shipping days lost before the government took any action. Can the minister tell us whether it will take that long now for the government to take any action with regard to getting the grain moving again? Winter is coming and we need action now.


Otto Emil Lang: Of course, it will not take a long time. There is a time when we must move, as we demonstrated in the case of the postal strike when it was clear that there was not going to be a settlement. This government took its responsibility and put legislation before this House.
If the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar is going to take his advice from the right hon. member, I can understand that. He is already taking, in support, Premier Blakeney who faced with a strike did not know how to settle it and asks us how to settle it. I ask the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar-rhetorically, of course does he suggest that while the parties are meeting we

should be here legislating in relation to this matter? Surely his hope and mine should be that there be a reasonable settlement. What the irresponsibility of the opposition allows is to demand action without suggesting any responsible form of solution. That is their pleasure in opposition, and let their pleasure continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: This minister and this government continue to have an eleventh-hour mentality with regard to labour relations in this country. We want to know, very simply, whether it is possible for the minister, who thinks very much like the premier, pro tern, of Saskatchewan with regard to labour relations, to tell us the timetable. What does the government have in mind with regard to this strike? Is legislation going to be presented, or are they going to wait until there is an irreversible trend in shipments on the Great Lakes which will cause serious damage not only to western Canada but across this country with regard to the mining faction, coal deliveries and iron ore? There are a number of areas. What is the minister's timetable?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the timetable is to see the discussions, which are going on, continue. I ask the hon. member whether he woud disagree with that approach, whether he would, while the discussions are going on and while a settlement may be arrived at this very afternoon, move in with what he calls a tenth-hour mentality. It would be a very weak mentality to move in at that stage. Surely we should let the bargaining process solve the problem if it can. If it cannot, obviously we will react to the situation at that moment. However, it would not be helpful to say what the course of action will be. This collective bargaining atmosphere should settle the issue. The parties are meeting at this very moment: the hon. member should take note of that fact.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport why he makes the suggestion that our call for action is irresponsible, when the Woods commission over ten years ago advocated a public interest disputes commission to deal with this kind of thing. Who is being irresponsible? They have been in power for ten years, but suggest it is us.
My question is this: during these negotiations, did not either the Department of Transport or the Department of Labour realize there was every potential for a breakdown in these negotiations and a rejection of the conciliation report? Was there no monitoring whatsoever of this situation, bearing in mind that this is an area so vital to our industrial health?


Otto Emil Lang: The answer to that question is yes, of course there was. For a number of days I have been in constant touch with the parties and with people associated with this problem, keeping myself informed as to where the matter stood. I must say it was a great surprise to me that members of the opposition did not appear to know that this threat was even
October 18, 1978

impending, though it had been building up for three months. We were aware of the situation. It was one of disagreement between employer and employee organizations as to the level at which a settlement should take place. There was a conciliator's report which was not acceptable to the parties as a solution to the dispute.
Members of the opposition, in their irresponsibility, need not say whether they agree or disagree with the conciliator's report or with the position taken by the employers or by the employees. They simply called for action. They do not even suggest what action we should take. Are they saying we should not follow the collective bargaining route?


John Allen Fraser: It may be that the minister has known about this for three months, but this is the first time he has got excited about it. Has the Department of Transport, or any other department in the government, made an assessment of the damage this strike would cause to the economy? Has any department made an assessment of the damage which could be caused in one week or two weeks, bearing in mind that if a settlement is not reached before freeze-up the damage will have been done and nothing can be done to offset it until next spring? If such an assessment has been made, is the government prepared to tell the public what it is?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we carried out an assessment along those lines as we began to learn about the problem. As I have indicated in the House, the damage is very serious. That does not alter the fact that we have here a collective bargaining situation framed in the law which allows the parties to attempt to come to a conclusion, and it would be wrong for us, in advance of finding that the collective bargaining procedure has failed, to interfere with it. At this very moment discussions are going on. As the hon. member has mentioned, I am rarely excited, but I am always an optimist and I am optimistic that we shall see a settlement later this day.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The noted and conservative consulting firm of Woods, Gordon and Co., Toronto, released a report yesterday indicating that the Canadian economy is heading into a recession in 1979 and forecasts an unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent, along with an economic growth rate of only 2 per cent or 2.5 per cent.
Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether his department is aware of this report and, in particular, does he agree with the conclusions it reaches, namely, that the cutbacks announced by the government and supported by the official opposition will constitute a major drag on the economy next year and that the private sector is unlikely to fill that important investment gap?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: I do not agree with those predictions, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if, just for once, the Minister of Finance would give us some evidence for the conclusion he has reached, namely, that they are wrong. Since this consulting firm, which is hardly known for its radicalism, has come on top of another economic consulting firm in Ottawa last week which said the cutbacks would lead to a decrease of 100,000 or 96,000 jobs, would the Minister of Finance please tell the House and the people of Canada why he disagrees with this forecasting, which is based on an economic analysis of the consequences of his cutbacks?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there will be a budget four or five weeks from now and I will discuss all those aspects at that time. I do not agree with the conclusion that the expenditure cuts will create the loss of 100,000 jobs. I say there might be the immediate loss of some jobs, but I think it is important to the Canadian economy to create the proper climate for investment which would create many more jobs, and we believe that jobs should not be created by the public sector but by the private sector.


John Edward Broadbent: I suppose we will have to wait for that budget. I will deal now with another aspect of economic policy in the hope that we can get an answer from the Minister of Finance. Major financial institutions in Canada have announced in recent days an additional half per cent increase in their lending rates and in their prime mortgage rates, which cumulatively means that for this year mortgages have increased by 1.5 per cent, adding $9,000 in mortgage interest payments during the life of a typical $30,000 mortgage for the typical family in Canada.
Given this disastrous economic implication of rising interest rates for the typical home owner in Canada, will the minister take this opportunity to say that he will instruct the financial institutions to rescind this recent increase in mortgage rates?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not have such power. Interest rates are set in Canada by the Bank of Canada.

[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the right hon. Prime Minister, I shall put my question to the Minister of Finance. Anyway, I believe he is the one who holds the knife.
The government having announced that it will cancel, without prior consultation with the unions, the bilingualism bonus, as that decision penalizes Francophones more generally
80065-15>/2

October 18, 1978
Oral Questions
because they are concerned in greater numbers, I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has reassessed the situation and intends to introduce a new timetable for the abolition of that famous program?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the problem of bilingualism bonuses is the responsibility of my colleague the President of the Treasury Board. I shall advise him of the comments of the hon. member for Roberval.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Roberval wish to put a supplementary?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who indicated in response to an earlier question that interest rates are set in Canada by the Bank of Canada. However, hon. members will recall that yesterday, in answer to my question as to whether rising interest rates will mean that mortgage interest rates will go up, the minister stated:
I would think the market has more or less taken care of that situation... there is a lot of money available for mortgages and competition is keeping interest rates as low as possible-
Would the minister tell us what went wrong overnight, because mortgage companies and at least two of our chartered banks have already announced a half point increase in their mortgage lending interest rate starting today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I indicated yesterday and want to confirm today that, in fact, mortgage rates in Canada have not increased as rapidly as the interest rate of the Bank of Canada. That is what I attempted to do by demonstrating there is quite a lot of money available for mortgages, and that the market had reacted in such a way that mortgage rates have not increased as much as the Bank of Canada rate, all things considered.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that construction unemployment is at 17 per cent in the country and that the Woods, Gordon forecast states that housing starts may be as low as 217,000 this year, compared with a projected 245,000, would the minister indicate what he intends to do about the housing situation in Canada, bearing in mind that the cost of a half point increase in mortgage rates will mean that still further thousands of Canadians who might have bought homes will be denied the privilege and, in fact, the right to own their own homes?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think I must repeat that the rates of interest for mortgages are set by the market. The market has reacted to the increase in the interest rate in Canada due to the many factors that were explained in the release of the governor of the Bank of Canada last week.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed again to the Minister of Finance, who indicated that mortgage rates are set by the market. But the minister has it within his power to resort to various processes by which he can relieve the lot of the home owner who must bear the high mortgage interest rates caused by his government. Would he indicate what type of relief he is at least considering, bearing in mind that he turned down the proposal for the mortgage interest deductibility for home owners and the municipal tax deductibility?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, we will have a budget four weeks from now. In the meantime, I am very surprised to hear from the mouths of opposition members constant complaints about the deficit of the government, yet they are proposing we spend $5 billion more in this context of lack of revenue. With that type of policy, you would achieve a $17 billion cash requirement, something to which I am not about to subscribe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


TRADE DEFICIT-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As this country achieved a trade deficit of $8.25 billion in the first eight months of this year in fully manufactured products, the ones which produce the jobs, despite the fact that the 85-cent dollar helped exports and slowed down imports, does the government intend to introduce the same kind of trade promotion program which was used by the previous Conservative government to change eight straight years of trade deficit into a trade surplus in the first year, and by so doing start to overcome this gigantic trade deficit in the kind of products that produce jobs?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, in thinking back to the time when the former Conservative government, to which the hon. member referred, had total exports of about $10 billion, one-third of which was equal to the deficit in end products, we must realize that we have had a tremendous growth in our trade since those days. Now our total exports amount to $44 billion and a substantially shrinking portion of that is the deficit in end products.
Our export of end products this year will increase by some 13.2 per cent. We are making gigantic strides in the export of end products and, in fact, two-thirds of our total exports are
October 18, 1978

end products and prefabricated goods. So 1 am confident that this year we will have the largest merchandising trade surplus we have ever had in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware that the sole reason for the merchandise trade surplus is the vast quantities of our primary products which this government allows to be exported to other countries in their raw state, to be processed there into finished products by the workers of those countries instead of by Canadians here in Canada?
I would ask the minister this question: when does the government intend to introduce a policy which would require those who export our primary products in their raw state to process a far greater proportion here in this country and to introduce generous tax incentives-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: -to induce the building of factories in which those primary products can be processed to their final state here in Canada, and give Canadians the jobs they deserve?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, at one time one had hope for some of those used, worn-out old horses over there-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: They have crossed the floor.


Mr. Clark:: We sent half a horse over to your side.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: As one who has ridden many horses and raised quite a few of them, I should be able to recognize the used and worn-out ones.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But, Mr. Speaker, let me bring the former cabinet minister up to date on the current facts in 1978, rather than those of 1961 and 1962. Today, our total exports are comprised of about 10 per cent of our agricultural commodities. About 20 per cent of them are minerals, including oil and gas. That leaves 70 per cent in end products and prefabricated products. That is the breakdown of our total export trade. It is a substantial improvement over the period in which the hon. member loves to live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was glad I could bring him up to date.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: I will murder the bum. Step out into the aisle, Jack, and I will show you who is worn out.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A recent government study indicates that the impact of the government's Canada Works program on the total unemployment scene is not very significant. I should like to ask the minister whether, first of all, he is aware of the study by his department and, further, whether he concurs with the findings of the evaluation committee.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, at a time of high unemployment it is incumbent upon the government, of whatever political stripe, to come up with direct job-creation programs such as Canada Works and Young Canada Works. But not being satisfied with that, it seems to me that it would be appropriate to make more effective use of the funding we used in these temporary make-work programs. So on that basis we established an economic growth component factor so that we can create permanent jobs, and two provinces to date are benefiting from the forestry program in job creation.
We have the emergency response feature which has helped in particular one-industry towns where some people have suddenly found themselves unemployed, and we have been able to put that program in place. We are gradually moving from a temporary job operation to more permanent job creation. So the weaknesses in those temporary programs have been recognized. That is why we are trying to strengthen them with more long-term job creation programs in co-operation with the provinces.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In view of that re-evaluation of Canada Works which is taking place, and in view of the fact that the government has spent half a billion dollars from early 1977 on Canada Works projects, I should like to ask the minister whether some of that money in this fiscal year will be redirected to the job creation he has mentioned, namely, long-term jobs in the private sector apart from Canada Works?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We announced, I think early in September, something like 14 or 15 different programs which are in place to help with direct job creation, and we are working in close concert with private enterprise. The funding that we saved from the Canada Works program means, of course, that more money is available to be redirected to areas where I think we could create more permanent jobs which would have a more long-term, positive impact on the employment picture.

October 18, 1978
Oral Questions


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In light of the fact that in the first half of this year a total of $910 million in direct investment capital left this country, most of it heading for the United States, and considering that this outflow is greater than in any other half-year on record, and also considering the fact that the outflow is almost twice the amount of six months ago and three times the amount of a year ago, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, now that he has returned to the House, why we are now getting this unprecedented outflow of capital.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the flow of capital between Canada and the United States has been a phenomenon that has worked both ways for a long time. I am advised that the situation today is basically not worse in relation to the total economy than it was some ten years ago.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, this outflow of capital started three years ago and is increasing right now. What steps will the minister take to restore investor confidence in Canada? As he stated earlier this afternoon, he is depending on the private sector to create jobs. As investor money is leaving the country, jobs are being created in the United States and not in Canada. What will he do to restore investor confidence?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in the last little while we have done a lot. We decided to cut the size of the federal government and we have cut spending for next year by $2 billion. In order to maintain confidence in Canada, I think everyone should realize that if we promise to increase the deficit by a further $5 billion, it is not conducive to more confidence. That is why we are showing more restraint and responsibility on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OLD AGE SECURITY
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that people aged 60 who receive the spouse's allowance lose it when their spouse dies after having reached the age of 65, thereby becoming dependent on welfare and losing their vested interests, can the minister tell the House whether she intends to set up some mechanism to correct this situation?


Hon.   Monique@: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week we tabled in the House a bill to amend the Old Age Security Act which provides that the recipient who has not yet reached retirement age but
who loses his or her spouse will continue to receive the pension for a six-month period in order to allow time to readapt to the new financial condition.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns the report of the Foreign Investment Review Agency which I believe was distributed to members of parliament today. The report indicates that in the last year 50 per cent of the takeovers were takeovers of existing Canadian businesses, which is an increase from 38 per cent in the previous year.
Is it the policy of the government to encourage the takeover of Canadian businesses by foreign investment, in view of the change in the statistics which the report discloses?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that is not the view or the policy of the Canadian government. In FIRA applications, we look for applications which clearly demonstrate significant benefit to Canada, and then we permit them.
As I mentioned in my speech the other day, the enterprise development program assisted something like 256 different businesses by ensuring loans to them within the last year. All but seven of those businesses were solely Canadian owned. More or less, that demonstrates our policy. We want to encourage investment and we want to make certain that the investment is of significant benefit to Canada.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, the statistics show that in almost every case approval was granted; the turndowns were almost at a minimum. I think the turndowns numbered 14 in the previous year. The Science Council of Canada recently published a report indicating that one of the major problems in our economy is foreign ownership not being interested in Canadian export and making sure their technology is developed at their head offices and not here in Canada.
In view of the report of the Science Council of Canada calling into question the entire concept of foreign ownership, does the minister intend to make any changes to the Foreign Investment Review Act in this session, in an attempt to accommodate some of the views of the Science Council of Canada, which views have been thoroughly researched, in order to get our economy back on the road and Canadian owned?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in every Foreign Investment Review Agency application we search for a number of things

October 18, 1978

which will be of significant benefit to Canada. The possible advancement of Canadian ownership of a company is one matter which is taken very, very seriously into consideration. There must be provision made for eventual Canadian management and Canadian ownership. There must be significant improvement in the employment and investment of a given company which is being taken over. There must be a significant amount of new research and development being conducted in Canada. There must be the encouragement of-


Charles Joseph Clark: Think of another one, Jack.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That little boy never invested a nickel in any Canadian business, so I would not take advice from him. It must be proven that the takeover is of significant benefit to Canada. In the FIRA applications, approximately one-third of them are American companies taking over existing American companies in Canada.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In my view it is a fairly important question in terms of waste and inefficiency. A serious question has arisen as to whom or what agency evaluates the effectiveness of government programs. It is my view and understanding, which I think the minister indicated to me, that the planning branch of Treasury Board is the central body. Given the fact that the government likes to waste money, will the minister clarify this question at this time?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, many evaluations are done jointly by the departments themselves under agreed on but stiff criteria established by Treasury Board. I think the hon. member is referring to possible readjustment of the organization within Treasury Board to reduce our expenditures in that central agency, as well as other departments of the government. Indeed, there will be a consolidation of planning, perhaps under the program branch.
In so far as evaluations are concerned, I see no way of its affecting our ability to conduct them. Indeed, in the Speech from the Throne we announced that they would be made available to parliament from here on.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one supplementary question. In light of the fact that the planning branch within the minister's department was the central body, will he advise whether in fact there will be a central body which will evaluate the effectiveness of government programs? Is there such a central body?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the central body will be the remainder of Treasury Board. An effectiveness performance measurement was initiated as a process by the planning branch, but the actual carrying out of the performance measurements throughout the government, and the actual evaluation of any program, in our view is much better conducted by the department involved under the guidance and direction of the central agency, Treasury Board, many of which functions have been carried out in the past and will be in the future by the program branch.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, normally this question would be directed to either the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the Prime Minister, but perhaps I can direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council as I am sure he is well aware of this situation. It concerns the Land Registration and Information Service which has done some very important work in the maritime provinces in terms of updating land mapping and registration.
Given the government's unilateral decision to suspend support for this program at the halfway point, can the minister indicate what consultation took place with the three provincial governments involved prior to the announcement by the federal government? What amount of millions of dollars of waste will occur as a result of the incompletion of this program, particularly and primarily in the minister's province of Nova Scotia?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the nature of the consultations which took place, if any, before the announcement by the Government of Canada of its effort to cut costs. Rather than believe, as the hon. member has indicated, that it will lead to waste, it will lead to reduced federal expenditures.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Has the minister consulted with any people in the LRIS branch with a view to the creation of a substantial number of jobs in an export industry providing new expertise in this important area to the United States and countries in Europe?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first expression used by the hon. member. If he will read the speech I made in his home province the other evening, he will realize that I placed a great deal of emphasis on increasing our expertise in export-oriented industries.

October 18, 1978
Oral Questions LOTO CANADA


CONTRACT WITH GENERAL INSTRUMENTS
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Is one of the conditions for the federal government's withdrawal in lottery gainings of under $10 that the provinces would take over the contract with General Instruments?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, that was not exactly the agreement: it was that the federal government and the two provincial governments involved would share the resolution of the contract.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, in the agreement which was reached, has there been any agreement with the provinces that they will pick up that contract, or is it just that the two provinces involved and the federal government might share in the cost for getting out of that contract?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, it is a combination of the two elements which the hon. member brings forward. Some of the equipment will be used and some of it will not. Also, the contract itself will be resolved, as I indicated in my first answer.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, I would like to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I have before me so-called confidential cabinet documents submitted by the former minister of labour outlining a number of potential long-range solutions to the ongoing labour unrest particularly in the central services. It concludes, in short, "it is clear that the system today lacks coherence and has a great potential for conflict," which is an understatement, in any event.
My question is this: in view of the continuing ad hoc actions taken by this government, can the Deputy Prime Minister advise this House whether or not he, the Prime Minister and his cabinet have rejected the proposals outlined in this document, or has the government simply given up in proposing any long-range programs on the labour situation other than turning agencies into Crown corporations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in a position to authenticate the document from which the hon. member has quoted. I would say that this government still believes in the system of free collective bargaining as a foundation and cornerstone for a democratic society. Even though

that principle has to be reached, as it was yesterday because of the public interest, I do not believe that the long-term solution is through engrafting upon our system such notions as public interest disputes commissions which seem to offer no additional assurance that collective bargaining would proceed more smoothly.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, nobody is questioning the collective bargaining system. The fact is that there is a definite lack of long-range policies by this government. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a more specific question, that is, whether the government is considering one of the proposals in this document, that of sector bargaining. In other words, would they eliminate some units within each single sector so that one single sector within the public service would be able to deal with the government simultaneously, thereby eliminating or postponing strikes or walk-outs at least for the duration of that one contract by that one sector? Is the government considering this, and can we have it brought before this House of Commons in the very near future?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member has misunderstood the questions that emanated from his side of the House today, since at a time when collective bargaining was proceeding and when negotiations were in process, action was being called for in the way of legislating a settlement. That is what I regard as a failure to understand the dynamics and, to some extent, the costs of free collective bargaining.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if the government is considering raising the airport tax which is paid by the travelling Canadian from $8 to an unbelievably high $13; if so, could he inform the House when the Ministry of Transport intends to put this raise into effect?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that we are examining the question of increasing the revenue from those who use air services in Canada against the costs of providing that service, as indicated earlier by the President of the Treasury Board. I cannot at this stage say the exact manner in which that will be done but, of course, an announcement on that matter will be made in due course.


INDUSTRY
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the questions of the hon. member for New Westminster and it is to the Minister of
October 18, 1978

Industry, Trade and Commerce regarding the takeover by foreign companies as adjudicated by FIRA.
In view of the recent adjudication by FIRA on the takeover of the Northwood Mills lumber manufacturing organization owned by Noranda Mines, in British Columbia, by Weyerhaeuser Corporation, a multinational company based in the United States, in view of the fact a consortium of independent lumber manufacturers in British Columbia was able and willing to take over this company, and in view of the very limited response by the government as to why this was given to Weyerhaeuser, I would ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, why FIRA adjudicated in favour of this multinational and not in favour of the Canadian independent manufacturers?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, let me explain first of all that FIRA is not an auction market. It hears, confidentially, applications from a company to take over another company. We were aware that there were Canadian interests, but they were not the buyers. They did not have the money to buy and they did not have the permission of the British Columbia government to the timber rights. The British Columbia government was in complete favour of the decision made by FIRA and the cabinet. The decision was made based on that particular application because that company agreed to a purchase price in the neighbourhood of $25 million.
Over and above the purchase price, it was then prepared to spend $3 million in R and D in Canada for improving environmental conditions, $2.2 million to enlarge the cutting mills and $14 million to enlarge the pulp mill in Kamloops. So they were prepared to spend $19.2 million in Canada in addition to the purchase price. This was far and above what the Canadian concerns could do, and in complete agreement with the British Columbia government which allots the cutting rights.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the money was there and that the Canadian companies were prepared to do exactly what the multinational corporation was going to do. It was not a question of the British Columbia government allotting forest rights; it was a question of buying forest rights. In view of the knowledge that is there and present on almost every aspect of what the minister has said, I would ask him what real, comprehensive review did his department make of this situation, other than to take some of the presentations made by the multinationals and the big Canadian company to the cabinet?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the opposition is worried about the investment in Canada and the fact that it is going out of the country and, on the other hand, they want the cabinet to restrict a company like this. In this particular case Weyerhaeuser put in an option to buy Northwood which, if I remember correctly, was good until November 1. We were under the impression that the smaller Canadian companies could not come up with the financing before November 1.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker


George H. Whittaker: That is wrong.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I hear some experts over there saying that it is wrong. I suppose they are prepared to finance the Canadian company.


An hon. Member:: Are you an expert?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In any case, FIRA is not an auction market; it operated confidentially. If hon. members opposite would like to make FIRA into an auction market, I would think that the hon. member for Lethbridge, who is not running again for that party and who is a very good auctioneer, could be appointed the auctioneer perhaps; but it is not an auction market.


FORESTRY
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Environment).
As a result of many representations made by research groups, forest conservation organizations as well as the employees of the Petawawa station, will the government reconsider its decision to close that station on March 31, 1979?
I am asking the same question again, Mr. Speaker. As a result of many representations made by research groups as well as Crown corporations, that is organizations supervising the conservation of forests, as well as the employees of the Petawawa station will the government reconsider its decision to close the station on March 31, 1979?


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order that arises out of the events of last Monday which caused 15 new members to be elected to this House, and which raises a problem with respect to their rights as members of parliament. Although they have not been sworn in yet, and I gather cannot be sworn in until next week, perhaps Tuesday or Wednesday, they nonetheless represent one million Canadians and they come from all regions of the country. They are, in effect, members of parliament. I do not think that because of timing they ought to be denied the rights of members of parliament. One of those rights is the presentation of motions and bills for consideration by this House. I understand a draw will be made with respect to the position of private members' bills and motions on the order paper tomor-
230

October 18, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker
row. If that is the case, and the lines are drawn tomorrow, those 15 members, who represent all the parties in this House, will be outside the pale in that draw.
I wonder if Your Honour would look into this matter to see if an arrangement can be made to ensure that all these new members have the same rights as members who are here today.
I have one suggestion, and there may be others by other members. Perhaps 50 places could be reserved in the draw and these members allowed to compete for those places. I would appreciate it if Your Honour would consider this difficulty which deprives these people of the right to participate fully in the work of this House. I raise it because I know Your Honour's concern about giving members of parliament a chance to express themselves through this part of our Standing Orders.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I support fully the proposal made by colleague, the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In addition to the argument he put forward I think it is worth bearing in mind that those who are coming into the House next week will represent constituents who have not been represented in this House for over a year. There are many causes of local concern which they may want to bring before the House in the form of motions or private members' bills. I think they should be given every opportunity to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in support of this commendable suggestion, I wonder if it could not be agreed that there be a meeting of House leaders to see if we can do something about it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a separate point of order, but if you agree I would let others speak on the point of order that is being dealt with now. Maybe I should say I would be happy to discuss this question, or have my parliamentary secretary discuss it with representatives of the other parties.
I think I should indicate that in view of the fact the throne speech debate is continuing today-as I understand it today is the fifth appointed day-tomorrow I propose to call legislation. I will begin with the bill in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) seeking additional borrowing authority, to be followed by a bill in the name of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) amending the Old Age Security Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. On the point of order raised originally by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the matter of the draw for private members' bills and private members' notices of motions, this was scheduled to take place at two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. Because we are likely to be on the throne speech we will be sitting at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. Perhaps consultations could take place and the Chair could be advised by eleven o'clock in the morning, if some arrangement has been made. That would be very helpful. It has now been agreed it is not going to be a day

for that-the House leaders could in any case advise the Chair in the morning and we could perhaps even defer the two o'clock draw and make some arrangement which would be satisfactory to House leaders. Perhaps I could be advised in the morning of the result of those deliberations.


PRIVILEGE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier in the afternoon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), answering a question from the opposition, conveyed some information which I think is inaccurate and I should like to give him the opportunity either to correct me or correct the impression he left.
In reply to a question he said that, if you look at Canadian exports, the recent figures showed that we were sending out of the country some 10 per cent in agriculture, 20 per cent in oil, gas and minerals, and some 70 per cent in end products and prefabricated goods.
Those figures sounded very strange to me, Mr. Speaker, so I had them checked during the question period. I found from the most recent data, which I have in my hand and which I will provide to the House and the minister because, as I say, I would like him to correct me or to correct what he said that the most recent table for 1977 has, in millions of dollars, a total export figure of $44,565 million in exports. Out of this total there is in the automotive sector $10,168 million, in other manufacturing goods only $4,778 million. If you compare those two combined as a percentage of our total exports it comes out to only about one-third of them, which is the figure which came roughly to my mind of manufactured or end products only making up about one-third of our exports. Beyond that, of course, we had a deficit in manufacturing trade of some $11 billion in manufactured products in 1977.
I should like the minister to take this opportunity to expand on what he included in those earlier figures. Certainly it was my impression and, I think, the impression of most people who follow trade patterns in Canada, that just the opposite situation exists to the impression he wants to leave-that we continue to rely on the export of unfinished goods instead of finished goods.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the Leader of the New Democratic Party's (Mr. Broadbent) explanation of what actually happened in our trade. Let me explain clearly what took place. I include automotive parts and automobiles in manufactured, in semi-processed and prefabricated goods. We had a total export trade last year of something better than $44 billion; in agricultural products, we exported something slightly better than $4 billion.
October 18, 1978


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Mr. Woolliams:: That does not include wheat.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, it does.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to continue. Concerning minerals, including oil and gas, we exported something better than $8 billion.


John Edward Broadbent: Right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The rest is end products plus prefabricated materials including lumber, aluminium ingots, etc. That is what I said, 10 per cent; 20 per cent; and 70 per cent. I will gladly check those figures with my own files tomorrow, but I am certain I am in the ballpark.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-9, respecting Public Referendums in Canada on questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 17, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Ursula Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Clark) (p. 27).
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House agreed yesterday to defer the division scheduled for 9.45 p.m. on the fourth day, to this afternoon. Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed with the vote at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The Address-Division


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the amendment lost. The question is upon the motion.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, l do not know if it is appropriate to raise a point of order at this time with respect to House business. I will take Your Honour's advice, but there is a matter which came up just before the vote, and I think it is something which ought to be explored here in the House.
Just before the bells began to ring for the vote the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) rose in his place and announced that we would be breaking off the throne speech debate as of tomorrow and that we would be proceeding with government business. It is his right to do that if that is his wish, but I regret to say that is is not in keeping nor in accordance with the undertaking which he gave in the House on October 12 when we discussed the question of House business. We were talking on that day about a possible House leaders' meeting, and I asked whether he was planning a meeting of House leaders to discuss, among other things, the length of the throne speech debate and the order of the business of the House so that the House could, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), get down to the business of legislating.
The Deputy Prime Minister said in reply that there would be a House leaders' meeting on the following Wednesday. There has been no such House leaders' meeting.
I raise this matter for two reasons. The Deputy Prime Minister has announced the intention of breaking off the throne speech debate which, as I said, he can do, but we are left in limbo as to the question of whether the throne speech debate is ever to be terminated. I think the House is entitled to some clarification with respect to that because there is an opportunity for the opposition to put another motion.
There is also a question with respect to the address which we are to present to Her Majesty's representative. Aside from the fact that it may well be an affront to the Governor General to leave the matter hanging the way it is, I think it is important that hon. members of this House know what the intentions of the Deputy Prime Minister are. There has been some public discussion outside this House with respect to the length of the throne speech debate, but it was always in terms of urging the government, if it was to abandon the throne speech debate, to abandon it for the purpose of bringing in a budget which would set forward the economic program of the government.

According to the Prime Minister, the reason we are here is to do something to stimulate the economy, and I hardly think that the bill which was announced, a bill to add $17 billion to the deficit of this country, is going to stimulate the economy. I think it is important that there be some understanding. Are we going to deal just with the two bills the Deputy Prime Minister announced? Have we abandoned the throne speech debate altogether?


John Edward Broadbent: I hope so.


Walter David Baker: It may well be that that is the appropriate thing to do, but not without consultation.
The third question is whether we have abandoned the consultations among House leaders which have characterized the operation of this House. I regret very much to have to raise this, but I think I must because, if this place is to operate effectively and appropriately, it must operate on consultations, and not on consultations which are promised and never brought about.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret to see the hon. member in such a state of excitement. There is no intention to abandon the debate on the address in reply. It can be brought forward later, if that is the wish of the House. I had understood that there was a general desire on the part of all hon. members to proceed with the legislative program which is on the order paper. That is what I propose to do tomorrow by beginning with what I consider to be a very important economic measure. The hon. member may regard it as not important, but that is a question for debate. There will be an important economic measure proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), and it will be followed by amendments to the Old Age Security Act.
There is no intention to abandon the throne speech debate. It can be brought forward, as appropriate, and hon. members will have an opportunity to move amendments if they wish, unless there is a unanimous desire not to proceed. However, I did feel that it was appropriate at this time to interrupt the debate because we have dealt with the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the subamendment moved by the New Democratic Party. The question of confidence has been disposed of so there is no further question about that.
The hon. member referred to the matter of a meeting. I have had numerous meetings over the last several days. There have been informal contacts with members of the opposition parties. We were in consultation yesterday, and while the hon. member feels he really needed a meeting, 1 do not really think there was much necessity for a meeting to decide to proceed with these important measures.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except that you gave your word, for what that is worth.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order to speak on behalf of my party. I would just like to indicate to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) that we agree with the decision to proceed with needed, important
October 18, 1978

legislation. If the Deputy Prime Minister is now saying that it is the disposition of the government to abandon the ritualistic throne speech debate, or at least substantially reduce the number of days for it, I think the people of Canada would welcome that as well as an opportunity to deal with legislation put before the House which would come to grips with the real problems which led to such an overwhelming expression of lack of confidence in this government, not simply by votes in this House, but by votes cast by the people of Canada a couple of days ago.
If the government could begin to redress that, it would certainly have our support. Let me just ask in that regard, because these things have to be worked out with the co-operation of all parties, whether the Deputy Prime Minister is saying that not only is it the government's desire to proceed with the bill he has announced for tomorrow but that it is also his understanding that, as far as the government is concerned, we will not return to the throne speech debate? If that is the government's desire, it is ours as well, but I would like to add an important proviso.
The rules provide that if we do not terminate the throne speech debate in a formal way, we cannot set up the committees of the House. That would be a serious setback to hon. members on this side of the House, who want to discuss important matters. If the Deputy Prime Minister wants to proceed now with legislation and to cut off what is largely a formality, the remainder of the throne speech debate, we are in agreement, but we insist that at the same time the government gives notice that it intends to set up the committees, which are very important, and to seek the necessary unanimous agreement of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not entirely sure that we are on safe ground on a point of order. We have discussed House business. It is the prerogative, as has been pointed out, of the government, as expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mac-Eachen), to switch off from the throne speech debate at any time, and it is not necessarily an abandonment, as he has said. What he has done and what he has announced today is in perfect order. I cannot find disorder. The subject of whether or not that is a good idea or whether the priority is right really belongs to the field of debate and is not a matter of order, and I think the matter really ought to rest there until we commence the business for tomorrow, at which time it might be the subject of debate. In the meantime, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) patiently awaits his turn to participate in the matter before the House today.


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Ursula Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session.
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, before congratulating the mover and seconder of the address in reply I would just like to refer to a comment made by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) a few minutes ago when he had the unparallelled audacity to suggest that the question of confidence in this government was disposed of by a vote that we had a few minutes ago. The question of confidence in this government was disposed of on Monday when people right across Canada showed how much confidence they had in the government, and if the Deputy Prime Minister wants to claim that there is confidence in the government, then he should go and advise the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to go to the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: This is a discredited government carrying on in a disgraceful manner after four years of their term have gone, hanging on by their fingernails, hanging on by their toenails, hanging by their handnails because they haven't got the courage to go to the Canadian people because they know what the answer is. The answer is what they got on Monday.
Let me congratulate the mover and seconder, who did an admirable job. The mover is an eloquent lady in particular. Today we had a spectacle that reminded me of Chairman Mao over in China when he said there, a few years ago, "May a hundred flowers grow". We've got 130 flowers that are withering on the other side of the House here today.
The only thing was that the 130 roses were here but the thorn was not here today-where was the Prime Minister? Is the Prime Minister so discouraged that he could not come, even though all these red roses are in the lapels of members in the House to welcome him?
Economics is a dismal science, but that science has become much more dismal in the last three or four years of this government. Is it now so dismal that one does not even like to refer to the economic statistics because the dismalness is so terrible that I do not think the people of Canada can stand much more of it.
Let us just have a quick look at what is the reason for the present economic state of Canada. Why did the Prime Minister rise in this chamber on Monday when asked a question by me about the increase in the interest rates by the central bank to 10.25 per cent, the highest increase since 1935 and the fifth increase in the last seven months, 2 per cent more than the central bank rate in the United States? The Prime Minister was asked how this corresponds with his pledge and bond to introduce a 5 per cent real growth rate in the economy, how does this correspond with the government's pledges to increase economic activity, employment and business investments in Canada. The only defence the Prime Minister has is that he is powerless, that Canada is powerless. We have a government that is powerless today to do anything to help the economic situation in Canada. When the U.S. raises its interest rates by half a percentage point, this government has to respond by

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
bouncing them up by three-quarters of a percentage point when we have already had four increases earlier this year. The government is powerless, and why? It is powerless because of its monumental incompetence in the last four or five years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is a prisoner not of the law but of its total incompetence. Their past mistakes, their total economic bankruptcies, that is what they are prisoners of. Now the Prime Minister of this country, which used to be looked up to as a powerful, confident country, must get up like a beggar in the House and say he can do nothing about the most outrageous increase in interest rates in our history, except perhaps for the great depression in the early 1930s. That is the government that said the question of confidence is disposed of. Like heck it is disposed of. It will only be disposed of when this government is disposed of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Look at the economic leadership of this government in the person of the lugubrious Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien). He used to be full of joy, vim, vitality, and smiles, but today he looks more sour than a prune. Who can have confidence in a minister of Finance of this government?
Here is a press clipping of June 23, 1978, from the Ottawa Journal which reads that the Minister of Finance predicts the growth for the year will be 5 per cent-"Tory member calls him Donald Duck." That was me, Mr. Speaker. He is Donald Duck because all he can do is squawk like the well-known Disney character. The minister predicted last June, only four months ago, that our economic growth rate for the year was going to be 5 per cent-that was the minister's prediction. The economists say that at best this year our growth rate will be 3.6 per cent. But the minister predicted 5 per cent. No wonder he is increasingly lugubrious, if that is the right term for the hon. gentleman. I do not know how it translates into French, but he is a lugubrious minister. The sooner he gets out, the less lugubrious the people of Canada will be.
How can you believe a word this minister says? His little shadow over there, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), was talking about horses today. We are told that this is supposed to be the Chinese year of the horse. We thought there would be an election this year, and we would find out what end of the horse. But we have not, and the election is not coming until next year. We saw what end of this horse this is the year of today when the honourable expert on horses spoke in the question period.
The Minister of Finance predicted what our merchandise surplus was going to be this year. He predicted it was going to be $4 billion. That was on September 28. On September 29 the August trade figures came down to show our balance was only $186 million for August. The minister knew that the day before, but he misled the whole economic and financial community in Canada and in the world. The answer came the next day when he revealed surplus for August, and our dollar fell again to less than 84 cents U.S. As the right hon. member for
(Mr. Crosbie.]
Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said, the man is a happy-go-lucky minister of finance; he thinks he has another 84 cents to go before we are finished altogether. That was bad enough, Mr. Speaker. A couple of days later the Minister of Finance said that the merchandise trade surplus would be just less than $4 billion, that it was going to be a record because the year before it was $2.9 billion. The record has changed.
What did our wonderful, lugubrious Minister of Finance say on June 1, as reported at page 5947 of Hansardl He said:
Last year we had a trade surplus of $3 billion and if the present trend goes on the surplus could reach $5 billion this year.
If he were like Pinocchio, his nose would reach right across to here. That is why the odds are so wide, not because of the wordplay but because of the noses of the ministers opposite- they are growing longer every day from the untruths they are telling the Canadian people. That is our Minister of Finance. No wonder there is no confidence.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says the Canadian dollar should be worth 90 cents, that par is at 90 cents. Thank God he has left this party-it was under par when he was over here and it is over par now. According to the other side, par is at 90 cents. So I suggest we rename our Minister of Finance. Let us call him "Sink" Chretien because he sank the Canadian dollar. Here I have a heading which reads, "Chretien remarks Sink the Dollar". So we will rename the Minister of Finance "Sink" Chretien, and we will name our own finance critic John Stevens. We will then have a more accurate reflection of what is happening in Canada today. Never has a minister of finance succeeded in sinking the Canadian dollar so low. He is what we call in Newfoundland a sunker; he is just below the surface.
The Deputy Prime Minister is not here to listen to me. He might want to correct the Hansard record, correct the silly statement he made a few minutes ago about confidence. He galloped out of the House in a great hurry when he thought somebody would refer to his foolishness.
We had three ministers of finance: we had John Turner-he fled to Toronto. We had the hon. "Thumper" Macdonald-he also fled to Toronto. Toronto is the only place where the public can afford them. When will the present Minister of Finance flee to Toronto? My message to Torontonians is: arise Torontonians, you have nothing to lose but your Trudeauites. They will all go as soon as we have an election. Five went on Monday. We have had Winken, Blinken, and now we have Nod as the Minister of Finance, the three stooges of Canadian finance, the three musketeers, les miserables. We have not forgotten that the man who started it all is now in Toronto- "Blue Eyes". He is going to be black eyes if he comes out of his legal lair, I can assure him of that.
My time is limited-I do not have the time to really let go here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I will only refer to one forecast because I cannot stand to refer to any more. Woods, Gordon, a well-
October 18, 1978

known Liberal firm, made a forecast and said that next year we will have a decline in housing starts, a decline in auto sales, an unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent, an inflation rate of 8.3 per cent, and a real growth rate of only 2.5 per cent. There is a glowing introduction to the election year by that Liberal firm. At least they speak the truth. There is a forecast from a firm which you could expect to be on the conservative side when estimating what might happen next year. So next year will be worse than the years we have just gone through.
What this country needs and what our economy needs is a complete purge, a complete laxative. They need to be purged of this government, to have a complete cleanout. That is the only way to get our economic system working again because we have no confidence whatsoever in this government. The Minister of Finance is hopeless, hopeless, hopeless. He is the minister of Nod.
What about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? He is the next strong man in the government in economic affairs. What is his prediction? Last May 12 he was reported in the Winnipeg Tribune to have stated that "by fall it will be obvious that the economy will pick up a great deal." It is not so obvious to the rest of the people in Canada. We are now in the fall. What did he say on November 9, 1977, in Winnipeg? He said that the fall of the dollar was useful. Well, I suppose he is delighted now that it is down to 84 cents.
Also on November 9, 1977, he stated that we are on the threshold of tremendous growth. That was the prediction of this mighty economic czar who sits in the hallowed halls or the glass halls where once the mighty Howe sat. From Howe to Horner is a purge, all right. He said just last fall that we were on the threshold of tremendous growth. In May he said that it is obvious the economy is picking up a great deal since the fall. On October 5 he stated in Sarnia that the Canadian economy is entering a period of stable growth.
Now, there is something wrong there. It is picking up in one place, it is booming tremendously and on the threshold of tremendous growth, and now it is entering a period of stable growth.


An hon. Member:: He is an expert on horses.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, that is because the minister is an expert on horses. That is where he got the idea that we are into a period of stable growth.
What did he say in the House on Friday, October 13, bad luck day? It was "Bad Day at Black Rock" for the Canadian dollar, interest rates, investments, householders, mortgage holders and borrowers. He said:
-one thing is clear in this debate and will probably run through the entire thirtieth parliament, and that is that we have a healthy economy and a strong, confident private sector in our country.
Honestly, ladies and gentlemen of the House of Commons, can you believe it, that the minister said we have a healthy economy and a strong confident private sector in our country? We hardly have a man in the private sector who has not got his
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
fingernails bitten down to his toenails, he is so confident about what this government has done for him! He admitted, though, on the same page, that while unemployment and inflation are still too high, Canada is working its way through the difficult world economic problems better than most countries. What countries, Mr. Speaker? Zanzibar, Zambia? The Kwacha is still a bit stronger than the Canadian dollar. Nepal? Where are these countries? Malawi, Malagasy? What countries are doing so much better than Canada? Who does he think will swallow this kind of material?
On August 1 the Prime Minister realized something was wrong. He has only been here ten years. It took him ten years to realize that something was wrong. He came back from Morocco. He is better than Bob Hope on "The road to Morocco." He went on television and announced a whole new series of programs which contradicted, violated, and raped all the earlier programs, principles and practices of the government. From restraint to you-know-what, he changed and reversed. His ministers heard about it for the first time on television. That was just as well. They could not have understood, anyway. The commentators said that what the Prime Minister was starting was a political striptease. The Minister of Finance came out, had a press conference, and he stripped. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) came out and he stripped. Some other minister came out and he stripped. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was sent to Japan. We do not know what he did there. Probably he stripped. But anyway, they all came out and stripped, these ministers did. It was a political striptease. When they were finished with their strip, what did the Canadian public see? They saw that underneath the government's clothes there was nothing but falsies. That is why we have had such a result in the by-elections.
We have to look on the bright side of this thing. At least we can joke about the government. But I know it is no joking matter. Before passing on, although time is pressing, I should like to give a considered opinion which I read some time ago. It is by Mr. John Turner. He said that the political interregnum which Canada now faces is deepening, with the resulting increase in economic hazards. If their friends are giving such candid opinions about them, what must their enemies be saying? I declare myself a friend of the government by what I am saying openly here today. One does not have to pay a cent to hear it. He gets it all for free. By the way, it is two years since the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) and I joined the hallowed ranks in these halls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Every time I have spoken here I thought it was the last time. I thought that the big, brave government was going to call the election, and every time was not the last time. Here I am again ready for another eight months of howling and bawling.
Page 9 of the remarks of Mr. Turner reads as follows:
-one cannot rule out a full crisis of confidence in the Canadian dollar.

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Crosbie We certainly cannot. It continues:
Unfortunately, there is also weakness in some key economic ministries of the federal government. In Finance, as already noted, the minister has been seriously hurt.
That is for sure. We see that every day in the lugubrious look on the minister's face. He is badly hurt. On page 10 Mr. Turner is quoted as saying the following:
-Jack Horner is effectively spending 95 per cent of his time away from the job on his re-election problems.
He can spend 100 per cent of his time away and he will not cure that problem. It continues:
This leaves him a totally inadequate amount of time to learn and cope with his job, which is evident from a succession of reports on his performance.
High praise indeed from one of his friends in the Liberal party. I can see that leadership convention now. I wonder who brother Horner will support.
He goes on to say:
Finally, in Energy, Mines and Resources, the minister is generally perceived to lack the confidence of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is an intelligent man. He agrees with all the rest of us. He lacks our confidence. This is the verdict of their friends on their performance. One of their own friends is waiting in Toronto now for the call.
Let me get down to some other problems. There is chaos in this government of policy. I should like to refer to the government of Newfoundland as an example. They talk about restraint. The Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council this afternoon had the gall to mention restraint. The government announced a few weeks ago that it was going to transfer most of the personnel from the Gander weather office to Halifax. The government was going to cut back on meteorological spending. It does not like forecasts any more, weather forecasts, political forecasts, or any kind of forecasts. It is going to save a few hundred thousand dollars. Now that has been reversed.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), who is now in Namibia, is an expert on Namibia. A couple of months ago he thought Namibia was an item of babies' clothes. Now he is down in South Africa solving the problems of Namibia. He made an announcement on October 4. I spoke to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) in the afternoon at five o'clock and he told me that the station was crazy, Gander should be shut, everything should go to Halifax, and that it is all done on computers. On that night at ten o'clock the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced that Newfoundland is all cancelled. That is why the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has not been around. It is the first time that we scalped one of them. The Secretary of State for External Affairs scalped the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. At ten o'clock he announced that this decision was reversed, even though the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment had told me a few hours earlier that it was still in effect. That is what is called chaos.

What else happened? I should like to refer to an article entitled "Ultimatum to Trudeau, Hands Off Gander" which appeared in The Daily News on October 4, 1978. In part it reads as follows:
George Baker, MP for Gander-Twillingate, threatened to bolt the Liberal party unless the federal government changed its mind about downgrading the Gander weather office-
That is what it is now, government by bolt. The decision depends on who is going to bolt next. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) said that he was going to bolt. This government which is so hot now about restraint and twittering about restraint, changed its mind and announced a decision without the concurrence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The announcement was just made. It was telephoned from Ottawa down to Newfoundland. I will bet any amount that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment knew nothing about that announcement. This is not government, this is chaos.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has had an application from Newfoundland since March for a synchrolift to be installed in the government-owned dockyard in St. John's. It is paying them some eight million lousy dollars for a synchrolift which will give 200 jobs and put the yard in the position of handling 60 Russian trawlers a year. We have been waiting sinch March. Why? We have been waiting because the Secretary of State for External Affairs was up here skulking around and sabotaging it because there is a shipyard in his own district, and the people in his district mistakenly think that the dry dockyard in St. John's, if it gets this synchrolift, is going to compete with them or do something to harm them. That is not true at all, but they think it is true. The minister skulked around and made an announcement in Newfoundland. I am looking for the clipping.
By the way, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said in this House, as reported in The Telegram on April 20, that the federal government is going to make substantive expenditures to upgrade our dockyards. That is what he told the House finance committee, that it was now in the midst of negotiations. He said that the decision should be reached in a matter of weeks rather than months. They are cowering in that department, afraid of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because he barked at them. What did he bark? He went down to Newfoundland, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did, and he made a statement down there. What was his statement? Where is that statement? He has made a lot of statements down there. I know I should not have had all these bloody clippings together. What he said, Mr. Speaker, was-I knew that I should not have had all these bloody clippings together. What he said was this; that you are only going to get a synchrolift in the dockyard in St. John's, which we own, to give you 200 jobs and save the 300 there if you are able to prove-yes, here it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 18, 1978


John Carnell Crosbie: The city has to prove that the lift will not hurt Marystown. This is the St. John's dockyard in Newfoundland which employs 300 Newfoundlanders and could employ 200 more and it has to prove if it gets a synchrolift that it will not hurt a shipyard in Marystown. What about Halifax? Do we have to prove that we will not hurt Halifax, that we will not hurt Quebec, or that we will not hurt Esquimalt?
There have been seven shipyards across Canada that have received assistance from the government this year, and none of them had to prove that they would not hurt St. John's or Marystown. But this "bully boy" makes the announcement in St. John's on September 13 that we cannot have a synchrolift unless we can prove it will not hurt Marystown in his district. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister did not even know about it? I spent two weeks calling the minister. You talk about courtesy; I never even got a call back from him, and I am the critic for industry, trade and commerce and a member of this House. When I was a minister I called back any member who called me, immediately. For two weeks I did not get an answer back from that minister until finally I got a call from his secretary telling me not to worry, that everything was in good hands, everything was under control. I said to one of his executive assistants-he has a plethora of them-"Do you realize that Mr. Jamieson just two weeks ago gave the death knell to this and it is not going to St. John's unless we can prove that it will not hurt Marystown? How can we prove that negative?" He said, "No, he hadn't heard that."
Who is making the policies for this government, Mr. Speaker? This is not a government, it is a collection of "whirlygigs", pushers, and pressure pumpers. And whoever has the biggest pressure pump is apparently running every department. I spoke to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce yesterday and he promised me that everything is in good hands, everything is hunky-dory, and that everything is going to be favourable, that he is going to announce it when he gets to Newfoundland some day. We will give him a great welcome, but I am announcing it now. If we can entice the minister down to Newfoundland, he will announce it, but only if the Secretary of State for External Affairs allows him. He has to get the permission of the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is in Namibia at the moment, the same gentleman who went on a trip last year to the Middle East.
I have a report from the Journal dated November 8, 1977, with the headline, "If Nothing Else We Have King Tut," which says that he visited all the countries of the Middle East. At the conclusion of the trip in Cairo the Minister said:
There's a flexibility which I perceived here with regard to a formula under which talks may be resolved and a general disposition to look with an open mind on a wide range of issues.
I do not know what he meant, nor does anybody else. He goes on to say that he:
-arrived in Spain during a four-day holiday weekend and in Greece during an election campaign and a torrential storm in which 25 people died. These tended to distract his hosts.
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
I hope the results of the minister's trip to South Africa are just as harmless as his trip to the Middle East last fall. I am prepared to fight that gentleman, tooth and nail, until he comes across with my synchrolift.
What has happened in unemployment insurance? A despicable change in the law was announced that is going to crucify the seasonally employed in Newfoundland and the maritime provinces. One of the Liberal backbenchers, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) was quoted in the paper as threatening revolt by the Atlantic Liberal backbenchers if these changes that discriminated against the seasonally employed went through. The minister has caved in, and it is a good thing that he did because the revolt is nothing compared with what he would get from this side if he had not made some changes.
That is the government today, Mr. Speaker; they make a decision one day and reverse it the next. That was the Romp-key revolt. We have had the Baker revolt, and the Jamieson revolt. The whole thing is revolting; the government is revolting. It is not a government, it is a revolving, poll-taking machine. The left hand does not know what the left hand is doing. It is dancing in the dark, the old Cole Porter tune which should be the cabinet theme song.
In my last couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, let me refer quickly to the Newfoundland railway. This is another thing that the Secretary of State for External Affairs talked about in Newfoundland on September 12. He made the announcement. His announcement was that the Government of Canada was not going to accept the recommendation by the royal commission that the Newfoundland railway be phased out, because everyone in Newfoundland, with the exception of our candidate in Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, had said that the railway should stay. The one man in Newfoundland who said that the railway should go had an unfortunate occurrence in the by-elections.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) did not appear to know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had already said that the Canadian government would not accept the recommendation. Now they are laying off employees, taking certain trains off the schedule, and laying 20 men off at the end of this month, despite the minister's commitment made in March of 1977 that there would be no lay-offs or changes in service while that royal commission was in effect.
Yesterday the minister in this House gave a weasel-worded answer to my question which completely changed his commitment. It was "baffle-gab" of the worst kind. He said that there could be lay-offs of a seasonal load-related nature throughout the system. I will tell him where the load-related nature of the system is; it is right here at the top. We are sick of these kinds of loads. He is putting this on the backs of the railway workers in Newfoundland. I do not have time to develop the situation further today.

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
We have a $17 billion borrowing bill coming up tomorrow. We cannot go on with the address in reply because the government want the authority to borrow another $17 billion for their bungling. I am going to debate every cent of those billions, and I hope that nobody tells me that it is an emergency to give this crowd another $17 billion tomorrow. It is not an economic program, is it, Mr. House leader?
I have to shorten this up, Mr. Speaker, because we are allowed only 30 minutes. I am used to 90 as a minimum, which was what we had in the Newfoundland house, or usually it was unlimited. I would like to make an amendment and move that the following be added to the address:
but this House regrets to inform Your Excellency that the policies of your ministers have severely damaged the Canadian economy, and that your ministers have not proposed those measures of taxation relief, including home mortgage interest and property tax deductibility, which would promote economic growth and recovery and ensure a more equitable tax system for all Canadians.
I move this, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), in the full realization, which is selfobvious, that the ministers have severely damaged our economy, that they have not proposed taxation relief, and in the hope that the gentlemen to my left here will come to their senses and help rescue the middle and lower income people of Canada who have a home now or who want to get one, who want to borrow under a mortgage and who want relief from the effects of the stupid actions of this government. These people are being crucified with an 11 Vi per cent mortgage rate, and when they go to the banks they are going to be stuck with a rate of 11V4 or 12 per cent.
We want to rescue these people from the Liberal excesses which have put them in this position. We want to open up home ownership for more people in Canada. This is a program that is going to help sweep this government opposite out of power, because when something was proposed which makes some sense and which the people want, instead of adopting it for the next budget, as they usually do they spoke against it. Even a boa constrictor could not twist itself around enough to include this great proposal in the next Liberal budget. They cannot do that any longer. Even the lugubrious Minister of Finance would not have the gall or the audacity to try to slip around the statements he has made in the past few weeks to bring in a budget that contained this great new principle, which we are going to introduce as soon as we get back from the electorate and the election of 1979.
Is my time up, Mr. Speaker, or do I have another minute or two?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In moving an amendment, the hon. member is entitled to 40 minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I had not realized that. This is fantastic. It is like an early Christmas. Now, where was I? What joy!
I shall go back to the railway, Mr. Speaker. When the royal commission was set up on March 28, 1977, the Minister of

Transport was down in St. John's. He had a press conference aboard a coastguard vessel, and it is lucky for him that it was tied to the wharf so that he did not get seasick. I would like to read some of what the minister said which was quoted in the St. John's Evening Telegram of March 29, 1977. The minister said that that study:
-won't be just another study to lie on the shelf because the province is ''at a critical point" for decisions, Transport Minister Otto Lang yesterday maintained. "I consider this one the final one"-
It's the final one for him all right.
-he said following a press conference in St. John's, for "we cannot wait any longer for tough decisions . .. and good decisions for Newfoundland."
That was his statement. He went on in the interview to say that:
-he has asked CN not to proceed with any technological or structural changes during the course of the study that would "disadvantageously affect" employment.
These are pretty peculiar words, but everybody in Newfoundland understood them to mean there would not be any lay-offs as a result while this royal commission was under way. Imagine him saying that in Newfoundland-you would not "disadvantageously affect employment". That might go over in Saskatchewan but we do not think much of it in Newfoundland. He said there would be no lay-offs.
I have another clipping here to show what is going on now. The commission made an interim report last June, which was published by the government somewhere around July 20. I announced it first, by the way. Two days earlier I announced the royal commission's conclusions and came out against them, the first one in that province to come out against the abandonment of our railway. The minister confirmed what I had to say, two days later. He was a bit late in releasing the report.
A heading in a newspaper article of October 14 reads:
Rail Union Plans Strong Protest Against Lay-offs
It says they eliminated two trains in a decision made in Moncton and St. John's and that 20 people would be laid off. That is how much the minister's word is worth.
Yesterday he said in his pallid way that he was going to investigate that. Let me give you the full effect of what he said, now that I have the time, and because it is so shocking in its transparent mendacity that I can hardly contain myself. When I asked him yesterday about these lay-offs this is what he said, as reported in Hansard at page 164:
Mr. Speaker, rather more exactly the instruction was that there would be no lay-offs during the course of the commission except those which were related to changes in the level and flow of business of the ordinary sort because, of course, there are lay-offs of a seasonal and load-related nature throughout the system.
That is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. He has made it clear that Dr. Bandeen's commission's work will end in January. He continued:
I would be glad to investigate whether a specific lay-off is under the exceptional category which may be permitted or is of such significance that it actually contravenes the understanding.
The minister has not reported to me yet.
October 18, 1978

I will tell you what will happen to the minister if he comes down there and gives us his "seasonal and load-related nature" of the system. We will take the system and wrap it around his neck and drop him off the dock at Port-aux-Basques. How could the minister say that when he has made a promise to the 3,000 railway workers in Newfoundland that there would be no lay-offs while this royal commission did its work? He is not here now to listen to me, and, it would not do any good if he were. He also said, as I quoted a few minutes ago, that this was going to be the "last commission", "critical point", and mentioned "good tough decisions".
One of the recommendations in the interim report of that commission was that the CN bus system in Newfoundland was beyond contempt. Their finding was that the buses were beyond description and there was poor service. In July of 1976, in the course of federal-provincial relations, the Minister of Transport took the CN bus system that was established in Newfoundland to replace our lost railway passenger service- it was under the Public Utilities Commission of Newfoundland who were regulating it satisfactorily-he took it from them and put it under the Canadian Transport Commission. Since that time they were allowed an 8 per cent fare increase in 1976, and 15 per cent in 1977. CN applied to the CTC. They had a hearing at the beginning of November. The CTC allowed them to put the fare increase they asked for into effect as an interim increase of 15 per cent, and said they would give a final decision later. They gave the final decision in August this summer, eight or nine months later. Imagine a regulatory body doing that. They allowed what was asked for, a 15 per cent increase in the interim, and the interim period was eight months or nine months. Then they brought down the report to confirm the 15 per cent was all right.
The CN has the ball, and what do you think the CN did? Did they think they were lucky to get that in such a slippery manner? The CN came in two weeks later and applied for another 36 per cent increase, to go into effect in November of this fall and in February next.
I wrote the minister on August 3. I wish he would read his mail. I am always getting little notes from some assistant saying the minister is going to respond in due course. He has not responded yet. "Due course" has not arrived. I wrote on August 3 and pointed out that the Sullivan Commission-the minister's commission, had this to say at page 127:
The CN Roadcruiser service has been operating with old, unsuitable, totally inadquate equipment. The bus is satisfactory for short distance travel, but for long trips is unacceptable as a replacement for the train. From a level of service standpoint, and in light of the concessions made to train travel in other provinces, CN fares are far and above what is reasonable.
That is a devastating indictment of this roadcruiser service. I pointed out to the minister that at page 245 of its report the commission stated that the roadcruiser operation is an equal substitution for the rail passenger service, and that fares must remain at a level lower than similar fares which might be payable for similar distances on a trans-island train service.
The Address-Mr. Crosbie
The commission report went to say:
Certainly, no increase in fares must be permitted until substantial improvements are made in the facilities being offered on the corridor at present.
The commission suggested that the federal government give the same subsidy for this service as they give for other passenger service in the other nine provinces of Canada.
The Canadian National, this crown corporation, this creature of the government, after receiving that report and after getting a 15 per cent increase confirmed, and eight year before, came back for 36 per cent.
The Newfoundland government has protested, the people of Newfoundland have protested, I have protested, as has the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), and we cannot get an answer. This government has got to direct the CN-"No increase." Why was the minister saying, when this commission was established, that it would be given every consideration, that decisions had to be made, and then make a report on the CN bus service in Newfoundland crucifying the bus passengers? They want a 36 per cent increase! This minister now has to direct them-"No increase." Never mind the Canadian Transport Commission. We have no regard for the Canadian Transport Commission in Newfoundland. We think it is a hopeless body. It is a tool of the vested interest, a tool of the crown corporation. We have no faith or trust in it. The minister has to reverse this decision and act on the recommendations of that royal commission.
The railway, which has been allowed to run down, is owned by the Government of Canada. It has been given to CN to operate. CN has been losing money on it. CN does not want to put any more of its own revenues or profits from some other part of Canada into the Newfoundland service. We can understand that. The royal commission made a recommendation that it should close. The CN is losing $20 or $30 million a year on this service.
The government has made the decision now to close the Newfoundland railway, and it should not. Why should we be deprived of the rail mode of transportation in Newfoundland? The government has to make up the losses that are properly found each year by the right body, to the CN But the government will not do that. CN is knifing our railway to death. They are determined to kill it within the next 12 months because they will not realize their responsibilities. CN cannot be expected to subsidize the Newfoundland railway from its other railways and other services across Canada. Only government can do that. They have to direct CN. to make an honest effort to operate this railway.
Three thousand people in Newfoundland work for that railway, Mr. Speaker, with all that entails for Newfoundland. Every responsible body, and irresponsible body, has come out to say that it has to continue and we do not want it to stop. It is a mode of transportation and we have to continue that option in Newfoundland. The government is doing nothing, despite telegrams and wires from the Newfoundland government. They have ignored it, Mr. Speaker. They will not meet with the railway unions. The minister will not meet with me.

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Gray
He will not meet with the Newfoundland government. I do not know who he is meeting with. He has too many portfolios.
Transport would kill any ordinary man or woman, yet that minister is given the wheat board, and justice-everything is sloughed off on him, and he is equally obnoxious in every one of them but particularly so in transportation. He is not a superman; none of us are supermen. I have every sympathy for the huge burden he has in transportation, but I lose my sympathy when we try to deal with him in any human situation at all.
They talk about federal-provincial relations. I am going to give you a story, Mr. Speaker, about the federal-provincial relations and about the problems. I had to laugh when the Prime Minister came on television on August 1. He had the audacity to come on TV and say hello to the Queen and how glad he was that she had arrived in Canada. He was not even there when she arrived in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, to meet her. He was in Morocco concocting his TV address for a couple of days later.
We believe in the British connection in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and in our relationship with the Queen and her continuance as Queen of the Commonwealth and her relationship to us in all of Canada. We agree with Senator Forsey and his criticism of the constitutional proposals, which are now going to be changed-the attempt to change all of that. It is just symbolic anyway-another evidence of our history.
In that connection, Mr. Speaker, the government of Newfoundland wrote-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This time I have to interrupt the hon. member because his time has expired. I hope he will send a copy of his amendment to the Chair.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke to the country last August he announced the federal government would be giving a new and higher priority to dealing with the country's economic problems. I have been among those calling on the government to establish such a priority in the light of our still too high unemployment and the resulting need for more economic growth in Canada. I have also been calling on the government to take prompt action in developing and implementing programs to deal effectively with these kinds of problems.
I welcome this new and higher priority which is confirmed in the throne speech. The speech also confirms the kinds of programs the government has in mind to carry out this priority. The Speech from the Throne says, as did the Prime Minister earlier, that the government would greatly reduce its expenditures leaving more room to the private sector, and in this way help it to grow and flourish. It says the government will make changes in its programs to help revive the economy through greater private sector activity. The speech also proposes further changes in the unemployment insurance system to remove disincentives to work, as well as the taking of steps
[Mr. Crosbie.)
to provide more help to senior citizens and other low income Canadians hurt most by continuing inflationary pressures. But in spite of statements we have had from various ministers, I believe there is still a need for more detailed information about the government's proposals so that informed judgments can be made about their real impact on the country.
This throne speech opens a new session of parliament. This means the parliamentary process will be in operation to help get out the necessary information and to enable the merits of the government's proposals implementing its new economic program to be considered in some depth. Also this process will be a vehicle for making changes to those parts of this program which may, in fact, be in conflict with its objectives, or have unintended negative side effects for the country's social or economic fabric.
Canadians are understandably concerned about the levels government expenditures have been reaching because of what this means in terms of such things as the level of taxation, government borrowing, deficits and so on. But if the federal government simply makes cuts in its expenditures and does not balance these cuts with equivalent expenditure in other areas or with equivalent cuts in taxes, or both, the result surely will be to hold back the economy, to restrain its growth, rather than aid in its recovery. This is because the government will be spending less than before, but taking the same amount out of the economy.
One hears many comments to the effect that government spending has been holding back the economy. However, this spending is for goods and services it buys from the private sector. Or it is, to a much greater extent, in the form of transfer payments to individuals who use them as income to buy such goods and services, or also for transfer payments to other levels of government which spend them for these purposes. Therefore a reduction in federal government expenditure by itself is simply a reduction in total demand in the economy. To avoid being a restraint on it, this reduction, in my view, has to be matched with tax cuts, or at least, as an alternative, the money saved from cuts in spending in some areas has to be reallocated in ways that are hopefully more effective in encouraging more sound, private economic activity. It should be noted though that some economists argue that if this is done the effect on the economy would simply be neutral.
So far the government has not announced a re-allocation of expenditure equal to the reductions which have also been announced. And while the Prime Minister said in his speech in August that there would be tax cuts, the government as yet has not announced any program of reductions in personal or corporate taxes to help balance the reductions in government expenditure that have already been put forward.
However, I am pleased that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) now says he intends to present a budget in mid-November. In my view, this budget must be the instrument for putting in place at an early date a balanced program made up of personal tax cuts and economic incentive measures for business where justified and required, as well as government
October 18, 1978

programs for public investment and direct employment to back up these other measures.
The throne speech says a proposal will be placed before the House "to provide for the review by parliament of evaluations by the government of major programs." Something along these lines should be brought forward very early in this new session. Even if one agrees with the need to cut government expenditures, it is possible to have valid concerns about the way these reductions are being carried out, about whether wise choices are being made about the programs to be reduced or eliminated.
We know generally what programs the government intends to eliminate or reduce. However, even here in many cases officials are still unable to provide a full and detailed picture of exactly what is being done. Neither parliament nor the public has been informed of the alternatives the government considered and rejected in place of the cuts it announced, and the exact reasons why these particular cuts were selected.
There is no provision for input from parliament and the public in the expenditure-review process at a point before the government is locked into a particular decision arising from it. Therefore, as a result, it is difficult to bring about changes in such decisions without some form of confrontation between some portions of the community and the government over a particular program expenditure reduction. But even these confrontations take place without having information to start with as to why the government made that decision, and without a meaningful opportunity to present views and alternatives to it.
One approach in dealing with the concern would be to have an appropriate parliamentary committee begin hearings as soon as possible after this throne speech debate is over. They would be on the government expenditure cuts in programs that have been announced, and the committee would hear evidence as to why a particular cut was decided on. Also what the alternatives may be, if any, which would still enable the same over-all expenditure reduction target to be achieved.
Such a committee could examine, for example, whether in fact bureaucratic structures are being maintained while reductions are being made in programs that provide needed information and service to the public. For instance, the Department of the Environment could explain why cutting out regional offices would not be a preferred alternative to eliminating the Petawawa Forest Research Station, the fisheries research laboratories in Nova Scotia, and weather ships off the coast of British Columbia. The committee could examine allegations that the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance are not making any meaningful cuts at all in their own bureaucratic structures. The committee could examine whether it is valid for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to reduce the number of inspections presently being carried out in the field to ensure that hazardous products and food products of questionable quality are not being offered to Canadian consumers, or whether it is correct for the department to be reducing its direct consumer complaint handling services, all in place of other kinds of cuts.
The Address-Mr. Gray
The government says its intention in changing the unemployment insurance system is to move away from simply providing income payments toward using these funds to ensure that unemployed people get training to provide them with skills they lack to fill available jobs. Therefore the committee could inquire why, if this is the case, the government at the same time apparently has under way a serious reduction in existing funding to provide training allowances to these people.
It would appear that the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance system could mean that as many as several hundred thousand Canadians would not be eligible for payments from it in the way they are at present. If there are not, in fact, jobs available for them which are not now being filled, either because of disincentives to work in the present system or, as may be likely, flaws in its administration, these people will simply be thrown on to municipal and provincial welfare rolls. This will mean that the total public expenditure presently involved will continue but will come, to a much greater extent than before, out of municipal and provincial taxes rather than from federal government funds. This means that in many parts of the country the burden will shift to levels of government with a tax base smaller and less equitable than the one available to the federal government. There will be no saving in terms of total public expenditures. It will simply shift to levels of government less able to assume it. This could be a very serious matter for large areas of the country like the Atlantic provinces.
I am pleased to note the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) has some of these aspects under review because of representations by members of the Liberal caucus from the Atlantic provinces and similar areas.
It would appear, however, that only a relatively limited amount of the money the federal government hopes to save through its proposed changes in the unemployment insurance system has been allocated so far to expanding its employment strategy programs, its programs for job creation, beyond what was intended to be spent by the government before it decided to propose the changes in the unemployment insurance system in question. If more funds are not reallocated, this could have unfortunate consequences for a substantial number of individual Canadians and their families everywhere in Canada, even those in regions like Ontario.
Up to this point I have not seen enough detailed information to confirm to me that there will be the necessary high level of co-ordination in the Department of Employment and Immigration to ensure that for all those who will no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance when the proposed changes go into effect, and who are ready and willing to work, there will be either a job at reasonable wages and working conditions, or skill training to help them qualify for those jobs that are available. Nor does the information I have seen so far confirm there will be the necessary co-ordination and effort in the department to ensure that as a last resort some form of

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Gray
meaningful direct employment under government auspices will be available for all of these people.
Much has been said about how the kinds of steps announced by the Prime Minister and certain of his ministers in recent weeks will help restore "business confidence" and that this is what is required in order to get business to increase its investment to expand its activity in Canada. However, it seems to me that business confidence means confidence that it can and will earn a reasonable profit from its activities. Surely this means having sufficient numbers of people in Canada with the level of income needed to buy goods and services produced by business at prices that will yield these kinds of profits. Businessmen are hardly likely to have the necessary kind of confidence if government policy turns out to reduce rather than to maintain and expand the necessary spending power of individual Canadians and their families. Of course it is also argued that business confidence is being inhibited by excessive government involvement in the market place and in the economy generally.
In considering this issue I think it is necessary to look carefully at all aspects of it and to define what is being talked about and what is meant when one speaks of excessive government involvement in the economy. In my view, and I think there is wide agreement on this, the government should always be striving to be more efficient in all its activities and to lessen dramatically burdens of bureaucracy and red tape. It is certainly my objective to have the government operate generally in a more efficient, effective, and competent manner. It does not follow, however, that any particular activity by government is not important and necessary for the well-being both of business and the consumer simply because a valid argument can be made for improving the way the government administers that activity.
Frankly, I do not think that we would have any kind of enterprise system or market system at all today without much of the government involvement in it that has developed over the past 50 years or so. After all, that market system, when left entirely to its own devices, brought the stock market crash of 1929 and the deep-seated depression of the 1930s that followed. These, in turn, helped to cause the public at large to demand of governments in North America and the western world the development of present-day programs which stabilize the economy and maintain incomes, and which have helped prevent a recurrence, if not of all economic slumps, at least of much of the misery associated with them 40 years ago.
The unlimited, uncontrolled operation of the market system 50 or more years ago, and the unsafe working conditions that were general in it, as well as the dangerous products freely sold through its operation, helped cause the public to demand that government institute the programs to set basic standards for health and safety that we have today. The public also demanded the creation of programs now providing basic standards of income for our older or less fortunate citizens.
The ability of some unscrupulous operators in the market place to drive out competitors and dominate it through monopoly and combines for their benefit, led the public,

including many in business, to urge government to set up ground rules for competition through anti-trust or competition legislation.
As I have said, it is possible for government involvement in the market place to be excessive and heavy-handed and we have to guard against this and work to prevent it. However, at the same time, without forms of government involvement to provide a framework and set basic standards on behalf of the community at large, there would likely be no market system at all, with the opportunities it provides for private initiative in Canada and our western society today. Instead, the bulk of the population seeing only the actual and potential abuses of a market system left entirely to its own devices would long ago have supported one or the other of the forms of totalitarianism of the right or the left we now see in all too many of the other parts of the world.
Of course there is a great deal of ambivalence even on the part of those who profess to be the strongest protagonists of free enterprise on the issue of government involvement in the economy.
No business voice in my own Windsor area objected to the decision of the federal and provincial governments to give a grant of $68 million to Ford Motor Company to get it to locate its new engine plant in that area. This grant came about at the initiative of the federal government which provided the larger part of the funds. When the grant was announced, it was looked on, and correctly in my view, as a form of investment with returns to the public through taxes to all three levels of government, through more than two and a half thousand jobs directly created by the operation of the new plant, and through further spill-over economic activity benefiting all of Canada, returns being many times greater than the total grant over only a few years time.
Also, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) announced a few weeks ago that a further $300 million had been set aside by the government to support, through grants or loans, further innovative business activity. When he did this, no spokesmen of the business community got up and said, "No, keep the money, we don't want it, this should not be done by the federal government; just decrease government expenditure by this amount." But this $300 million program is a form of federal government involvement in the economy, one which will hopefully turn out to be most worth-while for Canadians generally.
At the same time I hope this program will not turn out to be simply an exercise in providing funds in an ad hoc and reactive manner. Instead, the government should move promptly to put in place an industrial strategy for Canada with this program as one of its key elements. I and others have spoken about the need for such a strategy which would mean a new kind of coherent, intergrated set of federal programs to encourage a stronger and larger industrial sector in Canada, one which is more comptetitive and innovative in meeting the challenges of both domestic and world markets.
The government has had for some weeks the reports of the 24 industry sector task forces set up earlier this year. These
October 18, 1978

can provide useful information and suggestions for components of an industrial strategy. However, each report appears to discuss matters from the special perspective of people from the industry it deals with. It is the responsibility of the government to make decisions as to the best ideas which could be taken from each of these studies and from other work, like that of the Science Council, as well.
It is the responsibility of the government to reach conclusions, to make decisions, as to which industrial sectors in Canada are most likely to be winners in domestic and world markets and therefore deserving of additional if not new kinds of federal government support because of the potential of those sectors, regardless of their regional location or their present health. These are the kinds of decisions by government which are urgently required if we are finally to put in place the integrated industrial strategy necessary, if we are to provide additional jobs and improve standards of living for our growing labour force. Such a strategy is needed to eliminate or, at least, to reverse the trend to deindustrialization, the decrease in industrial activity and the decline in the number of industrial jobs in Canada which are all too frighteningly evident if one looks at statistics showing the relatively low percentage of our exports which are in the form of finished manufactured goods.
I return to the matter of government involvement in the economy. Hon. members may recall that a month or so ago three school buses involved in an accident near Hamilton were found to be in an unsafe condition. It was disclosed that the Ontario provincial government had been allowing the company owning these buses to inspect them itself and to put government safety stickers on them. A high proportion of the entire bus fleet was found not to meet provincial government safety standards. I am sure that even strong proponents of deregulation and of eliminating government involvement in the economy were quite happy, especially if their own children were riding those buses, to see the Ontario government finally tighten up its procedures and increase the number and extent of its own bus safety inspections.
This bus safety incident illustrates the limitations of selfregulation by business in the absence of, at the very least, some form of effective monitoring by government. It could be an invitation to abuse by the unscrupulous. It could allow the creation of pressures, in line with the understandable objective of maximizing profit, which could encourage even the well intentioned to cut corners in ways contrary to the best interests of the public. Thus, in my view, there is a continuing need for forms of regulation by government on behalf of the community at large to ensure that all who come together in the market place will get a fair deal there and circumstances where their health and safety are protected.
I regret, therefore, the absence of any specific mention in the Speech from the Throne of a commitment by the government to attempt, at least, to have implemented in this session the second and final stage of the much needed reform and updating of competition policy. I also regret the absence of any
The Address-Mr. Gray
indication in the speech of a similar commitment to implementing borrowers' and depositors' protection legislation. The government itself made a case for these measures very well in its own white paper "Agenda For Co-operation" and I would urge the government to move, for the reasons the government itself has given, to have these measures adopted by parliament in the current session. Their purpose is to set reasonable ground rules for the fair and efficient operation of the market place and not to hamper that kind of operation. These measures are therefore quite consistent with the government's current approach of relying to an increased extent on private sector activity for economic recovery.
I speak today, as always, in a constructive sense as one who wants to see the government operate in such a way that the public will give it majority support in the next general election. If the government demonstrates in the course of the present session that it can deal effectively with matters of real concern and importance to individual Canadians and their families, particularly as consumers, workers, and small business people, I believe it can and will win that majority support when the election comes.
But there is one more thing I want to talk about today. Although the government's new higher priority for dealing with economic issues is welcome, the national unity issue remains important. The issues of the economy and of national unity remain closely intertwined. Without unity we shall not be able to deal with our economic problems and unless we deal effectively with those problems we shall not be able to maintain our unity. This means that constitutional reform continues to require attention. Improving the economy and making decisions on constitutional change are both necessary in order to ensure that the majority of Quebeckers continue to wish to be part of Canada. Both are necessary if we are to respond to views expressed in all regions of Canada that improvements in our present constitutional set-up and in the general format of government operations are needed in order that the framework upon which all activity, whether economic or social in our country is based, may be better and more effective.
This must not mean, however, that Canada would no longer have a strong central government, a national government, able to reflect and respond to the needs of the people as Canadians no matter where they live within our country. The Speech from the Throne says there are to be initiatives "to eliminate duplication between federal and provincial programs." This cannot simply mean the elimination of some federal programs or the handing over to the provinces of activities presently carried out by the federal government. Such an approach might be the most valid one in some cases, but surely not in all-there are likely to be as many cases in which functions now handled by the provinces should be turned over to the federal government, for example, to ensure that business, transacted as it is across provincial boundaries and from one end of the country to another, is not faced with 11 sets of conflicting and overlapping rules; also, to ensure that Canadians as consumers benefit from the same basic rules for their protection in the market place no matter where they live.

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Gray
Mr. Speaker, if we in the House of Commons work in public life mainly through one or another of our organized political parties it is because we continue to see this as the best way of doing our utmost for the well-being of our country and its people. But, surely, all of us in this House, no matter what our political affiliation, can adopt as our own the words of the Governor General spoken in what is likely to be the last throne speech delivered by him, when he said-and I am sure they reflect his personal sentiment-"We also wish to express our love for Canada."
[ Translation]
We wish also to express our love for Canada. A great country is not created without difficulty, but to see it develop and grow stronger despite every obstacle has been for us a source of great joy and pride. Our faith in the future of Canada is stronger than it has ever been.

I hope it will be noted everywhere in this country that love for Canada as one united country can be expressed equally well in French as in English and by Canadians of every origin.
I began my remarks by talking about the welcome new and higher government priority for dealing with economic concerns. But this is really a reflection of the ultimate priority for all of us which is to preserve Canada and build it better for all its people both now and in the future. This is our challenge. I am confident that we, together with Canadians generally, will respond to it with success. In spite of difficulties which can all too easily be outlined, and recognizing at the same time our past achievements and future potential, I believe that given the basic competence of our people, all Canadians, through individual, government and private sector efforts, working together, will build a country truly reflecting these past achievements and future potential, a greater, more united, more prosperous country for all.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-8, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, without any amendment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

["I should like to tell hon. members more about hockey, because hockey is too important not to be discussed in the House of Commons. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association was formed in the city of Ottawa in 1912. Today it is still a functioning and viable organization, guiding\n\nwith authority our domestic hockey programs involving some 550,000 Canadian youngsters.\nFor many years CAHA was a totally male bastion, as was this chamber. In October 1978, the CAHA decided to sanction females in hockey. Females have been participating in hockey virtually as long as the organization has been in existence, but finally they were given recognition. There are women's hockey teams from one end of the country to the other. Hockey is evolving so much so that there are 13 teams of underwater hockey in the province of British Columbia.\nAs our domestic programs improved and we conquered all comers in this wonderful game of ours, we began to look toward international competition to satisfy the desire to present and perform hockey to the standards and excitement to which we have become accustomed, because we were very good at the game. However, there was a philosophical difference between the Canadian desire to play hockey and that of most of the rest of the hockey-playing world.\nAlways we wanted to use our best when we went into competition. The argument which came forward was that other hockey playing nations wanted us to use our amateurs. It was not a reconcilable argument, and Canada withdrew from international hockey in 1969. We are still seeking always best on best, and this has finally been facilitated in some remarkable work by men who represent all facets of Canadian hockey in Canada.\nI am happy to be able to say that earlier this year Hockey Canada and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association entered into an unprecedented agreement which brought, at long last, stability and understanding between the amateurs and professionals. This agreement is a very great step forward, and a tribute to both parties. I congratulate the president of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association for being so far-seeing as to be able to speak for his people in this way and to sign this document that has literally ended 30 years of disagreement. I also must commend the retiring president of Hockey Canada, Douglas Fisher. I believe that no one has done more for sport in this country than Douglas Fisher, and I believe that bringing forward this agreement through Hockey Canada was the greatest achievement of his contributions to hockey.\nThis agreement clearly stipulates that Hockey Canada will design the policy governing exchanges dealing with Canada's national teams, be they professional, that is, Canada Cup, and World Championships, Junior-Junior World Championships-or amateur, that is, the Olympic Games. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, on the other hand, will continue to deal with matters of club exchanges, official development, rule changes, etc. In short, it has finally been agreed to by all parties, and signed by both parties, that the Board of Hockey Canada, of which the CAHA is a member, will be in charge of ensuring that our international hockey objectives be pursued with vigour, planning, and foresight. The over-all, long-range planning for our involvement in international hockey will be\nOctober 18, 1978", 'handled by the Board of Hockey Canada, and we will present a united Canadian front at the council tables of the International Ice Hockey Federation. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association president was elected to the council of the IIHF as a result of this accord, and Canada retains its two votes on that body\'s congress.\nThe hockey furor of 1969 brought into focus once again the concept that the game is our official national sport. Members of this House, I have to tell you that hockey is not our official national sport. Lacrosse advocates will tell you that it is our official national sport. There is no evidence to suggest that any member of this House has ever brought forth a bill in that regard. I commend those people who are bringing in private members\' bills, and certain members on this side of the House have indicated to me that they would like to bring in such a bill. I think that we will leave it up to the sports\' community to decide whether it is hockey or lacrosse because, indeed, there is a good case to be made for both parties. Both sports are played by so many people and have a great deal to do with our past and future in sport.\nIn the early 1960s the federal government lent a much-needed support service to the sport and recreation community in this country. Close contact was maintained with the community and with the provinces. For several years we, the Government of Canada, acted as neutral onlookers, and at times we dispersed a little bit of financial assistance and other resources in response to their direct needs. At times we implemented proposals submitted from outside the government, and then there were instructional and promotional materials which we gradually produced, but seldom did the government actually initiate a program of its own.\nA number of significant achievements in this country\'s centennial year changed this entire situation. In the winter of 1968 this government began the first Canada Games in Quebec city, and this first national, multi-sport event at that time demonstrated that Fitness and Amateur Sport, the directorate as it was then called, had a role to play in Canada, and that it was a significant one. It was the chief catalyst and co-ordinator in the planning and carrying out of the fitness and amateur sport crusade. It was during these very same games that the directorate led a discussion under which was born the concept of an Arctic Winter Games.\nThere is no doubt that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, have a right to equal access to sport, recreation and fitness outlets. So, if we have the Baffin region Inuit games in Pangnirtung, and if the baseball rules are not quite up to the standards of the game being played in the ball parks of Montreal or Toronto, that is to be expected, but it is still a growing thing. The youngsters of this country, no matter where they live, have an equal right, so we have the Arctic Winter Games and we have the northern games.\nAt the time in 1967 when we brought in the first Canada Games, they were the only winter games in the entire country. Now there are games in every province and in many regions, both summer and winter. There is great progress in the\nThe Address-Mrs. Campagnolo provinces and regions of this country in these various sports programs.\nWe also hosted the Pan-American games in 1967, just 13 years after we hosted the British Empire Games in Vancouver. There was then a symposium in Montreal to examine leisure time and the possibilities of its consequences in the future. Recreation was seen as a complex, multi-faceted area whose collective impact deeply affected the character of Canadian society. This was when everybody was saying, "My goodness, what are we going to do when we get to the future because we are going to have so much leisure time we are not going to know what to do with it all?" Everybody was potting flowers, and weeding, and learning how to do various types of sports, and moving at a great rate to prepare for this future when nobody would be busy any more.\nThis development has moved on, because after 1967 came 1969 and the task force on sport, which was initiated by this government, and which produced a report that reinforced the belief that sport is an important component of Canadian culture. Our athletes are as important as those who are from the art world. And here comes one now, Mr. Speaker.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
October 18th, 1978 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable W. F. Spence, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor

General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day, the 18th day of October, at 5.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a bill.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Crosbie) (p. 233).
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak today and to add my small contribution to the important debate on the Speech from the Throne. I know that there are several areas in the throne speech about which one could make a responsible comment; however, in the speeches which have already been made in this debate, the unfortunate state of our economy, the high rate of unemployment, rampant inflation, and the constant erosion of our dollar have been tabulated well by other hon. members. For me to dwell further on those matters would only be repetitious, notwithstanding the national importance that these matters have to the people of Canada. This being the case, I would like to deal today with a different aspect contained in the throne speech which has not been dealt with at any length so far in the debate.
Before I do this, it would be remiss of me if I did not mention that we on this side of the House are gratified by the positive results of the by-elections Monday night. I was particularly pleased to see the results in the city of Toronto, which I am sure the Liberal party has always taken for granted because of the large ethnoculture present in that city. Despite all the efforts to woo the ethnocultural vote in many nefarious ways, that segment of the population in Toronto refused to be taken for granted by the Liberal party this time. That segment refused to be taken in by almost empty-handed promises of this government to further the cause of multiculturalism in Canada, which are always highlighted when an election draws near and then quickly forgotten after the election is over.
I do not doubt that the Minister of State (Multiculturalism) (Mr. Cafik) is for the most part sincere whenever he speaks glowingly of multiculturalism across the country. However, 1 am equally convinced that his representations to his cabinet colleagues fall on deaf ears because he knows, and they know, that as far as this government is concerned multiculturalism means votes at election time, after which it is quickly forgotten.
I can assure this House, as a member of my party responsible for multiculturalism, that our policy reflects the wishes and responses of the many ethnocultural groups which make up more than 35 per cent of our population. The response we have received through feedback from all the ethnocultural
October 18, 1978

groups as to how we can make our policy even better has exceeded all our expectations. It is encouraging to me and to my party that, when we form the government, the good faith which has already been established between our party and our fellow Canadians whose origins are neither English or French will be translated into good multiculturalism policies which will be long-lasting and not fleeting as the policies of the government on multiculturalism have been since the inception of the program by this government some seven years ago.
Sincerity, Mr. Speaker, sincerity in government is hard to forge unless one is a very good actor indeed. This government would not only be an outstanding candidate for a best actor award but would probably win an Academy Award hands down. However, even after Academy Award winners have had their day, they fade away and are soon forgotten. It would be a blessing for our country if this same fate befell this government, and the sooner the better.
In the Speech from the Throne the government spoke of its commitment to a renewal of the Canadian federation through constitutional change. However, the government's constitutional bill has only provoked widespread criticism, particularly with respect to the claim that parliament can unilaterally amend the constitution in areas which the federal government deems to fall within its prerogative. Many of us are convinced that the government cannot and should not take this type of unilateral action, even if it restricts its efforts to reform certain federal institutions.
Back in 1867 the BN A Act was formulated by a consensus among the initial founding provinces. In fact confederation was built on the premise that the nature of the union would not be substantially altered without provincial agreement. This government seems to have forgotten or chooses to ignore the spirit of intergovernmental co-operation which led to the development of this nation.
A reform of the constitution must and should only be carried out with a willingness to reach a suitable compromise among all levels of government. There must be full consultation with the provincial governments, and every effort must be made to reach a consensus on proposed changes before any proposals are translated into legislative initiatives. Any other approach to constitutional reform would serve only to divide this country rather than unite it.
It is not my intention to debate the legality of the government's position on this issue. Such discussions are better left to constitutional experts. Rather, I would like to direct the attention of the House back to the government's emphasis on four basic principles of constitutional renewal. They are the preeminence of citizens and their freedoms, full respect of native rights, full development of Canada's two major linguistic communities, and the enhancement of our mosaic of cultures.
This is not the first time that a throne speech has expressed a concern for the protection of individual freedoms and a commitment to a more equitable and pluralistic society, a concern which has in the past been full of empty promises and, equally, full of empty results.
The Address-Mr. Mitges
In 1970 we were asked, and I quote:
-to share the excitement, to face the challenge, to pursue the distant ideal of a just society.
Further, we were told that:
The Canada of the seventies must continue to be a land for people; a country in which freedom and individualism are cherished and nurtured; a society in which the government lends its strength to withstand, rather than support, the pressures for conformity.
In 1973 we were informed that:
The government would continue to encourage through its multicultural policy the development of a society in which individuals and groups could develop and express their own cultural identity.
The Speech from the Throne of just two years ago contained these words:
Canada is a diverse country. Unity can result only from a recognition of that diversity, and not from any attempt to impose rigid uniformity. In matters of language and culture, it is important to recognize the personality of the various parts of the country without departing from the principles of justice and generosity, which should apply everywhere.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister's office can prepare reams of fine prose on almost any subject, but, putting aside the rhetoric, what exactly has been accomplished by this government in the areas of human rights and multiculturalism? In spite of the lip service paid to multiculturalism, Canadian tolerance of other cultures and languages is surprisingly low.
Bilingualism and the 1976 dispute over air traffic control demonstrate the strong English-French rivalry which exists in Canada today, a rivalry which this government has not really tried to defuse. On the contrary, this government has managed-and managed quite well, I might add-to inflame this rivalry to gain its own ends and for its own purpose.
Certainly the treatment of our native people and new immigrant groups illustrates a deep-seated ignorance by this government of the value of different cultural aspirations in this great country of ours.
Negative feelings, particularly against non-Europeans, but also against certain categories of Europeans such as those from eastern and southern Europe, have been an unfortunate part of the history of this country, and show very little sign of abating. The Ontario Human Rights Commission reports that:
The number of reported incidents of racial violence in public places has increased dramatically.
Additional evidence of prejudice and acts of discrimination of both a violent and subtle kind have been reported in numerous briefs submitted to the Human Rights Commission by ethnic groups. Accounts of assault, abuse and harassment can be read about daily in ethnic papers. In spite of all this evidence, many Canadians continue to cling to the myth that Canada is and always has been a society devoid of prejudice, discrimination and racism.
The priority that I am giving in my address today to racism and discrimination against minority cultural groups should not be misconstrued as showing any lack of concern about other human rights problems. For example, women have been seeking to break the bonds of sexism and to achieve full employ-

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mr. Mitges
ment opportunity, equal pay for work of equal value, equal employment benefits and equal insurance, credit and property rights, to mention only a few areas of concern. Similarly, the physically handicapped and the aged seek to have their talents fully used rather than being underemployed and isolated from normal Canadian life.
The present government has accomplished little in these areas, and, what has been done is now being dismantled under the excuse of expenditure restraint. Discrimination against various religious groups and sects is also well documented.
However, the most odious form of discrimination, and that which provides the greatest threat to our national unity, is the discrimination based on race or ethnic origin.
There is something peculiarly Canadian about the way a good deal of discrimination is practised in this country. If one can ascribe characteristics to national groups, one would probably call Canadians a people who do most things quietly and dislike making a fuss. We seem to like our diplomacy quiet; we like our political and economic life comparatively quiet. There is no doubt that we like our discrimination quiet. Consequently, much of it is practised quietly by people who do not consider themselves bigots but who discriminate in order to avoid disturbing what they see as the established social order. Such people are the landlords who, while professing their own freedom from prejudice, refuse to rent to members of visible minorities because presumably, their other tenants would move out. They are the employers who reject minority group job applicants for fear of the negative reaction of other employees; or the businesses which exclude patrons from certain racial groups for fear of a general loss of revenue. Of course these people will seldom admit their motives even to themselves; They would not wish to embarrass those who seek jobs, accommodation or services-so they cloak their discrimination in excuses that the job, or the apartment, is gone.
Individually, we must guard against allowing ourselves to practise subtle forms of discrimination against our fellow Canadians. Collectively, it is imperative that we meet the constant threat of discrimination through vigilant and vigorous human rights promotion. We must ensure the vigorous enforcement of the human rights codes which we now have in every province and at the federal level. It is imperative that we strive for a new constitution which guarantees the fundamental freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, and which provides protection for minorities and eliminates once and for all the repugnant and distasteful connotations implied in the words second-class citizen.
The proposal to include in the proposed constitution a Canadian charter of rights and freedoms, is welcome indeed. Such a charter would have great psychological value because it would set up a model for both government and public to aspire to and live up to. Furthermore, a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights would have more weight in the courts than existing human rights legislation in Canada.

However, as great as is the need for the charter of rights and freedoms, we all know that you cannot legislate away prejudices or discrimination. Subtle means of discrimination are constantly being devised. However, in spite of this, there are further initiatives which could be taken to bring about a more tolerant climate in Canada. In this respect, the lofty but empty rhetoric of the government is of little value. What is badly needed is greater interaction among all our citizens. This is the key to a greater understanding and more tolerant attitudes among Canadians. Beginning at an early age, Canadians must be taught to respect and appreciate the cultural and linguistic heritage that has become integral to Canadian social development.
The Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism expresses its disappointment that not only are the ethnocultural contributions being largely ignored, but still prevalent is the idea that the education system can be used to try to submerge ethnic identities. To quote the Consultative Council:
Ethnic diversity is not just a political ideal; it is an inescapable reality. The Canadian education system must provide a more accurate reflection of this reality, if it is to shape a more responsible citizenry for tomorrow.
The Consultative Council was also very critical of the fact that the government has taken little initiative in promoting language learning other than English and French.
The council has repeatedly stressed the important relationship of language to cultural retention, recommending that the government initiate bilateral discussions with the provinces to find more effective alternatives to the cultural enrichment support program.
This program provides only a minimum of support for voluntary organizations to set up extracurricular language classes. The Consultative Council feels very strongly about the need for more language courses in the public school system. Unfortunately, the government has repeatedly ignored the recommendations of the Consultative Council.
Regardless of the fact that education is a provincial responsibility, the protection of human rights and the development of multiculturalism are the responsibility of all levels of government.
The government can no longer ignore the need for lasting and productive federal-provincial discussions regarding the promotion of these ideals.
There is a need, not only in the schools but in the adult population as well, for greater information about the cultural background of the many ethnocultural groups, to eliminate hostile feelings and to eliminate the beliefs in inaccurate and exaggerated stereotypes. There is no question that the multicultural policy should be broadened to include resocialization programs for adult members of the majority society in order to sensitize them to the cultures and the problems that minority members face in our society. In this respect the CBC can play an important role by providing programming which explores the advantages and problems of a multi-ethnic multi-racial society.
October 18, 1978

Other government agencies, such as the CRTC, the National Film Board, the Public Archives and the National Library, must also shoulder more responsibility in providing accurate information to the public regarding Canada's cultural heritage.
Further, a multicultural policy must be directed toward improving social contacts between the different cultural groups in Canada, and not toward trying to serve each ethnic cultural group almost totally in isolation from each other.
To this end the government should convene national and regional conferences which involve all segments of Canadian society, not just a selected few.
I am distressed by the rumour that the multilingual biblios-ervice is going to be cut, not because of budgetary restraints, but out of purely political motives. This mini-library operates out of the National Library and distributes books in many different languages for the use of both new immigrants and for Canadians interested in improving their linguistic skills. If this service is dispensed with, we must seriously question the government's commitment to cultural and linguistic diversity. The government's commitment to diversity has been in question on other occasions as well. I have raised this point before in the House, but I think that it bears repeating.
The summer before last the government failed to take the opportunity to make a positive contribution to changing the attitudes of Canadians toward cultural pluralism. At that time we introduced a motion to amend the Immigration Act so that it could take into consideration the multicultural nature of Canadian society. The motion, however, was defeated by the government members of the House. Considering the stance taken by the government on this issue, how can we expect the general public to be open-minded in their attitudes toward cultural diversity?
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that from the beginning of confederation cultural and linguistic questions have always been central to Canada's existence as a unified and civilized nation. Further, it is true to say that the cultural freedom we all cherish covers a broad way of life. It includes our art, our history, our languages, our customs, and the way we organize our social and family life. It involves our attitudes toward others whose backgrounds are different from our own. It involves the reaction of others toward the traditions we value. There is no question, if we recognize the legitimate aspirations of others, that we ensure the recognition of our own aspirations.
Multiculturalism was born because of the wish of many Canadians of different backgrounds to express themselves through their own culture. Multiculturalism injects a measure of fairness and equality regarding the cultural development of this country, making it easier to feel and become involved in the national life of our country.
A unique healthy Canadian culture is very, very important to all of us. However, such a culture cannot flourish in a limbo.
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo It must be lived every day by all of us who are proud to call ourselves Canadians.
Finally, I should like to close my remarks by saying: let all of us open our minds to a better understanding of what it really means to be a Canadian. Then, of their own accord, those misunderstandings which tend to separate us will start to crumble, and we will see ourselves and our fellow Canadians as we really are.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, the noble sentiments expressed by the hon. member opposite should be commended to all members of the House. Certainly it is fitting that they should be brought forward in the Speech from the Throne debate. I congratulate the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appol-loni) and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard), the mover and seconder of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.
The Speech from the Throne noted the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to the Edmonton Commonwealth Games, the pleasure which Her Majesty felt, and the surge of national pride which we felt as a result of those very excellent games and the ability of our athletes, coaches, volunteers, officials, and indeed everyone connected with the event. It was a moment of true excellence for Canada. It was an event of which all Canadians can be proud. It is most appropriate that our Head of State, as she is, as her heirs are now and will be under our proposed new constitution, should be there to see the final festival of a decade of development of sport in this country. It was the culmination which sport and recreation in all their diverse elements in this country have striven for during the previous ten years.
Many people say to me, "What is sport?" Often it is very difficult to explain because sport has so many different characters. For some, sport is recreation, an activity which is valued for its own sake alone and one which permits a change of pace from the routine demands of life. For these people, sport really needs no justification whatsoever. It simply is. For some others, sport is a means of maintaining physical well-being or fitness. This approach receives strong support in a society which puts a great deal of emphasis on youthfulness and in more spartan nations which called for a regime of health and strength. For others, sport is an opportunity for status display, for being in fashion, for wearing the latest track suit. For a few, sport is an avenue of social and economic advancement. For a very few indeed, sport becomes the vehicle to enter the elite world of sport celebrities.
There is a sizeable number of organized sports, both amateur and professional, which really are big business. They are linked with the media and advertising. They promote the interests of investors and entrepreneurs. They become profitmaking ventures. Big time sport also is a mass spectacle. It includes heroes and villains for millions of young and old. Sport becomes a very dramatic public theatre providing fantasy, identification, and adventure.

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo
I was struck by the hon. member who proceeded me making remarks about this side of the House possibly receiving an academy award for performances which have gone on in this chamber. Undoubtedly his party will receive the television award because of all the changes which have been made for the television audience. I am quite sure viewers have taken note of the fact that they are playing to the television audience and not to the House of Commons. Of course, the traditions are well marked.
Speaking of traditions, for over 200 years Canadians have consciously used sport and physical activity as an avenue through which to improve the quality of lifestyle. As early as the 1700s in this country, people had sticks which they used to push balls around on the ice. No one knew what would happen from that little game back then. That little game became something which, at times, is almost a magnificent problem and a danger to our psyche, at the same time as being a great joy. Also there was another game which became very popular. It was called lacrosse, or la croix. It was heralded across the young and rugged frontiers of Canada as it was beginning to bloom as a nation. It was the manner in which ancient societies of Indian people prepared for war. Sometimes the lacrosse games would continue for six or seven days. Indeed casualties were very, very great. Our reputation as a tough sporting country was launched many generations ago. It was launched before the ancestors of members in this House, with the exception of the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) and the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), came to this country. During the ensuing years perhaps we lost sight of that reputation. From time to time it might have come down in our estimation, and risen once again. It always came back into focus, as sure as a pendulum swings.
It was during those hurly-burly heydays that our national passion for hockey wove itself into the very fibre of our nation. There are times when I feel that hockey is the other side of our national character. Canadians are usually regarded as good grey, conciliatory, co-operative, and very mild mannered. Indeed that is true. I understood another speaker to state earlier today that we were a very moderate people. Also that is true. How does one explain our unbridled passion for hockey, for the aggressive side of our nature, the other side of our national character? If we could meld the aggressiveness of hockey with all the other good characteristics of our country and apply it to the economy, we would have the strength and ambition to invest in our own country rather than have the Germans, Japanese, Arabs and everyone else investing in Canada. Let us apply our hockey know-how to investments in our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: I should like to tell hon. members more about hockey, because hockey is too important not to be discussed in the House of Commons. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association was formed in the city of Ottawa in 1912. Today it is still a functioning and viable organization, guiding

with authority our domestic hockey programs involving some 550,000 Canadian youngsters.
For many years CAHA was a totally male bastion, as was this chamber. In October 1978, the CAHA decided to sanction females in hockey. Females have been participating in hockey virtually as long as the organization has been in existence, but finally they were given recognition. There are women's hockey teams from one end of the country to the other. Hockey is evolving so much so that there are 13 teams of underwater hockey in the province of British Columbia.
As our domestic programs improved and we conquered all comers in this wonderful game of ours, we began to look toward international competition to satisfy the desire to present and perform hockey to the standards and excitement to which we have become accustomed, because we were very good at the game. However, there was a philosophical difference between the Canadian desire to play hockey and that of most of the rest of the hockey-playing world.
Always we wanted to use our best when we went into competition. The argument which came forward was that other hockey playing nations wanted us to use our amateurs. It was not a reconcilable argument, and Canada withdrew from international hockey in 1969. We are still seeking always best on best, and this has finally been facilitated in some remarkable work by men who represent all facets of Canadian hockey in Canada.
I am happy to be able to say that earlier this year Hockey Canada and the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association entered into an unprecedented agreement which brought, at long last, stability and understanding between the amateurs and professionals. This agreement is a very great step forward, and a tribute to both parties. I congratulate the president of the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association for being so far-seeing as to be able to speak for his people in this way and to sign this document that has literally ended 30 years of disagreement. I also must commend the retiring president of Hockey Canada, Douglas Fisher. I believe that no one has done more for sport in this country than Douglas Fisher, and I believe that bringing forward this agreement through Hockey Canada was the greatest achievement of his contributions to hockey.
This agreement clearly stipulates that Hockey Canada will design the policy governing exchanges dealing with Canada's national teams, be they professional, that is, Canada Cup, and World Championships, Junior-Junior World Championships-or amateur, that is, the Olympic Games. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, on the other hand, will continue to deal with matters of club exchanges, official development, rule changes, etc. In short, it has finally been agreed to by all parties, and signed by both parties, that the Board of Hockey Canada, of which the CAHA is a member, will be in charge of ensuring that our international hockey objectives be pursued with vigour, planning, and foresight. The over-all, long-range planning for our involvement in international hockey will be
October 18, 1978

handled by the Board of Hockey Canada, and we will present a united Canadian front at the council tables of the International Ice Hockey Federation. The Canadian Amateur Hockey Association president was elected to the council of the IIHF as a result of this accord, and Canada retains its two votes on that body's congress.
The hockey furor of 1969 brought into focus once again the concept that the game is our official national sport. Members of this House, I have to tell you that hockey is not our official national sport. Lacrosse advocates will tell you that it is our official national sport. There is no evidence to suggest that any member of this House has ever brought forth a bill in that regard. I commend those people who are bringing in private members' bills, and certain members on this side of the House have indicated to me that they would like to bring in such a bill. I think that we will leave it up to the sports' community to decide whether it is hockey or lacrosse because, indeed, there is a good case to be made for both parties. Both sports are played by so many people and have a great deal to do with our past and future in sport.
In the early 1960s the federal government lent a much-needed support service to the sport and recreation community in this country. Close contact was maintained with the community and with the provinces. For several years we, the Government of Canada, acted as neutral onlookers, and at times we dispersed a little bit of financial assistance and other resources in response to their direct needs. At times we implemented proposals submitted from outside the government, and then there were instructional and promotional materials which we gradually produced, but seldom did the government actually initiate a program of its own.
A number of significant achievements in this country's centennial year changed this entire situation. In the winter of 1968 this government began the first Canada Games in Quebec city, and this first national, multi-sport event at that time demonstrated that Fitness and Amateur Sport, the directorate as it was then called, had a role to play in Canada, and that it was a significant one. It was the chief catalyst and co-ordinator in the planning and carrying out of the fitness and amateur sport crusade. It was during these very same games that the directorate led a discussion under which was born the concept of an Arctic Winter Games.
There is no doubt that all Canadians, regardless of where they live, have a right to equal access to sport, recreation and fitness outlets. So, if we have the Baffin region Inuit games in Pangnirtung, and if the baseball rules are not quite up to the standards of the game being played in the ball parks of Montreal or Toronto, that is to be expected, but it is still a growing thing. The youngsters of this country, no matter where they live, have an equal right, so we have the Arctic Winter Games and we have the northern games.
At the time in 1967 when we brought in the first Canada Games, they were the only winter games in the entire country. Now there are games in every province and in many regions, both summer and winter. There is great progress in the
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo provinces and regions of this country in these various sports programs.
We also hosted the Pan-American games in 1967, just 13 years after we hosted the British Empire Games in Vancouver. There was then a symposium in Montreal to examine leisure time and the possibilities of its consequences in the future. Recreation was seen as a complex, multi-faceted area whose collective impact deeply affected the character of Canadian society. This was when everybody was saying, "My goodness, what are we going to do when we get to the future because we are going to have so much leisure time we are not going to know what to do with it all?" Everybody was potting flowers, and weeding, and learning how to do various types of sports, and moving at a great rate to prepare for this future when nobody would be busy any more.
This development has moved on, because after 1967 came 1969 and the task force on sport, which was initiated by this government, and which produced a report that reinforced the belief that sport is an important component of Canadian culture. Our athletes are as important as those who are from the art world. And here comes one now, Mr. Speaker.



[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
Bill C-8, An act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services-Chapter 1.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mrs. Ursula Appolloni for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto (Mr. Crosbie) (p. 233).
Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to talk about

October 18, 1978
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo the 1969 task force before we moved to the other place. Over 80 per cent of the recommendations in that report have been implemented, and during the period of implementation other studies, reports, and policy statements emerged back in 1970. The then minister of national health and welfare, the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) announced a policy, a first sports policy for Canadians. The paper clearly recognized competitive sport excellence as a consequence of increased participation. We talk quite glibly about the mass participation base and the high performance sports levels. This was the time when we decided that we were going to give some assistance to those people who were seeking the high performance levels, and there were new structures created to tackle specific problems that had been identified.
The National Sports and Recreation Centre was established to house and provide administrative services to many of our national sport governing bodies-54 are resident there out of the 88 recognized sports in Canada-and recreation governing bodies as well. It was the services of this centre which provided them with executive back-up and the means of being able to carry on their executive functions in a businesslike atmosphere. Many people know that various excellent people were elected as volunteers in many of the sport governing bodies. Some had to manage the administration of their sport governing body from their kitchen table or their spare room. Often the president was in one city, the treasurer in another, and the vice president might be in yet another part of Canada. What we have done at the request of sports is to bring further administrative assistance to these sport governing bodies.
Of course other things happened. Hockey Canada was created at that time and "Participaction", which is technically known as Sport Participation Canada, was established to promote the fitness message across Canada. The Coaching Association was created to encourage coaching development through programs and services to coaches at all levels. Coaching certification and apprenticeship programs are recent developments in that area.
Until recently, Canada's performance in international sport could be best described as inconsistent. Our international performance was very much a reflection of what was happening at the national level. Beyond that, one question kept begging to be asked: what opportunities are being provided for young people to participate in this country?
Today, public attitudes to sport and recreation have changed very drastically. Many thousands have participated in national sport championships. In fact some 14,000 have participated in the Canada Games alone, and we expect another 2,400 to join those numbers in Brandon, Manitoba, next year, from February 12 to 24 for the Canada Games.
Then there was the Game Plan Assistance Program. This was for athletes ranked amongst the world's 16 best. Through our grant-in-aid program to student athletes we have been assisting some of the young people at the provincial level to develop their athletic skills. A total of nearly $6.5 million has

been awarded to Canadian men and women involved in sport competition to assist them in pursuing their athletic careers.
More than ever Canadians of all ages, Canadians of all backgrounds and both sexes, are participating in this Sport Crusade. In fact, the numbers are quite incredible. From 1972 to 1976, jogging, skiing, and tennis have enjoyed a tremendous growth in participation, ranging from a 148 per cent increase to a 197 per cent increase in these fitness related sports alone.
There was a decade of development for young people. It saw the birth of the fitness awards program. This is a program, one of the very few, we have in the schools of the nation. As hon. members know, the educational system is at the provincial level and there is some difficulty in communicating with the ministers of education of the provinces on national goals and standards in fitness. In Canadian schools there is a great range in levels of fitness and participation in sport. Our fitness awards program has at least brought some awareness to something like 1.8 million young people who have received bronze, silver, and gold crests as a result of their accomplishments in the sport hierarchy within their own peer groups.
Now there is a cross-Canada sport caravan. This is a very interesting demonstration. It has trucks loaded with sport equipment that go into small towns and villages. The demonstrators lay out all the equipment and teach the public how to participate in as many as 40 sports and just about as many fitness related programs. In addition, there is a way in which we can test people for their fitness regardless of age. We can put them through our step test or our fit kit test and show people how to keep fit and keep involved. Because, let us face it, we cannot legislate fitness. We cannot legislate people to be strong and healthy within our society. Yet we know we are spending $8 billion on health care in this nation alone. That could be reduced by as much as 40 per cent if we were to upgrade our own fitness levels, indeed our lifestyle. Alcohol, smoking, nutrition, obesity and fitness, these are the components of a lifestyle that can change that level of the cost of health care.
The cross-Canada sports demonstration program has had as many as two million visitors. This year the Canadian Public Health Association employee fitness project has been carried out in 51 corporations across this nation. This was begun as a make-work project for out of work recreationists, and yet it has turned out to be one of the most exciting projects in which Fitness and Amateur Sport has been involved. We contributed $336,000 to administer the project. Additional funds were brought forward by the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Summer Job Corps added their program to it. The final report of the project is still to come, but we know that some of those recreationists are now permanently employed. Of the group that started 60 per cent are continuing on their own, without any assistance from anyone, to have
October 18, 1978

fitness components in their offices. Because of this they are keeping their workers in better communion with their own bodies.
Federal contributions to sport governing bodies are, of course, fundamental to the program. Every year national associations submit requests for financial assistance, which are then considered from a feasibility and financial standpoint. During the last year contributions to sport and recreation governing bodies have totalled $24.1 million. I would like to emphasize that figure, Mr. Speaker, because that is just about $1 per head per Canadian. That is what we are spending, about $1 per head. One could probably write it at the bottom of each income tax return if we had the time to say this is where this money is going, and I believe it is well spent indeed.
Greater emphasis is now being placed upon accountability, both fiscal and technical. That means two things in sport. Of course, as with any other group which receives funds from the taxpayers, all sport governing bodies must be fiscally responsible, and so they are accountable to the people. But technical acountability is quite another thing, and one which we are now working on in a way that will make it possible to make the dollars that we do have go further.
For example, is it necessary for the rowing club to go to Florida when they might possibly train in Burnaby? Must we have high altitude training in Switzerland, or can it be done in Canada? Is it possible for us to compete? We must compete. But many people say to me, "What are Canadian equestrians doing in Rumania?" I will tell you: that is where the best competition is. As well I am asked, "What are Canadian fencers doing in Poland?" The answer to that question is: that is where they meet their finest competition, because they are the ones they will be meeting when entering competitions. So, when I am asked, "What are Canadian boxers doing in Cuba?" I will tell them, "That is where the competition is."
And sometimes those people come to Canada because Canada is becoming one of the most distinguished host nations for sport in the world. It is also one of the nations that sport countries like to attend. There have been requests for the World Soccer Championship to be held in Canada. There have been requests for more Pan-American Games, more Summer Games and Winter Games, in fact games of all types. This even includes brand new games that are being requested.
As every one knows, there is a four year cycle in sport. It begins with the Olympic Games. The following year is a year
The Address-Mrs. Campagnolo off. After that comes the Commonwealth Games, then the Pan-American Games, followed by the Winter Olympics, and back to the Summer Olympics.
The year following the Summer Olympic Games is "the year off". That year is being looked at by many sport organizations who would like to have world championships at that time. There are tens of thousands of volunteers who have assisted in this program being carried out in every part of the country.
Today is a rather special day. We hear from a number of people when our sport heroes are being honoured. Today a coach will receive the Order of Canada. Her name is Ellen Burka, the coach of Toller Cranston, mother of Petra Burka, and coach of Lynn Nightingale. Tonight Mrs. Burka will receive the Order of Canada. I think that is a well deserved recognition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Canadians are more aware than ever before of the need to take part in regular physical activity. In my opinion that has been shown by the success of Participac-tion. Participaction receive $500,000 of taxpayers' money every year. They receive $8 million in free time in the journals and in the electronic media of this country to display ads. That is well spent money because the message is going home.
I hope those of you who are a few pounds overweight, as some of us sometimes are, will be ready, because we are going to aim at obesity with Participaction in the next year. So perhaps we will see a change there.
Now for a look at the future of sport. In 1978 we saw the dawning of what will be another significant ten-year period. The transformation is coming in the wind again, and the ten years ahead will be ones of decision-making.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. On behalf of all hon. members in this House I would like to extend to the hon. Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) our very best wishes on the occasion of her birthday today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 19, 1978