1978-10-12

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I would like to raise a matter of extreme urgency and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Post Office management and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers are now in an absolute state of confrontation, as witnessed by the newspaper advertisements of yesterday, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government move immediately to establish a parliamentary investigation of the deepening crisis in the Post Office, with authority to report back to parliament at the earliest possible date with solutions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the answer the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave in the House about terminating the throne speech debate at an early date to get on with economic measures, I hope that not only the government but the official opposition will agree with this motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls on the government, after consultation with the House leaders of all parties, to arrange for the early termination of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, so that the House can consider economic measures which the government should now introduce to stimulate production and achieve economic growth.


Mr. Speaker:: The 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.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As the Conference Board in Canada predicted a year ago that the Manitoba economy would experience difficulty in 1978 because of poor economic performance in the first three quarters of 1977, the NDP era, whereas the 6,000 manufacturing jobs lost in the final year of the NDP government have been regained, and whereas employment in Manitoba grew to three times the average job creation of the previous four years under the NDP, and whereas, if the NDP record had been maintained in 1978-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member would want to relate his motion to a matter which is within the competence of this parliament.


A. Daniel McKenzie: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House urge the NDP to consider eight years of NDP economic mismanagement before criticizing the record of the Lyon government.


FORESTRY
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, on a matter of urgent necessity, to seek the consent of the House under Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that among the budget cuts, announced September 8 by the President of the Treasury Board, were included the closing of the Petawawa forest experiment station, the forest products laboratory in Ottawa and several important small forest stations across the country, in light of the increased interest in forestry research at a time of energy shortages and the pressing need for new sources of renewable energy, and in view of the fact that the closing of these forestry stations will mean the loss of hundreds

October 12, 1978
of talented research experts, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House condemn the government's action in closing these forestry stations and instruct the ministry of the environment to rescind the budget cuts that have led to their closing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that farmers in my riding of Brant-and, indeed, across Canada-have come to depend on Canfarm for farm management services that are vital to their farming operations, in light of the fact that farmers across Canada have indicated their willingness to pay fees up to five times higher than at present for these services, and in light of the fact that the federal government has made a considerable investment in Canfarm over the past 12 years, making it one of the best farm management programs in the world, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That the Minister of Agriculture be instructed to continue funding Canfarm or, failing that, to maintain Canfarm's services at least until a suitable private or public institution is found to take over its operation.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction 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.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on November 9, 1977, at Winnipeg, that "we are on the threshold of tremendous growth", and in view of the fact that on October 4, 1978, in a speech at Sarnia to the Chemical Institute of Canada, the minister stated that "the Canadian economy is entering a period of stable growth", I move, seconded by the

hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty):
That this honourable House request the minister to clarify his economic predictions and to advise the House whether or not his two views can be reconciled, and whether he now believes that we are on the threshold of tremendously stable growth or entering a period of stable tremendous growth, since many economic forecasters cannot proceed with their forecasts until this apparent discrepancy is accounted for.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because of the serious omission from the Speech from the Throne of any reference to Canada's veterans or their survivors, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce at an early date the amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act which were promised during the last session, and also to introduce an amendment to the Pension Act to provide for pro rata pensions for widows of disabled veterans where the disability of the veteran was assessed below 48 per cent, it being clearly recognized that these measures would be dealt with very quickly by this House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that we have lost $4.7 billion of foreign exchange in the recent past, at the rate of $390 million a month which has been flowing out since the minister took office, would he indicate if he anticipates that we in Canada will have to go to still higher interest rates, bearing in mind the unemployment in the country and in view of the fact that the American prime rates are now on the way up again, with Chase Manhattan increasing its rate to 10 per cent prime this morning?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speculate on the monetary policies of the
October 12, 1978

governor of the bank. When some change is made, we will make an announcement publicly after the market is closed. No such decision is being made at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my next question does not deal with any speculation. Is the Minister of Finance aware that the 1.5 billion Deutschmark loan which he arranged last May would cost $136 million Canadian more to repay if it were to be repaid today? Is he making any allowance for this type of eventuality, bearing in mind that we borrowed less than $800 million from the Germans and we would now have to repay them $936 million to make complete repayment, plus interest, on their loan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we borrowed from Germany we knew we had to make some provision for the level of exchange fluctuation. Of course, the money we borrowed there was at a much lower interest rate than other money available in the market. I am not about to speculate on the level of the Canadian dollar at the time we have to repay the loan.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the minister probably knows, if the loan were repaid today, capital appreciation alone would be 18 per cent in five months. The government tends to support the wobbly, cheap dollar; it tells us that it has a tremendous effect on our exports. Is the minister aware, in terms of the Japanese yen, which is now almost 90 per cent more in value than that of the Canadian dollar only two years ago, that this means the Japanese can now buy our raw resources at approximately half the price they used to pay? They manufacture them and then export them back to us.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is he aware of this? Is he aware of the fact that Mitsubishi Petrochemical Limited, the thirty-seventh largest company in Canada, employs only 98 Canadians today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West.


FORECAST OF 1978 TRADE BALANCE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, on September 28 the Minister of Finance predicted that Canada's trade surplus this year would be $4 billion, and on September 29, when he revealed that our surplus for August was only $186 million, the Canadian dollar declined sharply because the experts felt deceived by the minister's statement. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce predicted a trade surplus of $5 billion this year. Of course, no one pays much attention to his predictions.
My question to the minister is, could he now give the government's considered, best estimate of the likely merchandise trade balance for 1978, keeping in mind that for the first eight months of this year the surplus was $2,084 million which, continued for the rest of the year, would only give us a surplus of $3.1 billion? Can the minister give us the official
Oral Questions
estimate of the merchandise trade surplus, so that the Canadian dollar will not suffer any longer because of ministerial lack of credibility?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have said that at the time of my budget I will review the forecast which we made some time ago. However, I should like to tell the House of Commons that I am convinced the surplus in trade this year will be at a record level. Last year we had $2.9 billion. It will be substantially more than that this year; it will be a record year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Does the minister still stick to his prediction of June 1, as taken from Hansard, that we had a trade surplus of $3 billion last year and, if the present trend continues, the surplus could be $5 billion this year? Is he still sticking to that? Could he explain how, during the last three months of this year-that is, June, July and August-our trade surplus totalled only $101 million, whereas for the same period last year it totalled $542 million?
In view of these alarming results, how can he justify an estimate of up to $5 billion for the merchandise trade surplus this year, particularly in view of the result of the last three months?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I did not say it would be $5 billion, Mr. Speaker. I said that if the trend remained the same-and, obviously, during the last three months it was not the same- for the over-all year we would have a trade surplus higher than last year and it would be at a record level. I hope the hon. member will recognize that good performance. In fact, Mr. Speaker, in passing let me say that the Canadian dollar, being somewhat weaker, has been of very much help to the fishermen of Newfoundland.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the dollar is now trading at just over 84 cents, which is far below what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said the dollar should be trading at-he said par should be 90 cents-would the minister tell us what is, in fact, the policy of the government? Is it that the dollar should be 90 cents, should par be 90 cents, should it be 84 cents, or 80 cents? What is the minister's policy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, perhaps for the hundredth time since I am the minister, I must say that the policy of the government is to let the Canadian dollar float. The level of the dollar is determined by the market and the Bank of Canada intervenes only to maintain an orderly market.

October 12, 1978
Oral Questions


LOSS OF JOBS RESULTING FROM GOVERNMENT CUTBACKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Finance. On Tuesday, I asked the right hon. Prime Minister if he would confirm that an assessment had been made by the government in respect of employment consequences as a result of the more than $2.5 billion in cutbacks announced by the governement. I asked whether he would confirm that the assessment indicated there would be a net loss of something like 100,000 jobs to the economy. As usual, he did not answer.
I ask the minister, considering that Informetrica Limited, an economic consulting firm in Ottawa used frequently by the federal government, produced a report today which points out that there will, indeed, be 94,000 jobs lost as a result of the government's cutbacks, is there a federal government assessment showing similar results; and, if so, would he table it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a study by the government. If you take those cuts separately, of course you can come to such conclusions but on the other hand we think that with a budget which relates more closely to the means of the federal government, we will be in better position to create a climate of confidence in the Canadian economy. Of course, if the climate improves in Canada there will certainly be more than a mere replacement of jobs by new activities in the private sector.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe I understood correctly what the minister just said. Is he saying we will create economic confidence in the country by a policy that results in 100,000 more unemployed Canadians? Is that what he just said? In relation to that, I would ask the minister to make it perfectly clear that he is saying, as the Minister of Finance, he is unaware of an assessment being done by his own department on the consequences to the economy of a cut of $2.5 billion from the economy. Is he unaware of any study being done showing those consequences?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am aware of the consequences. We decided it is extremely important to create a proper economic climate in Canada and that we should show some restraint in the public sector. This was discussed at the first ministers' meeting in February and we, including the Premier of Saskatchewan, decided collectively that we must have more room in the Canadian economy in order to create the proper climate in which to have better growth created by the private sector. I do not believe all jobs in Canada should have to be created by the public sector.


John Edward Broadbent: As usual, Mr. Speaker, this incompetent Minister of Finance does not answer the question, but goes off on a tangent. He should publicly apologize, in fact, to Premier Blakeney, who said-
(Mr. Chretien.]


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


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with that matter later today in the debate. My final question to the Minister of Finance is, if he had no assessments made about the consequences of the $2.5 billion cutback to the economy, could he tell us, since 17 independent forecasters have suggested that unemployment next year will remain in the neighbourhood of 9 per cent, if his department has done a study to indicate whether the 17 independent forecasters are correct? Does the government expect a 9 per cent rate of unemployment? If they have such studies, will they do for us what other governments around the world did a long time ago, that is, table the studies so we can consider them?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will deal with this problem in my budget speech in four weeks.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, considering the problems derived from the economic climate 1 think we could also touch on problems due to the natural climate through a question directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
Throughout the summer, we had very bad weather and a lot of rain in northwestern Quebec and northern Ontario. Following the discussions I had with the Minister of the Environment concerning studies on artificial rain falls, farmer groups from northwestern Quebec are asking the Minister of Agriculture whether farmers should not be compensated for the loss of production due to rainfalls in their area. Is the minister aware of that request? What does he intend to do?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that unless requests come from the provinces in which the producers are located, we will not act. In this case, I would think all their crops would be covered by the crop insurance which is available to them. If crop insurance was available to them and they did not take advantage of it, there is no way in which the government would be involved in any form of compensation to them.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the minister.
October 12, 1978

Is the minister aware of the problem? Has he received representations from the APU? If so, what studies are now being made with a view to meeting the request of the APU?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any representation, unless it has come in the last few days.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who, a while ago, announced cuts of some $580 million in the unemployment insurance budget, adding that those cuts would have little effect on the provinces.
As we heard yesterday that, as a result of those cuts, British Columbia would have to pay $105 million in welfare; Ontario, $15 million; Newfoundland, $44 million, not to mention Quebec which will probably have to spend $75 million, can the minister tell the House how it is that, when he announced his reductions he did not have those figures at hand or, to say the least, had not advised the provinces that because of reductions they would have to shoulder those heavy financial burdens?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the ministers whom I met yesterday concurred with the report that we presented to them. It showed the impact we anticipated the cuts would have on their welfare programs, which were significantly below their worst concerns.
Secondly, in their approach they were throwing everything into the hopper and indicating that this would create an impact on welfare, that people moving from unemployment insurance programs would automatically go to welfare. That, of course, is not in accordance with the facts. But because of their concerns and because of the very fruitful meeting we had yesterday, we are establishing a joint federal-provincial committee to look at the impact as seen from the view of the provinces and the federal government, always remembering that any impact on the welfare program is borne to the extent of 50 per cent by the federal government, in any event, under the Canada Assistance Plan.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that costs will be shared. The provinces will still be left with the short end of the stick with this measure.
As there is unanimous concern among the provinces over the amendments to the act, can the minister give his commitment, here in the House-I am not asking the Prime Minister
Oral Questions
because I doubt that I would get an answer-but could the minister give his word that no amendment or change will be implemented until there has been a real discussion with all provincial ministers? Afterwards, I think that he could table the bill in the House.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, immediately following the announcement, arrangements were made for a meeting of deputy ministers of the departments concerned. They met in early October. Some of the fears expressed earlier were allayed at that time, and we dealt yesterday with the remaining issues. The primary concern was the impact of the changes we are announcing; that is why we have set up this committee. I think the provinces were satisfied with that approach.
To suggest we could get unanimity of opinion, or approval, from them is not quite possible because ministers from Newfoundland have very different concerns and views about Canada Works than, let us say, ministers, from Alberta or Manitoba. Therefore, obtaining unanimity is very difficult. What we want to do, as well as we can, is allay the fears that have been expressed.


SAVINGS EFFECTED THROUGH PROGRAM CHANGES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister. In its economic statement, the government claimed that the tightening up of the unemployment insurance regulations would result in savings in the order of $580 million, and that would rise to some $700 million or $900 million by fiscal year 1980-81.
What are the revised savings figures, in view of the changes in the unemployment insurance scheme to which the minister has agreed with the provinces?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the press reports have been somewhat erroneous. We indicated yesterday the changes we had contemplated and the impact we believed they would have. Also, we indicated, as a result of the excellent representations I had from Liberal colleagues in the Atlantic provinces, that without disturbing the thrust of the legislation we were prepared to see that it has less impact in those particular areas. I discussed that matter with my Atlantic colleagues. They are not totally satisfied, even yet, and we will probably have a battle there. The changes we will make will still, 1 think, keep us within the ballpark figure we are looking at for savings under the UI program, making it a better and more credible program.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. The government's credibility rests on the fact that the government will cut spending. Those announcements were made during the summer. In view of the changes just announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, where will the govern-

October 12, 1978
Oral Questions
ment make up the shortfall in announced savings; or have the government's projected savings been reduced?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member directed the original question to me and I indicated to him that we would still be in the ballpark. Ministers and members of our caucus felt we could place better emphasis in other areas and make the changes more equitable. I have agreed to do that, provided we are able to maintain the savings from the cuts.

[ Translation]


INDUSTRY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Could the minister tell the House at what stage the negotiations are between the federal government and General Motors on the establishment of a plant in the province of Quebec?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my department is carrying on talks with General Motors. They may still build more than one plant in Canada, and one of those plants may well be in the province of Quebec. They have denied the rumours coming out of a Washington report that they will not build in Quebec. They have denied that rumour, and are still considering building in Quebec.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Given the statements made by General Motors, could the minister tell the House whether or not this company is going to build such a plant in the province of Quebec? If not, would he say that the federal government will do everything possible to have General Motors build such a plant in the province of Quebec?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, if I could inform the House of that, I would gladly do it; but, as I say, negotiations are still going on. When they are successfully concluded, I shall be glad to inform the House.


FINANCE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question follows one asked by my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, and I address it to the Minister of

Finance. In view of the fact that the minister has been accusing anybody and everybody of undermining the Canadian dollar, except perhaps himself and this government, I wonder if he is aware that a government agency, namely, Loto Canada, is advertising their Halloween draw to be paid in gold, rather than Canadian dollars. Does the minister not feel that this, in itself, is damaging to the confidence of our dollar-not only here but, more importantly, abroad?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the hon. member does not want us to help the mining industry in Canada.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I should not be surprised at the minister making a joke of a situation as important as this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: Notwithstanding the minister's answer, the fact remains that the position this government has taken has become the laughing stock of the New York money market.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Otto John Jelinek: 
ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. During the parliamentary recess his colleagues, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State, announced at a hastily-called press conference that the government would introduce economic boycott legislation. From the details they gave, it appears the legislation will do little more than place in statute form the statistical gathering exercise which the minister's department has undertaken.
Will the minister tell this House whether the legislation will have in it a prohibition on the supply of information regarding the racial origin, religion, colour and political affiliations of Canadian citizens and/or the officers, directors and employees of a Canadian corporation involved in international commercial transactions?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the proposed legislation, lengthy discussions took place between officials of my department and cabinet ministers with the Canada-Israel committee. They are satisfied the legislation that we will be
October 12, 1978

putting before the Elouse will answer their concerns. I am sure that when it is ready to be tabled in the House, the hon. member will be able to determine whether it will allay his worry.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us why he instructed the Export Development Corporation not to appear before a committee of the Ontario legislature which is considering economic boycott legislation? Will he now instruct them to go before that committee, or is he afraid to expose the weak and ineffective boycott regulations he has in place right now?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have repeatedly said that the Export Development Corporation is of tremendous benefit to our trade and our exports. I want to continue trading with Israel and the Middle East countries.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board in his capacity as the minister responsible for public service personnel management. I would like to know if it is possible, over the next three years, to operate the Government of Canada and give the services legislated by this House to the people of Canada, with a total hiring freeze in the public service and a reduction of 60,000 public servants.


An hon. Member:: Hypothetical.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I hear the suggestion that it is hypothetical-


An hon. Member:: Highly hypothetical.


Robert Knight Andras: I think it should be conveyed to the Leader of the Opposition that it is, in fact, hypothetical. I would not consider that to be a very wise measure to take. It is a generalization-


An hon. Member:: Too late.


Robert Knight Andras: We announced recently that we estimate there will be a reduction of some 5,000 authorized positions in the federal public service as a result of the expenditure reductions. That was a result, not an objective, of the exercise. It came about by identifying the programs we were modifying and/or eliminating the positions that accompanied them. Anyone who suggests that kind of global reduction of 60,000-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert Knight Andras: -should add to his suggestion how he would accomplish this and what services would be prevented or damaged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


REDUCTION OF PERSONNEL-REQUEST POLICY BE RECONSIDERED
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the minister's recent announcement that 5,000 public servants will lose their jobs as a result of government cutbacks, and that most of these lay-offs will occur in the Ottawa area which already has some 30,000 people out of work, will the minister now reconsider this policy and, indeed, abandon it? It is a policy which surpasses the disastrous Inco layoffs of a few months ago.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misinterpreted the announcement, perhaps inadvertently. We say that there will be a reduction of 5,000 authorized man-years in authorized positions in the public service as a result of the expenditure changes and modifications. It does not necessarily follow that individuals in those jobs now will be without jobs, because there is an attrition factor in the remainder of the still very sizeable public service, which requires recruitment all the time.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister can have it both ways. Either he has to give an unequivocal guarantee that those people will still have jobs, or he has to admit that the lay-offs are real. I would like to direct a supplementary question to the minister, in the absence of the minister of the environment, because it comes under the same cutback policies. In view of the decision of the minister of the environment to close the Petawawa forestry experimental station, with the loss of 68 jobs, including those of some world-renowned scientists, and the plan to transfer government laboratories to the private sector, will the minister urge his colleague to reverse this decision, in light of the fact that Canada's forest industry needs the expertise and the broad range of research carried out by government laboratories, research which is not done by private laboratories with their narrow interests?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister of the environment will read Hansard tomorrow and note the hon. member's comments.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance: it concerns the proposed changes to equalization payments which the minister announced on September 8. In that the equalization program is a social contract among 11 governments, it is therefore a fiscal program unlike any other fiscal program that exists in this country in the way it exemplifies the true federal nature of this country.

October 12, 1978
Oral Questions
Will the minister tell the House whether he had agreement of the other ten participants to make changes to this program prior to the time that he announced his intention to further aggravate regional disparity in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we said in August that we wanted to reduce the contribution we are making to the provinces. In transfer payments we are transferring more than $10 billion to the provinces. We are trying to reduce the gross by $370 million. We informed the provinces that we want to negotiate that kind of cut with them. There was a meeting at the level of deputy ministers.
In my travelling, visiting the various ministers of finance, we will discuss this matter, and we will discuss it further at the meeting in November. We have not said specifically that we would cut this program or that program. We have said that no program will be completely exempted.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister said, on September 8, that the cuts would take place in programs such as equalization. I would like to ask the minister if he is telling us that he is, indeed, willing to reconsider his unilateral decision to make reductions to equalization payments. This is a program which has the support not only of the recipient provinces but of those provinces which contribute the most to equalization.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in my statement I said that we were to discuss that with the provinces. It is one of the topics to be discussed. We are not planning to abolish the program of equalization payments. It is a very important program which we established some years ago. We are planning to carry on with it. From time to time we will review the programs and adjust them. Any adjustments will be discussed with the provinces.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that 140 days have elapsed since June 2, the day on which Canada and the United States closed their waters to each other's fishermen, and since there are valuable fisheries and hydrocarbons on Georges Bank, the loss of which would seriously affect the economy of Atlantic Canada, can the minister indicate whether any agreement on an international boundary in this area has been reached? If not, will he briefly inform the House of the present status of negotiations between our two countries?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult, as the hon. member appreciates, to do this briefly in the oral question period. The talks are going amicably but, I fear, not rapidly. In other

words, there is an enormous number of very complex subjects involved, particularly as these relate to the allocation of fish stocks between the two countries. What we decided-and by "we", I mean Secretary of State Vance and myself-in New York two weeks ago was to continue the mandate of our negotiators for a further period, with a view, First of all, to seeing how many of the issues still unresolved can be settled by negotiation, and also to look at the possibilities-I should add, by the way, in consultation with fishing interests and the provinces on both coasts-of referring some of the issues that are still unresolved to arbitration. This would also involve, of course, determining what form that arbitration should take.
I think I can best conclude by re-emphasizing what I have said. There is no ill feeling involved. There is a genuine recognition on both sides of the complexity of the issue and an anxiety to ensure that all parties, including fishing interests in both countries, the provinces and the states, are all fully involved and fully advised of the direction the talks are taking. As soon as there is something more specific, I will be more than pleased to let the House know.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that one of the negotiators, Mr. Cadieux, has been assigned other responsibilities, can the minister indicate whether this will have any effect on our future negotiations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker, it will not-not in the immediate future, in any event. If the talks were to proceed beyond a matter of a few months, then it might very well do so. However, the arrangements for his new assignment took into account the possibility that he would continue to be involved in these negotiations. I would hope that by the end of the year, let us say, if not before, we will at least have the framework for further progress in identifying those issues which can be negotiated and, most important perhaps, trying to put into place an interim arrangement in the event that we have to go to international arbitration or something of that sort on the larger questions of great complexity.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the current armed forces recruiting program and the costly series of television advertisements which the minister's department has been airing.
In view of the fact that during fiscal year 1976-1977 the armed forces accepted only one of every ten applicants, and only one out of every 25 contacts, and considering that during this time of high unemployment many interested men and women have been applying to the armed forces through the normal recruiting program, can the minister tell the House how much this current advertising campaign is costing for every recruit actually enrolled in the armed forces? Can he
October 12, 1978

also tell us why, at a time of announced cutbacks, this costly program should be undertaken at all, considering that so many highly-motivated job-seekers commit themselves to the recruitment process only to be turned down later after a long and expensive process?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the advertising program was, of course, contracted for long before the current cutbacks. Nevertheless, it does give us an opportunity to be highly selective. We have always had a high proportion of people applying for service in our armed forces because of the excellent reputation they have, the excellent training young men and women receive and the excellent career opportunities they have. This means we are able to be more selective.
We are increasing the number of people in the forces over-all. It is true that attrition, at the same time, has been reduced. We will, however, have in future years a need for more people. We want to maintain that interest among them and maintain the high standards which we presently have so that we can be selective and get the very best people.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration: it is supplementary to questions asked earlier. In view of yesterday's press reports, can the minister confirm that all provincial premiers are opposed to changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly in light of their position at the first ministers' conference last winter? If so, will he table any correspondence he has had with the premiers on this matter.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, the provincial ministers who were present yesterday expressed support for the changes we were making to this program. They did, however, express some concern about some of the sections, and the impact. However, the general thrust of the so-called tightening up of unemployment insurance, I think, won the support of those who were there yesterday. Some ministers were not there: the minister from Saskatchewan was not there. I certainly would not want to speak for his position, because I think the NDP have indicated they do not favour this tightening up procedure.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Oral Questions
In view of the rather unusual interest the government has been demonstrating as of late in the linerboard mill at Stephenville, is the minister prepared to be more specific with the House than he was with the people of Stephenville, when he was there last month, with respect to providing some kind of industrial incentives to prospective entrepreneurs who are prepared to enter into agreement with the government of Newfoundland to open up that plant and provide 500 badly needed jobs in that area?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, of course I could be very specific. However I would like to add that the hon. member must admit we have always been interested in the activity of the linerboard mill at Stephenville and, particularly in the last few months, we have received at least verbal if not written proposals from companies in the pulp and paper sector which might be interested in purchasing these facilities. So we are waiting. Negotiations have now been initiated and I trust that in the next few weeks we will receive firm proposals from at least two companies. Together with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we will then be able to determine seriously which one of these proposals would be the most acceptable and most likely to lead to a successful operation for many years to come and by doing so, to protect jobs that will be created again.


James Aloysius McGrath: Considering the fact that the minister's department has shown no interest whatsoever, to this point, in the linerboard mill and the full load has been carried by the people and government of Newfoundland, and in view of the fact that as of this day negotiations are going on with the consortium to take over, or at least operate the mill, is the government prepared to make an offer to the government of Newfoundland or the consortium with regard to a specific industrial incentives grant in order to get that mill operational as soon as possible?


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have indicated our interest and sympathy to investigate and support, if justified, a proposal that we might receive from a potential buyer of that mill. We have indicated our willingness to enter into negotiation and, possibly, assist financially in order to again get this mill operational.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance: it concerns the continuous decline of the Canadian dollar. At this point, do the minister and the government deem it expedient or desirable to ask for the intervention or involvement of the International

October 12, 1978
Oral Questions
Monetary Fund? Elas the government decided to what level the dollar should be allowed to float before such intervention is sought? Indeed, have discussions been held with the International Monetary Fund with regard to possible support?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there has been no such discussion with the IMF. I was in Washington, and I met with the officials there. There was no suggestion that Canada should be forced to go to the IMF. We have a lot of credit available to be gained.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of the environment, I will address my question to the President of the Treasury Board. It refers to the decision to withdraw weather ships off the west coast. I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether safety at sea was fully evaluated as one of the criteria used in deciding whether those weather ships should be withdrawn. At the same time, can he tell us what other alternatives were considered before that decision was taken, such as closing regional offices in the atmospheric services?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the elimination of the two Pacific weather ships was based on information that the replacement technology would be in place and would be totally satisfactory. There are discussions with regard to a thorough examination of that situation. I can assure the hon. member that before a final action or a decision is taken we will have satisfied ourselves as to that safety factor being in place. If it is not there, we will reconsider the situation.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the technology for unmanned buoys at sea is not ready and will not be ready for three or four years. In view of the fact that notices have already been served on the crews of those weather ships, can the minister tell me for sure whether that decision has been taken? It looks very much as though it has, and I wonder whether alternative sources of savings have been considered. There are regional offices there which are not operational: they are line offices and merely post offices between the operating end and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I find the final comment of the hon. member very constructive and interesting and I shall examine the possibility of whether or not there is a requirement for alternative savings to be sought. However, as to the Pacific weather ships, I think if the hon. member reads again in Hansard what I said, it will confirm that that decision is

being examined because of the absolute importance of providing safety measures to the people concerned.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture: it relates to the decision of the government to withdraw completely financial support from Canfarm services. What progress has been made by the government to date to ensure the continuation of this service to some 20,000 or 25,000 Canadian farmers by some other method or perhaps by some private firm?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that there have been meetings with farm organizations in Canada, with banks which use the system and with the computer people who rent or lease computers to the government. I am very optimistic that this system will be continued, and probably in a much broader fashion than it was before.
Privatization is part of the program of the government. It is our intention to get out of as many of these programs as we can. We were not in a position where we could advertise these programs because I felt they competed too much with the private sector. However, if it is taken over by the private sector-which I am very hopeful will be the case-this tremendous service can be offered not just to farmers in Canada but also to other agricultural producers. We will be exporting this tremendous service.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government is not in a very good position to guarantee this service to Canadian farmers beyond March of 1979. In view of that, would the government consider a fee increase to the membership of Canfarm sufficient to eliminate the cost to the government, at least until such time as a solution can be reached?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we will do our utmost to have this transfer take place before the end of this year, because some of the farm programs have to begin January 1. It is not just a matter of when our fiscal year ends, but we will do everything humanly and financially possible to make sure that this worthy organization stays alive.


POST OFFICE
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. In his absence, perhaps I can direct it to whoever is responsible at the moment for the postal mess.


An hon. Member:: They all are.
October 12, 1978


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Now that the cabinet has met on the matter, what assurance can be given that the impending postal strike, which would be disastrous to an already crippled Canadian economy, will be avoided?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, the present situation with CUPW is at a crucial stage, and this afternoon the minister is working toward achieving a settlement. That is why he is not here in the House. I suggest that the hon. member wait until tomorrow morning before he asks any further questions.


FISHERIES
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the Minister of State (Environment), I will turn to the President of the Treasury Board since my question deals with cutbacks.
In light of the recent announcement by the Department of the Environment that there will be a cut in weather forecasting services in Newfoundland and Labrador, a decision which will seriously endanger the lives and safety of thousands of fishermen who operate off the Newfoundland coast, and in view of the minister's announcement that weather forecasting services in Newfoundland and Labrador will be transferred to Halifax, can the minister assure this House unequivocally that the weather forecasting services will not be transferred to Halifax, and can he further assure the House that there will be no cut in weather forecasting services off the Newfoundland coast?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and refer it to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given the government's termination of Canadian involvement in the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, can the minister inform the House whether the government will accede to the request of the Lebanese community in Canada for augmented humanitarian help to the people of Lebanon, and whether steps will be taken to reunite families?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on both counts the answer is yes; but, once again, it is difficult to give all the details. I met with the delegation which was in Ottawa on Tuesday. I indicated that I
Oral Questions
will raise this issue with the foreign ministers of the Western Five on the Security Council this weekend in Pretoria, so that in terms of the follow-on action to which the hon. member refers, I think he can rest assured that it is in hand.
On the matter of reunification of families, we, of course, will be as forthcoming as possible. The group to which I spoke on Tuesday emphasized, however, that it was not stressing the need for or its desire to have a refugee kind of operation. The objective of the delegation is to ensure that the Lebanese people have a right to live in peace and in decency in their own country and, of course, I subscribe to that, as I am sure all hon. members do. However, we will look at humanitarian cases as sympathetically and as generously as we can.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister which arises out of the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby dealing with the termination of the throne speech debate and the bringing in of legislation.
On October 10, the Prime Minister indicated that the government was prepared to get down to the business of legislating, which indicated to me that it had legislation available. Would the Deputy Prime Minister consider putting notice of that legislation down tomorrow and introducing it on Monday, so that we can have an opportunity to study it while the throne speech debate is on and so we will be able to review it carefully and understand the readiness of the government with respect to this matter?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there will be notice given of a number of items of legislation today and tomorrow so that hon. members may have an opportunity to study the bills before they are called.
I advise the hon. gentleman that with respect to terminating the debate on the address, I will possibly interrupt the debate after the amendment and the subamendment are dealt with. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will not propose an amendment. If he does not, that will make my life easier. However, once the amendment and the subamendment are disposed of, I may interrupt the throne speech debate and bring on legislative items.
I see no profit whatever in accepting the suggestion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party unless he combines with that suggestion an offer that whatever days are saved on the address will not be added to the already large number of opposition days with which we have to deal.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I gather from his remarks that the Deputy Prime Minister is planning a

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Clark
House leaders' meeting. These are meetings which I enjoy. If that is the case, can the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House, now, whether he is planning a meeting of House leaders to discuss, among other things, the length of the throne speech debate and the order of business of the House so that the House can, in fact, in the words of the Prime Minister, get down to the business of legislating?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to meet with the other party representatives on House business early in the week and get down to legislative items, probably on Wednesday because on Tuesday we will have the vote on the amendment, and I would not want to bring on legislation until we had effectively defeated the amendment and subamendment which will be brought forward by the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, October 11, 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.
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I think that applause came from all sides of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to begin my full contribution to this debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne by extending my very sincere congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the motion, the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), whom I had an opportunity to congratulate personally outside the House yesterday, and the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Savard). I think the two members distinguished themselves in their remarks. I am sure they would not expect that we on this side of the House would agree with every nuance of what they said, but I am sure all my colleagues on this side of the House join me in extending congratulations to them for the excellent job they did in beginning this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want also to take this opportunity-the first presented to me since the announcement yesterday in the Speech from the Throne of the intention of His Excellency the Governor General not to seek a longer term in office and to relinquish his heavy duties at the end of this term-to express

on behalf of all of us in this party our admiration of the sensitivity of His Excellency the Governor General to the Canadian reality and to Canadian conditions and of the leadership he has exercised with the support of Madame Leger.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As an ambassador, Mr. Leger represented Canada in Latin America, Central America and Europe and it was at the end of a brilliant diplomatic career that he accepted a very important position in this country. Shortly afterwards he suffered a heart attack. He has shown an exemplary courage and I am sure that all Canadians have been inspired by his will to live and work.
The source of that courage is undoubtedly Madame Leger who has admirably supported her husband in those difficult times and who has taken up the many challenges that she had to face with gracefulness and dignity. I sincerely appreciate, as do all Canadians, their great contribution to this country for which they have shown so much love.

I want to make one brief reference to that struggling party to my left.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We in this party are of course becoming accustomed to having our proposals borrowed, but not usually by the NDP. As the leader of that party will know, on September 7 the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the House leader of the official opposition in this chamber, made the proposal that we on this side of the House would be quite prepared to forgo the throne speech debate if the government would be prepared to start this session, as it should, with a new budget. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) made it clear yesterday-and he is most adept at evading budgets-that he is not ready for a budget after all these months of preparation and of crisis, and consequently we cannot expect one until perhaps some time in the middle of November. So we are in a situation where we have no budget and we have a throne speech which has very few proposals.
Frankly, 1 think that there is an obligation upon all parties in the House, excepting the government which has forgotten its obligation, to use the opportunity of the throne speech debate, in the absence of government proposals, to put forward proposals of our own on the way in which this country should be led, and measures which can bring unity, economic growth, and jobs to the country.
I recognize that it imposes a particular hardship upon the NDP to have to propose anything positive. 1 sympathize with the leader of that party and his colleagues, and I quite understand that they would eagerly seek the opportunity to avoid any occasion on which they might be called upon to make positive proposals for the betterment of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 12, 1978


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me turn now to the throne speech debate. Some of the measures that were announced yesterday, and there were very few, are welcome. Most of those that are welcome, of course, mark a retreat by the government from its previous position, but we are getting used to that-they are the government of the pirouette, after all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: As to the constitution, we are pleased that the government has abandoned its position that the distribution of powers should take second place to discussions of institution rights and that it has now adopted the position put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), by the opposition leader in the other place and by myself, that the question of distribution of powers must have at least equal priority. Obviously, the obligation is now upon the government to propose specific changes in power and I hope that there will be no artificial delay in carrying out that responsibility.
As the throne speech indicates, the government continues to wiggle and squirm on the question of the monarchy. The language, I think, is that it wants to makes its position clear once again.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: It says it has no intention to change the role Her Majesty plays, but the draft bill, in a number of sections, proposes precisely changes in the role established for Her Majesty and the monarchy in this country. The government should stop trying to fool Canadians about its intentions regarding the monarchy. The throne speech says that the government is prepared to change the legal drafting. The question is whether the government will change its mind about making Her Majesty a sort of assistant governor general in this country. That is the question, and we require an answer to that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: With this matter, as with other matters, we will naturally await any specific legislation the government might have prepared to determine if the government in the throne speech means anything at all.
The government knows that it has my commitment, the commitment of my party, to approach positively and to assist in the improvement of any serious initiatives that it proposes, although naturally we are going to see the details of its proposals in legislative form before making any final decision. I refer to some of the mysterious references at the end of the Speech from the Throne to public access to government information and to "the review by parliament of evaluations by the government of major programs." That might refer to some species of a freedom of information law and it might refer to some species of a sunset law, but the language is alarming. First of all, they talk of "government information". Sir, it is public information.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Until the government recognizes that fact, it will continue to be the most secretive government in the western world.
Any meaningful sunset law would not have parliament review the government's evaluation of what the government is doing. If it is meaningful, it will let parliament make its own evaluation of what the government is doing, and it will add to that evaluation the power to stop the program, if parliament thinks that program should be stopped.
The Speech from the Throne urges parliament to "approach our task with urgency", yet the government controls the agenda of the House of Commons. The Speech from the Throne was the opportunity to spell out that agenda and set that tone of urgency, yet there is nothing in the speech but words-no plan of action, no sense of urgency. One phrase in the speech of the hon. member for York South stands out. She spoke of burnt embers. Nothing better describes the government which has lost its force, its flame, and is simply clinging to the warmth of office.
This spring, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ran away from a general election, he said, "It is more important to work on the fundamental problems of the economy". But there is nothing in the Speech from the Throne to deal with those problems of the economy. The Minister of Finance does what he does best. He refuses to give us a firm budget date, and he refuses to tell parliament and Canadians all of the true facts about the revenue situation, the growth projections and the basis for those projections, so that the House of Commons can judge a budget if and when it comes in. The harsh fact is that while this government has occupied office for more than ten years now, it has not been acting as a government for at least ten months. In fact, the startling thing about the state of affairs in Canada right now is that the government has given up on governing and devotes all of its attention to preparing for an election which it cannot find the courage to call.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I ask the House to consider the chaos in Canada in the last ten months. The Prime Minister started the year by calling a meeting of the premiers in February. Having called the premiers together, the Government of Canada had nothing to propose, literally nothing to propose. It ran a dog and pony show operated by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resoures (Mr. Gillespie), but had no concrete proposals to put before the premiers. Indeed, if it had not been for the initiatives proposed by the provincial governments, nothing at all would have come from that conference.
Then again the Minister of Finance bobbed and weaved through the spring and ran away from a budget. On march 17 he said, "I do not think it is useful to have a budget". Approximately 23 days later he brought a budget down, a budget which was so badly prepared it very nearly created a crisis in federal-provincial relations. The same minister keeps talking about growth rates which he cannot substantiate, while

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Clark
according to the columnist, Wayne Cheveldayoff, his officials privately quote different figures, figures which they consider to be more accurate than the inflated figures cited by the minister. Again, this minister claims that the dollar is floating, but he pumps out $4.3 billion in exchange reserves to support it.
As the House will recall, last year the Prime Minister refused to establish a parliamentary committee on the constitution. This year he named one. I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) is not in the House. Perhaps he is out looking for a fourth portfolio. One week the Minister of Justice said that there was no need to refer the Senate proposals to the Supreme Court. The next week he referred them. In the spring the government said that it had cut as much spending as possible. In August it reversed itself. Just today two different ministers abandoned two more restraint programs. The tax lawyer who is the Liberal candidate in the constituency of Westmount proposed deductibility of mortgage interest payments. The Prime Minister attacked it by saying that it only helps the rich. Then of course he went on to define the rich as being anyone who owns a home, or anyone in Canada who wants to own a home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would not want to forget the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), although everyone else has.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made his usual considered contribution to this debate. He said that in Canada a home is a luxury and that it is the policy of this government to tax luxuries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member is deliberately misquoting me.


Charles Joseph Clark: I regret the echoes this brings to the hon. member for Crowfoot, but we have him on tape.
Facing all the difficulties of the country, in effect the Prime Minister said that there is nothing we can do. Perhaps I should put my hands in my belt loops if I am to quote him correctly, but he said, "We are a healthy country in a difficult world". Let us take a look at that difficult world and what has been happening in countries which have much less in resources than Canada but much more in leadership than Canada. When the government came to office, Canada had the second highest standard of living in the world. Today we have the seventh, after ten years of this government.


Mr. Trudeau:: Name the others. Name them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Our unemployment rate is the worst in the industrialized world. Our inflation rate is the second worst, second only to Italy. The problem is not with the world and not with this country. The problem is that we have a government which refuses to act, and wich has governed so badly in recent

years that the situation in Canada is very much worse than it needs to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Before we can as a parliament cure a condition, first of all it is necessary to know what went wrong. I believe that basically two things have gone wrong in the last several years, both of which are the direct fault of the manner in which the government approaches its responsibilities.
Despite all the talk about unity, the style of the government has been consistent: to provoke confrontation among Canadians. For example, where it was the style of the late Honourable Lester B. Pearson to try to bring Canadians together, it has become the consistent style of this government, and this Prime Minister particularly, to attempt to pose as the tough guy, picking out some group of Canadians against which the government of all the people of Canada would stand up. The victims have changed. Once it was the farmers-why should he sell their wheat? Since then it has been labour unions, businessmen, the public service, and women who want to work. Is it a terrible thing for women to want to work? The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance perennially cite them as the cause of high unemployment figures in the country.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Also he attacks Canadians who, in the words of the Prime Minister, have gone soft. Those soft Canadians are probably the same ones as those rich Canadians who want to own homes. At one time or another he has tried to make a victim out of almost every premier in the country. For a government whose job is to speak for the whole country, this government has shown a disconcerting tendency to speak against most Canadians at one time or another. You can only do that for so long; you can only get away with that for so long. Nature made this a difficult country to govern, but the practice of picking out victims to blame has made that job immeasurably more difficult.
Secondly, there has been a fundamental failure to trust the institutions and the agencies in Canada outside government. Consequently there has been, during the ten years of this government, a steady pattern of taking power away from other agencies in our society and concentrating power in the Ottawa government. That pattern has obviously applied to the economy. Whatever it says now, this government does not trust the millions of Canadians involved in Canadian business to make economic decisions.
There has been a steady growth in the attempt of the central government to direct and control private economic decisions. That is why we have this form of competition bill. That is why the government established Petro-Can, and why it wants Air Canada to buy Nordair. That is why it keeps control of other Crown corporations like Eldorado Nuclear and Northern Transportation Limited which would operate better outside government. That is why there has been such a growth in
October 12, 1978

regulations and red tape, tying up small businesses and large. That is why the Prime Minister started the new year of 1976 by publicly casting doubt on the enterprise system, and why the government's approach to controls, its approach to the northern land regulations, and its approach to the advice of the private sector have been marked by a suspicion of the enter-preneur and a determination to centralize economic decisions with government planners.
This government's pattern of centralizing control goes well beyond the economy. This government has raided the provinces, moving Ottawa into fields where local governments make better decisions. The government set up a new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. It used DREE to impose Ottawa's plans on less wealthy provinces. Until very recently the government tried to exclude provinces absolutely from jurisdiction over communications, in spite of the primary impact of that field upon education and upon community life.
This government used the spending power of the federal government to invade provincial jurisdiction over resources, over lotteries and, most recently, in the case concerning sales tax. The government tried to change unilaterally fundamental national institutions like the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the monarchy, institutions which do not belong to one level of government alone in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The premiers of the four western provinces presented a long, long list of different instances of federal interference in provincial jurisdiction because this government does not trust the provinces to do what the constitution empowers the provinces to do.
Less evident, but just as dangerous, has been the steady draining of influence away from voluntary groups in Canada and the concentration in Ottawa of power over things that used to be done by Canadian volunteers. For example, local service clubs across this country used to play a very major role in helping develop low-income housing projects. Now the government has stopped funding them and has forced many of those volunteer agencies out.
Again, the funding practices of Sports Canada reduced the autonomy of volunteer sporting groups. The Opportunities for Youth program had a condition which discouraged support of programs that were approved by local governments. The Department of the Secretary of State set up its own hostelling program to compete with the Canadian Youth Hostel Association. The list goes on, sir, and the pattern is clear.
This government does not trust ordinary Canadians and so has developed government programs to push volunteers aside. As we, sadly, in this institution know, that distrust extends particularly to parliament. The government denies parliament basic information such as the figures on which it bases economic policy. It refuses to answer questions about the role of ministers in security matters or about the mysterious commissions paid by AECL, or government participation in uranium cartels which break the laws of Canada, or the facts of Skyshops or phone calls to judges.
The Address-Mr. Clark
Indeed, one of its first acts in office was to strip away from parliament the effective power to control spending. The Prime Minister has said, of course, that once they get off this Hill members of parliament are mere nobodies. The pattern of this government's decade in office has been to reduce the ability of this parliament to hold the government accountable.
What is as dangerous to our system of government is that this Prime Minister appears to distrust cabinet as much as he distrusts parliament. The very essence of our system of government is that policy decisions are taken by those elected members who sit in cabinet. That does not happen any more in Canada. The real decisions are taken by an isolated, appointed elite in the Privy Council office and in the Prime Minister's office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I suppose, sir, the most dramatic proof of that change came this summer when the Prime Minister went on television to announce a so-called new economic policy, and he went on apparently without consulting his economic ministers. He called them in after he made the announcement, or he called some of them in. He sent the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to Japan.


An hon. Member:: A good safe place for him.


Charles Joseph Clark: I now ask nothing more, Mr. Speaker, than whether a real minister such as C. D. Howe would have put up for a moment with that kind of behaviour?
One columnist, and 1 know the Prime Minister's abiding respect for the press, reports that even the Deputy Minister of Finance knew nothing of the new economic program until he heard the television address.
There has been abundant other evidence of the displacement of the cabinet as a place to decide. That, after all, was why Paul Hellyer left, and that is why John Turner resisted the establishment of a little nest of the Prime Minister's private economists to second guess the Department of Finance. That, indeed, is why the government is so lacking in sensitivity to regional issues or to the real life concerns that can come only from ministers who have to deal with political realities and not just with theories.
One reason this cabinet has so little talent is that it has so little power, so the strong ministers leave, and by leaving they reduce the ability of ministers to resist the dictation of the Prime Minister's little elite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Power has passed in Canada from the cabinet and from, indeed, the regular public service to a little elite appointed by and loyal to the Prime Minister, an elite whose chief officer, Mr. Pitfield, refuses to appear before parliamentary committees. That is the final and perhaps most dangerous symbol that this government does not trust the people it is elected to serve. It is no surprise then that the people do not trust the government.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Clark


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Nor is it any surprise that the decisions which are taken by an isolated, appointed elite fail to address the real needs of the nation.
That analysis of what has gone wrong would be the basis of the changes we would have introduced if yesterday's throne speech had been ours to write. The purpose of our throne speech would have been to demonstrate trust in the other partners of the Canadian community. The priorities or places we would start would include institutional reform to return to control of policy by cabinet and by parliament. There would have been economic stimulus by restraining the public sector and encouraging the initiative of private citizens, whether they want to start a small business, expand a large one, or want to buy a home in Canada.
There would be constitutional change by sitting down with the provinces to find areas in respect of which we could all agree on immediate changes in the status quo that this Prime Minister has established. Naturally in that process we would begin with the agreement I reached with Progressive Conservative premiers at the Kingston conference a year ago. There were four Progressive Conservative governments then. There are six today, and there will probably be seven before the month is out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We would also use the time of this parliament to continue the process of consultation with labour, business, the provinces, and the other partners in the Canadian economy, the process of getting agreement to the economic development strategy which this rich nation has to have to guide it toward the development it can achieve in the 1980s. We in this party began that process this summer in a conference at Montebello, Quebec, under the excellent direction of Bob de Cotret, whose decision to seek election to parliament indicates that this institution can still attract some of the most able Canadians in the land.

Let me deal precisely with the changes we would put forward beginning with the constitution. Our constitutional challenge is twofold: first, we must put an end to the deadlock in which Ottawa is opposed to all the provinces on the matter of the sharing of powers. This Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has had ten years to design the constitution he wants. He has changed the constitution and he did so in reserving more and more powers for Ottawa.
That is how he sees it. He is a centralist who cannot even trust the provinces when they use their traditional and legitimate powers. My party and myself see Canada from a totally different point of view. We believe Canada is based upon respect for the provinces and upon recognition of the fact that the nation's welfare depends on a feeling of close co-operation

between a strong government in Ottawa and strong governments in the provinces.
What is needed from the outset is to restore respect for this kind of partnership. This is no time for theorizing. It is high time to come to practical agreements in order to find solutions to problems of a practical nature. I am the national leader of a party which is in power in six of the ten provinces and I have already started using this common denominator to come to practical agreements with the provincial governments on actual issues. During the meeting which was held in Saskatchewan in August last, all provinces unanimously rejected the constitutional proposals of the Trudeau government. In September last year, in Kingston, the premiers of Ontario, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Alberta agreed with me on certain specific changes in the constitution. The Manitoba premier signed that agreement later on, while the new premier of Nova Scotia approved it in principle and will soon be discussing it with his cabinet.
I spoke of the contents of that agreement with each one of the premiers, including that of Quebec, and I am convinced that a new national government would be able to reach an agreement with all the provinces on the majority of those reforms. Among them, Mr. Speaker, there is the enshrining in the constitution of the forbidding that federal spending powers be used to interfere in fields of provincial jurisdiction without the consent of the provinces concerned. That provision would have spared us the sale tax fiasco in Quebec. Those reforms also include a constitutional guarantee with regard to the equalization principle that is essential to the maintenance of national levels in a country like Canada. They recognize officially the role of the provinces in matters concerning cultural policies; they recognize that off-shore and underground resources are a provincial jurisdiction. They provide for the participation of the two levels of government in the composition of federal bodies. Those then are the subjects on which an agreement was reached by the provinces and myself. I am sure that we will follow through on this agreement in less than six months after we are elected. Naturally, the process of constitutional changes will not be limited to that; it will be no more than a beginning in the right direction, thanks to concrete agreements on concrete problems, and the cause of federalism will be better off because we will have proved that a new federal government is not committed to maintaining the status quo of the last ten years.

That is the necessary first step, sir, to constitutional reform, to prove that governments can agree on specific, concrete reform. That would change the atmosphere of the last ten years where Ottawa and the provinces seem to meet only to fight. Of course there are going to be disagreements among governments. There will be times when I am going to have to assert national interests in ways that will not at all please the provinces.
October 12, 1978


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The difference will be in the atmosphere, in the way that we work together. And that atmosphere that has been poisoned by the determination to confront of this Prime Minister and his government can be changed by a recognition in Ottawa that the provinces are partners in confederation, not enemies. When we achieve that atmosphere of agreement I am convinced, as a Canadian from Alberta, who has worked to learn my second language and to understand the different cultures and the different conditions of this amazing country, that we can use that new atmosphere to address the larger questions of how our constitution reflects the cultural, the regional, and the national reality of Canada.
Let me turn now, sir, to the economy. It almost makes one choke to talk about it. I wish that the solutions to the nation's problems were as easy as simply taking a glass of water. What we need instead is a far more fundamental change. We are in this country now growing well beneath the potential of Canada.
Instead of real growth of 5 per cent, which with effective policies would be attainable, the Conference Board in Canada says that we will be fortunate to achieve 4 per cent this year and 3.7 per cent in 1979. We are paying an enormous price for that economic shortfall. Again, according to the Conference Board, a real growth of 4.75 per cent and an unemployment rate of 5.5 per cent would produce-and I emphasize these figures-$41 billion more in new wealth over the next two years, wealth that could be used to generate new jobs, create new investment and create growth. The board also estimates that achieving those growth and employment targets this year and next year would increase the tax revenues of the federal and provincial governments by more than $13 billion. That is one way to meet a deficit, because those are revenues which would help bring government financial accounts into much better balance.
It is not simply individual policies that are lacking now. There is absolutely no coherence to Canadian economic policy. There is no commitment to realistic economic targets. The minister and his own officials cannot agree. There is no over-all sense of direction. Yet the priorities for this economy are clear. First, Canada needs a program of major economic stimulus. 1 have proposed that kind of program based on the premise of putting money in the hands of individual Canadians who will spend their money more effectively than this government is spending it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have proposed a tax cut to put at least $300 per year into the hands of lower and middle income Canadians.
We have proposed a program, phased in over four years, to allow partial deductibility of mortgage interest and property taxes.
The Address-Mr. Clark
We have proposed significant tax incentives for research and development and small business, and the use of tax contracts for companies locating in slow growth areas.
I say in all generosity to the government: if you have no program of your own, please take ours!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Amend it if you will. You would probably want, on the question of mortgage deductibility, to consult your candidates in Westmount and York-Scarborough, both of whom agree with us. Once again, the Liberal party is split. I do not know whether it has anything to do with the Minister of Industry Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear the question, "What about David Crom-bie?" As is not going to be the case with the Liberal candidates in Westmount and York-Scarborough, David Crombie will be in this House of Commons shortly to answer for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: When the minister puts that question-assuming he can get re-elected in his own constituency in time to come- he will find Mr. Crombie agrees completely with the program we have put forward and has said so on innumerable occasions. I wonder if the minister can say the same for his candidate in Westmount, and the same for his candidate in York-Scarborough.
I do not mind if the government, having borrowed our program, amends it, but at least it should bring some program to this parliament so that Canadians can believe this House of Commons is trying to deal with some of the economic problems the country faces.
Secondly, as well as stimulus, we need a restraint program that is real and has some purpose to it, has some permanence to it. There is absolutely no rationale to the government's so-called restraint program. For instance, in April, the government introduced incentives to research and development. But then what did they do? Now they dismantle fishery and forestry laboratories. They go out and fire civil servants, yet charge the people of Canada for the jet plane that takes the Prime Minister to talk to editors of the Globe and Mail.
Apart from the civil servants the Liberals have fired, there is no permanence to the government's so-called restraint program. It is, as the Minister of Finance said in Willowdale, the other night-we have got him on tape too-he said their program is merely a "pause"-and I quote him-before, as he put it, the government-and I am quoting again-"gets on again with redistributing wealth". That is their goal-not to generate wealth in this country but simply to slice, in decreasing and decreasing pieces, a slimmer pie.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Clark
This restraint program they are talking about was written on the back of an envelope; it can be reversed with another envelope tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have proposed a very different kind of restraint program. We would cut into real spending, not just planned programs. Our restraint program would have a definite sense of direction. It would focus on three goals: first, it would reduce the sheer cost of operating government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear some shouts from the other side, Mr. Speaker. That is a policy of attrition that would involve no lay-offs, nor firings. I understand the discomfort that causes on the Liberal side because it is so different. They are firing civil servants today. What we are proposing is a policy of attrition that will naturally take its first effect on the former minister of almost everything, the temporary member of the legislature of Quebec for Verdun, the aspiring member for whatever constituency he can parachute his way into-he would be the first target of our restraint program to reduce the sheer costs of operating government.
The second focus would be getting the Government of Canada out of areas where the Government of Canada does not belong-getting it out of urban affairs-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -getting it out of Petro-Can, out of Northern Transportation Limited.
One of the things that has been very surprising, remarkable, and worth nothing about the government's restraint program is that they are prepared to get into restraint programs and fire civil servants but they are not prepared to get rid of some of the Prime Minister's toys like Petro-Can.
Third, we would reduce the costs the government has to pay for economic stagnation through unemployment insurance and other programs which stagnation makes expensive for the government and the people of Canada.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we must have a strategy aiming precisely at job creation. According to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, there will be more jobs than workers in two years from now. That is ridiculous! I have also made a definite proposal to Canadians on that matter. Instead of spending $4.7 billion this year on unemployment insurance benefits to pay Canadians not to work, why not use the major part of that money to subsidize, as I said, some jobs so that young Canadians, men and especially women, could acquire the necessary knowledge and experience to work.
Mr. Speaker, we need a comprehensive scheme for economic development. And that scheme must cover at least the next decade. This government has no economic development strategy. As negotiators are in Geneva where they participate in

major discussions related to GATT and they have no global framework allowing them to negotiate in favour of Canada's interests nor a national policy to support their demands.
A Progressive Conservative government would convene all economic partners, as we did this summer in Montebello, in order to hold elaborate discussions that would go on until a general consensus had emerged and practical decisions and committments had been made. I have already mentioned sectors where Canadians start with an advantage and from which we can progress, namely shipbuilding and its possibilities, our know-how in transportation and communications, our huge energy resources and the important market for heavy machinery represented by our own resources related industries which is now almost completely in the hands of foreign suppliers.

And finally, had this throne speech been ours to write, we would give priority to restoring some substance to democracy in this country. In some things, this government is merely incompetent. In others, it is deeply dangerous, because of its contempt, in practice, for the rights and the representatives of ordinary Canadians.
This is the first government in Canadian history to use the Official Secrets Act to bring charges against a newspaper. It is the first government in Canadian history to order a secret trial. It is the only government in British parliamentary history to have used closure to change the rules of parliament-when it deprived parliament of the power to control spending. It is a government which lets police officers testify in public, then insists that cabinet ministers, before the same commission, on the same case, testify in secret. It has let power pass to a little elite, and it delays elections when they get in trouble. The first reponse must be to get rid of that government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: But there is also a need to build into the system protection against future governments acting as badly, that is why we in this party would introduce a full freedom of information bill with narrow and precise exceptions, with an independent tribunal, probably the courts, empowered to resolve any disputes between the government and the citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We would restore to the official opposition-the present Prime Minister or his successor-the capacity to designate two departments each year whose estimates would be examined without limitation of time, so that all of us would have to be prepared in anticipation of being scrutinized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We would introduce to all departments the concept of zero-based budgeting so continuing expenditures, and not just new proposals, would be reviewed. We would
October 12, 1978

introduce a real sunset law so that Crown agencies would be required to come at regular intervals and to justify their need to exist, before a committee of parliament. We would vest in committees of parliament the powers and the resources to start their own inquiries so that we will never again have the atmosphere of continuing cover-up that has characterized this last decade of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are a country in trouble but we in this House have to recognize that we are also an institution in trouble. Canadians are sceptical about parliament and, unfortunately, some of our own members play to that scepticism.
This parliament, sir, is the only Canadian institution which can reach and reflect the whole great diversity of Canada. It has been muzzled and limited in recent years. Parliament must be renewed if the nation is to be renewed. The obligation to lead in this House and in this country rests with the government. They showed yesterday, as they have shown repeatedly, that they are just too tired to lead.
My colleagues and I have a deep faith in this country. We know that there is a potential here no other nation shares, a potential for freedom, a chance to build, and an opportunity to excel. We will help this government in its dying days if it has anything to propose. But particularly after the further disappointment of yesterday's Speech from the Throne I cannot disguise our determination to form a new government, a government that is worthy of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have a motion before us to approve an empty program. We in this party cannot approve yet another refusal by this government to govern. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that the following be added to the address:
This House regrets to inform Your Excellency that your government is unable to provide effective leadership for Canada.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in congratulating the movers of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Both movers drew their inspiration from the purest of liberal traditions, one by applying the concept of liberty developed by John Stuart Mill and the other by expressing the concern that this government has always had towards those in our society who are most in need of protection, and particularly senior citizens. Of course, I also share the feelings expressed by the Leader of the Opposition towards His Excellency the Governor General and his wife. I think that we will have other opportunities to extol the merits of these distinguished people and that we should do so some other time.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
I cannot offer quite the same type of congratulations to the Leader of the Opposition. I recall the theses that were explained to us a long time ago when I was studying experimental and rational psychology and when we were told that the brain has three faculties: The first is memory, the second imagination and the third intelligence. As concerns memory, I can congratulate the Leader of the Opposition. He made a few blunders and a few mistakes about figures, but on the whole he recited his text well and his memory did not mislead him too often. As for imagination, he really took first prize for his litany of charges and illustrations. What we have seen is an overheated imagination creating a quite extraordinary fantasy in describing a situation which has no relation with reality. However, as concerns intelligence, I must say that it was left behind. There is not much food for intelligence in this text. I do not know if this is how the authors of his speech wanted to show their contempt for parliament or the Canadian people or perhaps only for the Leader of the Opposition. But whatever the case may be, it is certain that in view of the great many errors stated by the Leader of the Opposition, we must conclude, Mr. Speaker, that imagination beats intelligence every time.
Let me give a few examples before getting into the gist of my statement. Heavens, where to start? He talked about Sky Shops. We all remember of course that for several months in this parliament, opposition members were muckraking a senator who had been brought before the court. This indeed is typical of the "scandals" that the opposition is contantly bringing to the attention of parliament. As it is, the House knows, the courts ruled that the charges brought against Senator Giguere were not founded and he was found not guilty. The only use that I see in recalling this unfortunate incident is to somewhat shame the opposition which has used innuendos and slander, if not outright libel, to dirty the name of certain persons, forgetting afterwards that they were found not guilty and forgetting their accusations, but on the contrary repeating them again before the House as they have done today.
We heard a great deal about a lot of other subjects. We heard, for instance, that this is a very centralizing government. No figures were put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). However, just out of memory, I am sure most members of this House could give some very clear figures. If you take the last ten years in this country, total government spending has gone from a percentage of 32 per cent of gross national product to 40 per cent. The growth of governments at all levels has increased by a margin of about eight in this period of ten years. Four of those eight points have been accounted for by spending by the provinces, two and a half by the federal government, and one and a half by the municipalities. This is what the Leader of the Opposition calls a centralizing period in our history. He should at least look at the facts.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He mentioned the policies of this government to downgrade volunteers in this country, that we were trying to take away from the private sector and from all those people who are trying to do good in this country, trying to monopolize the powers to the federal government.
I was on the Hill yesterday noon. The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was on the platform with me. We learned that for the Canada Winter Games, an institution created by the federal government under Mr. Pearson in 1967, which will be held in Brandon next February, there will be 3,000 volunteers in Brandon for 2,500 athletes in order to get the games working. We learned in Edmonton just last summer that there were 9,000 volunteers.


Mr. Paproski:: Ten thousand!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) says 10,000. I think the whole thesis of volunteers being abolished by this government falls to the ground, just like most of the other points of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He mentioned something about Loto Canada taking over from the private sector which is interested in sports. The Leader of the Opposition may not have all that rapport with sports, but he might at least know that it is the sports organizations which have been coming to the federal government asking us to create a ministry for sports, which we did under the very excellent minister of sports whom we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They asked us to, for heaven's sake, begin funding them, which we did, rather than let it be only amateurism and kitchen table organizations, where our sports people were not given an equal chance with sportsmen from other countries.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about security matters and cover-up. We have heard a great deal about that in the last year or two. When the history of this period is written, I do not think it will redound to the glory of the Leader of the Opposition or to the members of that party.
We remember that that party was condemning us in 197172 because we dared to put GRC along with the initials RCMP on the uniform shoulders and the cars of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That party was accusing us of destroying the sacred traditions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The Leader of the Opposition does not even remember what the member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said in the House, and what many members of his party also said. I think that at the time he was adviser to Premier Lougheed. He was not overly concerned with these things then, but he should be now.
[English)
He should realize that if these sacred traditions of the RCMP are being destroyed by anybody, they are being destroyed by the members of that party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When it came to light that some of the officers of the RCMP had indeed been involved in some unsavoury acts, and at that time we thought they were few in number, we proposed to refer them to the courts. An inquiry was set up in the province of Quebec, the Keable inquiry. The opposition was attacking that inquiry, saying that we should set up our own inquiry, that it did not trust the Keable inquiry. They said that we should set one up because the federal government was involved.
A few months later more facts came to light. We did set up a royal commission of inquiry as the opposition had requested, the McDonald commision. What was then the position of the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters? It was to say that whatever the Keable inquiry was doing was okay.
When that provincial commission of inquiry was looking into the federal RCMP and asking the federal RCMP to table documents which were private and secret, the opposition party at that time felt it perfectly legitimate for that provincial commission to inquire into a federal body. However, it did not trust the McDonald commission, which was a federal or royal commission of inquiry to do the job. They used terms like "cover-up", which they have never been able to substantiate. As successive solicitors general have shown, we have put before the McDonald commission every piece of paper that they wanted to look into.
I cannot go into every one of the fanciful statements made by the Leader of the Opposition. There are a couple more I should draw to the attention of the House before getting on with my speech. One has to do with the Kingston conference. This is beautifully typical of the Leader of the Opposition.
He went to Kingston to prove to this country that he can get along with the provincial premiers. There were four Tory premiers meeting with him in Kingston. He was going to show that his is not the way of confrontation but one of conciliation. He came back from Kingston with a very celebrated document showing how clever, intelligent, and persuasive he has been. When you look at what he has done, he has given away the shop to the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No confrontation, Mr. Speaker. He promised the provinces he would give them the guarantees they wanted on equalization and spending power. These are two federal areas of jurisdiction. On both, as early as 1968 and 1969, we published in white papers, suggested modifications of the constitution which would circumscribe this federal power, but it is a federal power. Equalization is a federal law. The spending power is under federal jurisdiction. The Leader of the Opposition went there and came back with a great victory. He

October 12, 1978

promised to the provinces that he would circumscribe this federal power.
He came back with another great victory. He said in cultural matters he would recognize the primacy of the provinces. A great victory! He gave the provinces something. What did he get from them?
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that the fourth great victory was in terms of offshore mineral rights. What did he get? He promised the provinces that, regardless of the constitution, and regardless of what the courts said, he would recognize that the provinces have a proprietary interest over offshore mineral rights. A great big victory! No confrontation in Kingston. He just lost his shirt, that's all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Even before I get into my speech it is to easy to see how this man would run federal-provincial relations. There are ten premiers and one federal prime minister. He would change it to eleven premiers. That is a fine, fine way to do it, but who would speak for Canada? Where would the strong federal government be?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Letting his imagination run wild again he came up with several other facts. One had to do with federal Crown corporations. He does not like them. He does not like Petro-Canada. He does not like it when Air Canada makes a bid to take over Nordair. He denounces this as federal intrusion, arrogance, and everything else. What about the Alberta Energy Corporation? Does he object to that? What about when the Alberta government buys into Alberta Gas Trunk Line? Does he object to that? What about when the Alberta government takes over Pacific Western Airlines? Does he object to that? Crown corporations are not good if they are federal Crown corporations, but if they have to do with some strong premier, to whom he owes I do not know what obeisance, then they are okay. Nothing is wrong with that. Has the Leader of the Opposition objected to the existence in Canada of Petrofina, British Petroleum or Gaz Acquitains, or any Crown corporations belonging to France, Belgium, Britain or Saudi Arabia, for all I know? No, no objection to that, but if the Government of Canada has a Crown corporation in the energy field, that is terrible.
I wonder what kinds of principles the Leader of the Opposition has. Is he interested in the Government of Canada and in the welfare of its citizens, or is he just trying to destroy something the federal government has set up to serve its citizens? I do not know what principle guides him.
Again I must ask the Leader of the Opposition the question which was asked from this side of the House when he said that in the life of this government Canada had slipped from second place in terms of standard of living to seventh. I think that is what he said. We asked him to name the seven. I wonder if he would name them now, or should I name them for him? Who
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
went ahead of us? The United States was there already, and I can give figures to show that in that period we have crept up on the United States very strongly. But who are the others? Kuwait? Bahrain? United Arab Emirates? Qatar?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why I was saying that the Leader of the Opposition was using his memory and not his intelligence because, if he used his intelligence, he would know that it does not describe the standard of living when you divide gross national product by the figure of population. Sure, you get a figure, and it will be higher in the United Arab Emirates than it will be in Canada, but that does not give the standard of living, except perhaps of the Emirs. They have a higher standard of living than we do, but in order to establish who ranks where, we have to look at what we can buy with that money in each particular country. I will give the Leader of the Opposition some figures on that subject in a moment, but I repeat that I am nonplussed by the series of absolute falsehoods and absolute misrepresentations put forward by the Leader of the Opposition on every subject he touched upon, whether it was the sovereignty of parliament, secrecy, cover-ups, scandals, figures, statistics or anything else. I think the best way to attempt to deal with the subject as a whole-


Charles Joseph Clark: "Falsehoods," you said?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a falsehood to say that Canada has slipped to the seventh rank in terms of standard of living. I do not say that the Leader of the Opposition deliberately misled us. His speech writers probably deliberately misled him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Do you stand by "falsehoods"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition wants to ask a question. If he wants to ask a question, let him.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister, perhaps as a prelude to a question of privilege, is whether or not he stands by the word "falsehoods", saying that I have lied to the House of Commons, knowning full well-and I do not have all the lists available to me-that if we were to include the Emirates, of which he is so fond, Canada's standard would probably be thirteenth or fourteenth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I asked the Leader of the Opposition to give the list. He did not have it. I supplied it for him. I said that it was a falsehood to draw from that list the conclusion that Canada does not have as high a standard of living as some of the others.


Walter David Baker: Cheap!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He has been led into a miscalculation, probably innocently, because he does not understand the statistics.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
30

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Rather than once again trying to jump from one subject to the other in order to go into all the areas which the Leader of the Opposition has led us through, I will try to divide the remarks I have to make into two areas, the economy first, and then the subject of national unity.
The Leader of the Opposition submitted that on unemployment and on inflation in particular this government has a great deal of explaining to do, and I propose to give those explanations in the course of the next few minutes. On unemployment the Tories say that they would put Canada back to work. Well, the simple fact is that Canada has not stopped working. Canada has created more employment in the past ten years than any other industrial society.
In each of the past ten years we created an average of more than a quarter of a million jobs, and that rate is unequalled anywhere in the industrialized world. Let me give some figures. I have several to give. I would say that they concern the 15 most industrialized countries. They concern those countries with which we do about 90 per cent of our trade. Therefore, they are the most important countries. They do not include Kuwait and Bahrain, but they do include the countries with which we do 90 per cent of our trade, by and large.
These figures are OECD figures and, when possible, I have taken the period from 1968 to 1977. In some cases the OECD figures are not provided for 1968 and 1969. In those cases I start in 1970, but we do know the Canadian figures, and we do know that the tables would be even better if we had the figures for all the other countries because Canada did well indeed in those first two years, 1968 and 1969.
Percentage change in employment from 1970 to 1977, Canada, rate of growth in employment: 23 per cent. The next closest is the United States with 15 per cent, then Australia, and then those countries about which we say a great deal of good and which are sometimes named as models for Canada. Sweden is at 5 per cent as compared to our 23 per cent; Japan, 5 per cent; West Germany, minus 6 per cent; and Switzerland, minus 11 per cent. Probably they rank very high in terms of the standard of living. The reason is very simple; not only did the number of jobs not grow in those countries but it was actually reduced by 5 per cent or 11 per cent. Why was that? For the very simple reason that workers in those countries, who came from Turkey, Portugal, Spain or Yugoslavia, were sent back home when the economy slowed down, so naturally there were fewer unemployed in those countries, the governments did not need as stimulative an economic policy and therefore were better able to protect their currency.
The Leader of the Opposition understands, I am sure, that if that were the situation in Canada, if we could actually reduce our work force, it would be relatively easy to show a better exchange rate. But when we must find jobs for the fastest growing labour force in the world, it is a different problem from that in the countries I have mentioned. Therefore, Canada, in terms of the employment growth rate, is the best in the world. That is true for those seven years and it is equally

true if we take the difficult years of the post OPEC crisis from 1974 to 1977. We still lead the world in terms of job creation.
Let us consider the rate of growth of the real domestic product. In that respect Canada is third. The annual average between 1968 and 1977 has increased by 4.5 per cent a year. Ahead of us are Japan and France; we come third before Germany, Australia, Finland, Belgium, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. If we take the three difficult years, from 1974 to 1977, we see that Canada comes second just after Norway.
Let us consider the growth in industrial production which shows that Canada has been at work these past years. In industrial production the OECD base year is 1970. In the percentage increase we come second, right after Norway. Norway is at 38 per cent; we have a 32 per cent increase in industrial production since 1970. What has happened? We have grown very fast, we have a faster job creation than any other country, but still we have an unacceptably high unemployment. Thank heavens it has not increased since the month of June, but it is still much too high, that is certain. Why is it too high and what can be done about it? Once again this is where you should not use your imagination but rather your reasoning.
If you look at the rate of growth of the labour force, you will find that between 1968 and 1977 of all the countries in the world Canada's labour force has grown the fastest. We are followed by the United States, Norway, Australia. Sweden's rate of growth in the labour force is down at 10 per cent as compared to our 33 per cent; Japan is at 7 per cent; once again Germany has a negative growth rate and so has Switzerland. Therefore, even though we created jobs at a faster rate than any other society, our labour force has increased faster than in any other industrial society, so naturally the result is a high rate of unemployment.
It is said sometimes that the government could have foreseen that. Obviously this situation is due to three things: it is due to the birth rate. After the Korean was there was a baby boom. We knew that all these young people would be coming onto the labour force in the 1970s. Second, it is due to the immigration rate, and we are happy to continue to receive immigrants in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Third, it is due to the participation rate. I am careful not to use the word "falsehood", but once again there is lack of understanding. When we talk about the participation rate and we say that more young people and more women are entering the labour force now than in a previous societal state, we are not judging, we are not saying they should not, we are just describing a reality, we are just saying that more women now are second workers in a household and that younger people are entering the labour force sooner. This explains why the employment force has gone up faster. This is not a judgment and we are not proposing to change this. As a matter of fact, just look at this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and
October 12, 1978

you will see that we put more women to work on this side than they do on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was foreseeable that with immigration and with the higher birth rate there would be a very fast growth rate in employment. So what did we do? In the early 1970s we brought in the best unemployment scheme in the world, and we were not helped in this by the other side. We brought in a very generous-perhaps an overly generous unemployment system-in order to help those who we knew would be unemployed when these situations arose and when the baby boom emerged in the larger number of young people entering the labour force. So we brought in this very generous scheme, but since then we found some abuses of it, so we are tightening it up. Our first reaction, however, was one of intelligent compassion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We also went about creating more jobs. The growth of employment was created essentially by the private sector, but it was brought about in economic circumstances in which both the federal and provincial governments had a role to play. In our case we helped to create more jobs by way of budget deficits. Here I look askance at the leader of the NDP who always seems to be saying that we are cutting back too much. We must remind him that we will still have financial requirements for this year of some $11.7 billion. So indeed we are cutting back the rate of growth. However, we are stimulating the economy to a very large extent indeed, to a much larger extent, comparatively speaking, than is the premier of Saskatchewan whom the leader of the NDP was citing as an example.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the growth level in Saskatchewan?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am talking about the economic policy. The leader of the NDP suggests that we should be more stimulative than we have been. I am telling him that we are immensely more stimulative than the Saskatchewan government. That is the point I want to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have brought in a series of other measures. I cannot go into them all in detail, but let me just mention some in passing to show that this business of stealing each other's programs seems to have gone in a different direction than the one suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Several years ago we brought in research and development incentives. We applied an investment tax credit to R and D, and then we gave additional R and D expenditures a 50 per cent write-off, so that the cost of a $1 expenditure in R and D can cost as little as 20 cents. The Conservative party is only now getting around to encouraging R and D in its programs.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
For years we have been bringing in measures to encourage small business. Their tax rates are half the tax rates of normal corporations. Recently we have allowed family corporations to roll over $200,000 of capital gain without tax. Recently we have removed the manufacturing sales tax on the first $50,000 of sales by small businesses. In manufacturing and processing we have reduced the federal tax level from 36 per cent to 30 per cent. We have given a two year write-off on machinery and equipment. We have given manufacturers access to the investment tax credit. And on it goes in the resource sectors and other sectors where we have been helping the private sector create jobs in ways which now the Tory party feebly proposes to imitate.
We have also-and I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition said nothing about that except to criticize it-embarked upon direct employment programs. I think he was criticizing the Opportunities for Youth program and other such programs, and yet many countries have come to Canada to see how successful our programs were, and have copied them. These programs have directly created jobs for many of our young people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This winter job experience training for youth will employ another 58,000 young Canadians. Next year $710 million will be spent for job creation and training. That will involve some 370,000 people. I am not sure in what way one can look at the Tory response to this situation of high unemployment. They talk about putting the economy back to work. They talk about creating more money by making more work and by getting more taxes from having fuller employment. Apart from imitating some of our schemes, the trouble is that they do not say how to do it.
Obviously they have some economic policies. We can get glimpses of them when the hon. Leader of the Opposition announces a $2,200 million tax cut. Then he has this mortgage and municipal tax scheme which will cost something in the area of $1,600 million. Then he has a whole series of miscellaneous other programs for small businesses, research and development, and other things, which are feeble imitations of our programs. They are estimated at something like $1.5 billion, for a total of $5.3 billion.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition indicated that somehow he will fund this by eliminating the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). Right away he will get $20 million off the top. Out of $5.3 billion he will get $20 million. Then he will put an end to Petro-Canada. The saving there will be $200 million. That is a total of $220 million. Also we know he will abolish the Department of Multiculturalism. He told us that, approximately a year ago out west. That will result in a great saving of $5 million.
Where is the other saving? It will be the 60,000 public servants who will be lost through attrition. The calculation which I read in the Financial Times indicated an approximate
80065-3%

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
saving of $1,200 million. I am not sure how he will work the government through attrition over three years, losing 60,000 public servants, because those who go off by attrition are not always those one wants to lose, and those who stay on are not necessarily those one should not fire. It is an easy, painless process. It is something like his approach to the provincial premiers. There will be no confrontation with the public service. He will reduce the size of government by letting people die off. Does this take a great deal of courage and organizational skill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Out of policies which will cost approximately $5,300 million, there will be an estimated savings of approximately $1.5 billion. The simplest thing to say in response to that is that the Red Tories have been replaced by the red ink Tories. That is what they will be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to talk about inflation because those facts are also subject to criticism and analysis. We have received the criticism, but we have not received the analysis. We have not heard the Tory policies on the subjects I will discuss, but first let us look at the facts. We know that for the past two months the rate of inflation has been slowly coming down. Also we know that from August to September inflation was wrestled to the ground for one month. 1 dare say it will not be a permanent victory, but we will continue fighting in the manner which I will indicate.
In order to set the record straight when we talk about standard of living and cost of living, let us look at some of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development figures. The standard of living is expressed in terms of real disposable purchasing power. In 1968 we were second, right after the United States. They had $4,679 and we had $3,516. Eight years later, the latest date for which we have figures, we are still second. I am talking of constant dollars, obviously Canadian dollars brought to the 1971 base. In 1976 the United States were at $4,258 and Canada was at $4,082. Thus, we were still second, and away ahead of Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, Norway, Japan, Italy, but perhaps not ahead of Kuwait. I am not sure, I do not have the figures for Kuwait. If we are talking of real disposable purchasing power, probably we are pretty well ahead of Kuwait. For something which costs perhaps $50 in this country, one will pay perhaps $300 in that country. If one is not the Emir himself, who will have a little bit of difficulty maintaining his purchasing power.
The United States is listed first on the cost of living index. Putting that country on the basis of one hundred and comparing the cost of living of various countries to the United States in any of the years 1968, 1970, 1974, 1976 or 1978, Canada is always in the top little group. Let us take the two years to which reference is always made. In 1968 we were second. The cost of living index in the United States was one hundred and the cost of living index comparatively in Canada was one hundred and one. In 1978, ten years later, the United States

was 100 and Canada was 102. We are still second, and away ahead of France, Germany, Switzerland, and Japan. Japan was 165 compared to our 102. Though the figures on inflation are not nice and we would rather have a lower rate of inflation, obviously the result of these years of inflation indicates that Canada has done immensely better than most of the other industrialized countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I should like to put another index before the House. Looking at food prices, calculated in current United States dollars for a given basket of food, and reported by United States agricultural attaches around the world-that basket of food is the same in Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom and so on,-in Canada we are second. We pay $19 for that basket in Canada. There is one country ahead of us by one cent. That country is Australia where the basket costs $18.99. After us, in terms of food prices, come the United States, United Kingdom, and further on Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and all these other countries. Thus, in terms of food also we are among the winners.
I should like to refer to another index, real personal disposable income.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know these figures are tedious, but they should be on the record for the benefit of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because we are neck and neck with the United States in a lot of these industries, I have compared the gains over the past ten years in Canada with the gains in the United States. Therefore, taking 1968 as 100, the real personal disposable income per capita in Canada has risen from 100 to 151.90. In other words, we have increased our real personal disposable income per capita. That is gross earnings plus all which is received in terms of transfer payments, minus all taxes. We have gained some 50 per cent. Compared to the United States, in that country it went from 100 to 124. Once again we are ahead of everyone and we are doing very well in terms of real wealth.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Other industries are referred to in the census and by Statistics Canada. I will refer to a few in order to show that over the past ten years this country has not really seen itself reduced from riches to rags. Let us look at a few of these indices, first in relation to personal expenditures on consumer goods and services.
In the case of food, beverages and tobacco, our expenditure on these items compared to our total expenditures has gone down from 21 per cent to 19 per cent. In the case of rent our expenditure has gone down from 19 per cent to 17 per cent.
October 12, 1978

The percentage has gone up in respect of recreation, entertainment, education and cultural services.
There is another way of expressing this, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is constantly reminding us of this. It relates to the percentage of disposable income spent on food, the assumption being that when you are wealthy you spend a smaller proportion of your income on food than when you are poor. This index puts the United States first and Canada second, away ahead of most of these so-called model countries. In the United States 12 per cent of disposable income is spent on food whereas in Canada it is 13 per cent. This means, according to this index, that we in Canada have a surprisingly advantageous situation.
Let me refer to the index in relation to households. In 1968 some 91 per cent of households in Canada had hot and cold running water. Seven years later this had increased to 97 per cent. In relation to the number with baths or showers, in 1968 there were 90 per cent and in 1977 there were 97 per cent. In 1968 some 29 per cent of households had home freezers. This increased to 47 per cent in 1977.
The opposition can look at these indices. I will send them over if hon. members are interested. These cover the point about flush toilets, sewers, and everything else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members will see that we are not really caught in the vortex that they seem to be describing. Indeed, in Canada the facts are that in spite of inflation we are doing well, indeed.
Why do we have a high cost of living? Obviously there are many reasons. We cannot say at this time that this is inflation generated in Canada. We have found that from the first half of 1975, when wage settlements on a yearly basis were at a rate of 22 per cent, they have dropped to something in the order of 7 per cent, with a cost of living of 8 per cent to 9 per cent. That means that at this time inflation is coming in from outside, very simply because of the high cost of things we import, and very simply because of the lowered value of the dollar, which means Canada is paying more for everything it imports.
In the face of this situation the Leader of the Opposition says the throne speech contains nothing and the government has done nothing. Throughout the month of August we announced cuts in government spending. From projected spending in this fiscal year we are taking $500 million. From expenditures projected for the next fiscal year we are taking away $2 billion.
In relation to growth in the public sector, and I am not talking of the provinces or the municipalities, in the present year and the next we are growing at a rate that is less than as fast as the economy itself is growing. The civil service in the past two years and in this year has been growing at less than 1 per cent, and next year that growth will be zero.
We have taken a very difficult decision in respect of Bill C-28 which was brought in during the last parliament and
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
which will be brought in again during this parliament in a modified form. What is the position of the opposition in respect of this bill, which really is a follow-up to the commitment made by the ten premiers and myself in February when we decided that total compensation in the public sector should not lead that of the private sector? We are putting that in the form of a bill and will ask the Leader of the Opposition and his party to support it. I understand the NDP will not support us, but it will be interesting to see whether the Leader of the Opposition has a position in this regard. He will complain about inflation, but we want to know whether he will support the government's policy which has been announced but which he feigns not to know.
What is his position on this policy in view of all these matters of restraint? I can predict now what it is. Every time we bring in a bill, and there will be many, cutting federal expenditures, members of the opposition complain. Already today we have heard the complaint that we are cutting too much in the wrong places. The opposition always find some reason not to support the expenditure restraint by the federal government, but never will they propose an equivalent amount to be cut in other areas. We will just watch for their support in this particular respect.
In the face of inflation in the past this government has taken what I would say is a very compassionate stand: indexing of various pensions including family allowances, old age pensions, veterans' pensions and so on. This has been a major step in protecting those people in the weaker element of our society against the evils of inflation. These measures have cost a great deal of money.
We continued these measures of restraint in the month of August by cutting expenditures in some areas, taking away from those who have and who do not need quite as much. In this way we have been able to increase the guaranteed income supplement by $20 per month per household, and this will affect some 3,300,000 pensioners. In respect of family allowances, and I will explain it once again because the people out there watching television do not seem to have understood it properly-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is wrong about having open government? We are the ones who brought television into the House!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There will be a thirteenth cheque, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) always reminds us, of $200 per child per year over and above the $20 per month that will continue, and will be accelerated in the usual fashion. This is redistribution.
I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition attacked our Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) for having said this government was concerned with and would continue redistribution. We will, because that is Liberal policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The principle of redistribution is to take from them who have in order to give to those who do not. In the case of the Leader of the Opposition he has two kinds of redistribution in mind. We have already heard talk about one, and that is redistribution of federal powers to the provinces. That can be quite painless for the Leader of the Opposition. We have had an example of the other kind of redistribution, namely, the housing policy of which he is so proud. Under this housing policy, them that has gets, and I think we can give a few examples of that.
Again let me put some housing facts on record because the opposition would seem to indicate that in this area of housing we have not done enough. Let me just indicate once again that of the 15 most industrialized countries of the world Canada was second in housing starts from 1970 to 1977. The index shows Belgium first with 152, Canada second with 126, and the United States, with its mortgage deductibility, at 116, fewer housing starts than in Canada. Norway, Japan, and the other countries follow. We have such a good record because of good Liberal housing policy in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the Leader of the Opposition wants to save $20 million by abolishing the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, but he should consider what has been achieved in the past ten years since we set up this ministry. The central objective of federal housing policy has been to increase the supply of all types of shelter and to maximize individual choice and to stabilize prices.
Aided by a variety of tax incentives and a near tripling of CMHC budgets from $655 million in 1968 to $1,890 million in 1977, Canada's housing industry has produced over 2.1 million starts since 1968, the best record in our history and the best record, after Belgium, of any industrialized society. In the latest four-year period, 1973 to 1977, Canada annually produced approximately 250,000 starts, far better than any other four-year period in our history. For instance, if you take from 1963 to 1967 there were 155,000 housing starts, and in 1958 to 1962 there were 134,000 starts compared, once again, to 248,000 starts for the period 1973 to 1977. That is well ahead of the Economic Council's goal of one million over five years.
Federal government programs were essential in achieving this number of starts. The proportion of starts with some National Housing Act subsidy increased from 6 per cent in 1968 to over 40 per cent in 1977. It is because of that large increase in starts since 1973 that prices for houses have stabilized. In 1976-77 the price of existing homes only increased by 3.9 per cent. There has been a housing policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. It has created houses in a number exceeding any other period in our history, and, I repeat, better than any other industrialized society with the exception of Belgium.
I understand that the Leader of the Opposition and his party are flailing around asking themselves what they can do in

order to redistribute wealth in their way. They do not like the way the Minister of Finance is doing it. They do not like the way this government is doing it. So, what are they going to do to redistribute wealth? Let us take a look at the practical application of their policies. For instance, there are the renters in Canada. They are not a small group for there are 2.4 million householders in this country who rent their shelter, 37 per cent of all households. These renters are not the rich people. Approximately 60 per cent of all renters make $10,000 or less, and many of these are older Canadians or families which are starting out.
Let us take, for example, one senior citizen, a widow who is retired and renting, and what does she get from this Tory tax policy? She gets zero, Mr. Speaker-not one cent.


Some hon. Members:: Shame! Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Think of the single person, Mr. Speaker, with a low fixed income, and renting. They do not get a cent either. There is the newly married young couple starting out in an apartment-nothing for them either. Here is a $1.6 billion election tax cut promise that ignores the pensioner, the single person with a low fixed income, and the new, young family.
Let us now look at the man in the low middle income bracket who owns a home and who has no mortgage. This is not a small group either. There are 4 million householders in Canada who own their homes, and one half of these have no mortgage. That means that 2 million out of 4 million home owners have no mortgage. They are not going to benefit from this promise. What does the Tory promise say to this person, this low middle income earner who has a house but no mortgage? It says, "If you want this tax break, well, go out and mortgage your home." Of course, if they do that this will put the expenditure way above the $1.6 billion which is the calculated Tory figure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Awful advice, Sine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What about these people who do own a home and who have a mortgage, the people that the Leader of the Opposition and his party are so concerned about? Let us take some of the examples given in the Tory leader's own publication. For example, let us look at the man and woman with two children who earn $10,000 per year and who own a home which is mortgaged. And let us say that the mortgage interest is $1,800 annually, the national average. Such a person would get a tax advantage of $450.


An hon. Member:: Still good.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it is still pretty good, but the trouble is that when you look at the man who makes $50,000 a year and who has the same kind of mortgage, he gets $933, twice as much, so, if you are richer you get more, and that is good Tory redistribution!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 12, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All these examples can be repeated ad nauseam, Mr. Speaker. The effect of them generally is that if you are twice as rich you get twice as much money from the Tory policy. This is the kind of redistribution the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of, not the kind of redistribution he criticized the Minister of Finance for.


An hon. Member:: Give more examples.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would give more examples, but I have something more interesting. I have something which tries to deal with the Leader of the Opposition's answer when he is asked, "What is it going to cost the provinces?"


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is a beautiful one.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 hope I have not lost it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The man of peace for the provinces, a billion dollar loss.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am giving the federal cost, their estimate of SI.6 billion. I think it was the provincial treasurer of Ontario who has already complained that it is going to cost him $300 million.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Four.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it four?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We know that our calculation is something in the area of SI billion in cost to the provinces because of the tax collection agreements. The Leader of the Opposition was asked about that; if he forgot about it, or if he was trying to hide it, or if he did not understand it.
He has mentioned tapes that he has about us. We have a tape about him. It is on the CBC "World at Six", Friday, September 29. The opposition leader was asked to explain just why and how the provinces would not lose their revenue. He seemed unclear himself on just how it worked. This is the usual CBC understatement, "He seemed unclear on how it would work". Let me just read his answer. All of this is in quotes; even when I smile, Mr. Speaker.
Leader of the Opposition: Well, what I'm saying is that we would-the calculus that we issue, coming to a $1.6 billion total cost figure after four years of operation is based upon federal tax. That would be the cost to the federal treasury. We would only be rebating to the provinces, to use your term, something that we-an affect upon taxation that would-an affect upon their- I'm trying to put this clearly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is still in quotes. You can see how he puts it clearly. Listen carefully, Mr. Speaker, he is putting it clearly.
The rebating to the provinces would be a sum in excess to the cost to the federal treasury and we would be rebating to the provinces something that we would not have come to federal government in the first place without this program. It would not be a new-the cost would be an administrative share, an administrative cost but a very insignificant one.
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They say that imitation is the highest form of flattery, and now they do not want us to adhere to the principle of the British Empire and Westminster, where they thump and otherwise make noises, but to applaud, as the Leader of the Opposition and his party are now teaching us to do in this revolutionary move to make this parliament more open.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have given a lot of OECD figures. I would ask the House to bear with me for two more quotes. I just want to put them before this parliament because they bring another approach to our economic situation and the impending doomsday rhetoric that we constantly hear from the opposition, and that we heard about today. We hear about inflation, unemployment, or the falling dollar, a lot of dire predictions, a lot of imaginary musings, but very little is said which would create the confidence in this country which this country deserves.
Let me just put on the record the remarks of a gentleman who has criticized me in other circumstances, including the one referred to at the end of 1976, by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Earle McLaughlin. This is a quote from the Globe and Mail of January 13, 1978, as follows:
W. Earle McLaughlin, chairman and chief executive officer of the Royal Bank of Canada, told the bank's annual meeting that 'the most calamitous thing' for business and Canada 'would be to be swept away by the waves of pessimism often displayed by too many.'


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is Earle the poor man?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know if he is poor, but he certainly knows how to run a bank which is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The article continues later:
Taking the past seven years-'a purely arbitrary medium-term yardstick since virtually any other reference period would do,' Mr. McLaughlin said Canadians have outperformed the Americans 'by almost any economic yardstick you might propose.'
In the period, real personal incomes in Canada had increased 38 per cent, even taking into account the weakening Canadian dollar, compared with a 17 per cent U.S. increase. Canadian material standard of living had increased more than in the United States and 'despite our unemployment, we have been creating new jobs 50 per cent faster than the United States.'
In another vital indicator, Mr. McLaughlin said, total investment spending in Canada rose by 168 per cent, compared with a growth of only 107 per cent in the United States, 'the past 12 to 24 months notwithstanding.'
And Canadian corporate after tax profits grew by 186 per cent, 7 per cent more than in the United States.
He goes on to give many other indices of warranted optimism. I would just give one more quote since investment spending is referred to by Mr. McLaughlin.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
The Windsor Star of October 5, quotes Mr. Roy F. Bennett, president of the Ford Motor Company of Canada, when speaking to the Windsor Chamber of Commerce, as follows:
"I would suggest there is a real danger in the Canadian business community that we may become so preoccupied with the spectre of this pair of culprits (inflation and unemployment) that we could lose sight of the many fundamental strengths in our economy.
If we do, we may fail to take those business initiatives which, in many respects, are the solution to the nation's fundamental economic ills,"-
Later, he said:
"Although inflation is eroding our earnings, the purchasing power of Canadians has never been greater than it is today... the market for goods and services is booming and continuing to grow."
The article continues:
He said while the value of the Canadian dollar continues to depreciate, the international competitiveness of Canadian producers has substantially improved. "We are probably in a better position to compete in international markets than we have been for at least the past 10 years," he said.
He noted the Canadian car market is at an all-time high.
I did want to talk about the problem of national unity at some length but I think I will save part of my remarks for some other occasion, because I have taken a lot of the time of the House. I would briefly contrast our approach here again to that of the opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition did say some words about his approach to the problem of national unity and I have already commented on that a little bit.
Let me first say that we do give very high priority to the problem of national unity and to the remedies we propose, for a very simple reason. It is that the Canadian economy will not attain its full potential unless this problem of disjointed unity, of political uncertainty, is solved, and unless an investor, whether he is going to invest in Windsor or Winnipeg, knows he is investing in a country of 23 million people, not of 23 million minus six million. This is very important for the economy.
To those people who say, "Why are you tinkering with the situation? Why are you spending your time talking about national unity when there are jobs to be found and inflation on your back", that is the answer. Economic uncertainty flows from political uncertainty. It is extremely important that on all sides of the House we tackle this problem with great urgency. [Translation]
The second reason why this problem must be solved immediately was stated just two days ago by the Premier of the pro ince of Quebec, Mr. Levesque, who was speaking in the National Assembly, and I quote:
One thing for sure anyway, we do not see anything but sovereignty-association as a solution likely to break the vicious circle in which are trapped two different people.
Well, that is what we have always maintained, Mr. Speaker. Quebeckers, like westerners and maritimers, want a solution to this constitutional imbroglio which has been dragging in this country ever since 1927. Quebeckers are anxious to see this parliament not only grapple with this problem of the constitution, but solve it once and for all because we know, Mr. 
Speaker, and all surveys bear this out, that the option of a renewed federalism is to be preferred to any other option for Quebeckers, including of course separation or sovereignty-association.
Quebeckers want a renewed federalism, a new constitution. They are anxious to get results, and they prefer that solution to sovereignty-association. And because the people in Quebec will be called upon to express their opinion in a referendum to be held by the provincial government presumably within a year, we must in the meantime be able to show the province of Quebec that after 51 years of efforts we have finally made some progress, and that is why it is urgent to implement the government's program.
The Leader of the Opposition talked of confrontation, he said that the federal government wants to move too fast, that he, the Leader of the Opposition, would sit down with the provinces, discuss their agenda, start with the division of powers, because that is what concerns them. Has he any guarantee that eight, nine or ten provinces will agree with him on a division of powers within a year or two? The only guarantee he can have, of course, is that if he agrees to give the provinces all the powers and all the jurisdictions they want, if he wants to dismantle the federal government, Mr. Speaker, if he wants to turn the federal government into a vacuum, give the provinces all the powers, of course, he will agree in no time with the provinces on the division of powers. But we know that issue was discussed for three years, from 1968 to 1971, and as the proposals were not forthcoming-and I am talking basically about provincial proposals because the government made several proposals to improve the division, including those I mentioned earlier-the provinces, for the sake of peace and quiet, said: Well, let us get it over with and try, in Victoria at least, to repatriate the constitution and find an amending formula. Now, the Leader of the Opposition says: Hey, hold your horses! Let us take our time! Let us not act too hastily. We have to discuss with the provinces, so no confrontation. I am not for confrontation. I want a solution to be found, but once again, I remind the Leader of the Opposition and all those who are listening that the people in Quebec will have to vote within a year on the various options, and unless we have a renewed federalism to propose, I can guarantee the Leader of the Opposition that federalism is in for a rough time.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to begin with the division of powers because the provinces said that they want to begin with the division of powers. Does he have even the slightest hope that he will get the ten provinces to agree on a new division of powers within the next little while? He shakes his head yes, Mr. Speaker. He is saying that Mr. Levesque will agree on renewing our federalism rather than pursue his option of souverainete independance.
October 12, 1978

He thinks that the premier of the province of Quebec will make it easy for him, the Leader of the Opposition, to find agreement among ten provinces in a way in which we will have a new division of powers in this country. In order to pursue this will-o'-the-wisp he is going to set aside the Bill of Rights. He is going to set aside the proposition to give greater representation to the west and to the east in the institutions of the central government. He is going to set aside linguistic guarantees in order to pursue something, when he should know at the outset that the premier of Quebec will not consent. If he is looking for unanimity, as the premiers suggested at Regina last August that they were looking for, he will not find it. He will not find it this year, and he will not find it next year. At some point he will have to be courageous and take a stand which is just not a feeble echo of what the ten premiers are saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no doubt as to the reason why the Leader of the Opposition shakes his head yes, that he is going to find agreement, because he has already shown us at Kingston how he would do it. Anything the provinces ask, he gives them. And he comes back and says "What a great victory! There was no confrontation! Look what I accomplished at Kingston." This is what he would do when sitting down with Mr. Levesque and the other premiers who want to despoil the federal government of its powers and decentralize this country to a state when there would no longer be a government able to talk for the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not here to argue for any particular form of constitutional bill. We put one in front of the House last session, Bill C-60. It was our considered opinion on what a total arrangement for a new constitution could be. It could be changed. It was our considered position, but I do not think there is only one perfect solution, one particular set of federal institution reforms or division of powers which is superior to all others.
It is not vital to me, Mr. Speaker, whether the Senate is named by the political parties or whether it is directly elected. What is important is that it amplify the voice of western and eastern Canada which feel alienated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is vital to me that it does give protection to the kind of linguistic equality that this government has put into the statutes.
It is not vital to me whether the Supreme Court has nine judges or 11 judges, whether it sits or it does not sit in civil law matters. All I am saying is that it is important that the Supreme Court of this country has the confidence of Canadians from every region. It is time that we got on with the job of finding ways by which that confidence can be established. We should not sweep that under the carpet too, and say that we will discuss division of powers, which will take us years and years and years. It is important before then to establish the
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
Supreme Court which corresponds to the values for which all Canadians stand.
It is not vital to me whether Her Majesty is formally described in the new constitution as The Sovereign Head of State, or as Her Majesty the Queen, or as the Sovereign of Canada, or in any other way. We have indicated many times that our intention was not to change the role of the monarchy. We indicated that as far back as 1968 when we published the white paper on the constitution. We have repeated it constantly since then that that was our intention.
At one point when we were writing a new constitution we had to say something about the Queen. I think the opposition would have been the first to complain if we had written a new constitution without mentioning the Queen. Therefore we had to put in something. We had our drafters put the description of the situation of today as they see it under constitutional law in the best language they could. This is what they attempted to write, and this is what we want to be in the constitution.
I know some people on the other side who would like to write in what the position was of the Queen in Queen Anne's day, but this is not the position of this government. We want to describe the situation today following the 1947 letters patent which gave to the Governor General the power to exercise Her Majesty's prerogatives which were transferred in final resort to the Governor General about a year and half ago. This we want to put in the constitution. We are repeating, Mr. Speaker, and we have said it since 1968, that this is the intention. The intention was explained to Her Majesty at Buckingham Palace by the then minister of justice, and she saw it that way too. The people who are hollering "the monarchy" in this country are the people on that side of the House who are using it as a political football.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And it is not the first time!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is not for the Leader of the Opposition or for the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) to say what the intention of the government is. The intention of the government has been expressed by the Minister for Lederal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Lalonde), by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), and by myself. Our intention is to preserve the monarchy and to describe her position as it is now. But the intention of the other side of the House is to try to garner votes on the subject and to try to split Canadians on this subject. I am telling them that if there is a debate on the monarchy in this country, if we do find people responding to their invitation to set up groups to protect Her Majesty, who is in no way endangered by this government, there may be other groups who will form to attack the monarchy, and then we will see a fight in this country on a political basis, a division which will have been caused by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
38

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If they had any sense at all, if they were really concerned with the preservation of the monarchy as a symbol of Canadian unity and as a symbol of our nationhood, they would not be playing politics with Her Majesty as they are doing now.


An hon. Member:: What a fraud.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They would sit down and try and rewrite in better words what they think we have drafted badly. But they would have the courage to try and do it themselves, or they would assist as the provinces are doing, in a new drafting to translate, the intention perhaps better. But they would not be snidely pretending that this government is trying to downgrade an institution which many Canadians feel close to their hearts, and that is what the opposition is doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To make it all very simple, what I am telling the premiers and the Leader of the Opposition and his party is that if you do not like Bill C-60, that is fine. Let us sit down and revise it. It was brought in and given a first reading last session precisely so we could study it some more-


An hon. Member:: With a deadline.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is exactly what we said in the last session that we will bring it in for first reading only, we will set up a parliamentary committee to study it, we will ask the premiers to study it in the provinces, and we will ask them to come back with better wording, if they have it. If they want to revise it, improve it, fine. If they want a new division of powers, fine. Let us hear what they want to propose.
I see the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that we are the ones now. He will wait for us to propose some new division of powers. We are not asking for a new division of powers. I understand it is his party. It is the provinces that are asking for a division of powers. They have made some proposals. We will study them. I have already written to the premiers in that sense. We will make some counter-proposals. We will show that in some instances it is important for the federal government to have powers that are now exercised by the provinces because we believe that Canada must maintain a strong government if it is going to remain united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: All I am saying is, let's get on with it, let's act. For 51 years, under six different prime ministers, the national government and the provincial governments have tried to tackle the problem of the constitution. They have always come up with failure. If people are fed up with politicians discussing the constitution, it is not because they do not think it is important. It is because they think the politicians should get on with it, finish the job, and not discuss it for another 50 years. That is the position of this government. That

is why we have set deadlines which we will do our best to meet. That is why we will stick with them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure of the position of the Leader of the Opposition. I do know they brought out a blue paper called "Constitution and National Unity" in April, 1978. On page one of this paper they said "the legitimacy of the existing constitution has been substantially eroded."
They go on to propose what? They go on to propose essentially constitutional changes, not division of powers. Let the Leader of the Opposition read his own position paper. They proposed institutional changes like we did in Bill C-60. They suggested we were copying them at that time because this seemed to be a good wicket to be on.
They talked about the House of the Provinces. It is our House of the Federation. They talked about federal-provincial conferences and the need to institutionalize them. They talked about appointments-another victory at Kingston. At Kingston the Leader of the Opposition gained from the premiers the right for them to name people to the Supreme Court and to federal bodies like the CBC and so on. That was another great victory.
This is what they talked about in their paper on national unity in April, 1978. They talked about the Supreme Court. They said later "we will talk about language rights, later we will publish things on human liberties, later we will talk about the division of powers, our phase II."
What happened? The premiers got together in Regina in 1978. They said they did not want to talk about the Senate, the Supreme Court, and federal-provincial relations. They said they wanted to talk about the division of powers. What did the opposition party do? They simply put out another paper in September, 1978, called "The Process of Constitutional Change" in which they denounce this frantic haste which is unwise. They said it was unacceptable for the federal government to proceed with the very matters that in April they were saying we should proceed with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As soon as the provinces say they want to discuss the division of powers, "Right on, Premier Lougheed," says the Leader of the Opposition, "Right on, Premier Davis, ready, aye, ready, we will discuss whatever you want, we will forget the other."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the September paper called "The Process of Constitutional Change", they not only reverse their position from April, but they reverse it between page 5 and page 13. On page 5 they talk about "the fundamental silliness of the Trudeau government's position which is pretending to act unilaterally under section 91(1)".
Because the premiers have said, "You cannot exercise your powers which are recognized under the BNA Act under sec-
October 12, 1978

tion 91(1)," the Leader of the Opposition says we cannot exercise those powers, it is silly of the Trudeau government to try to do it.
The Leader of the Opposition is complaining about federal interference in provincial jurisdictions. Was there any greater interference ever heard of in Canada than the provinces telling us that we cannot exercise a jurisdiction under section 91(1) given to the federal government? If that is not interference, what is?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The provinces have said, "Unless there is some kind of unanimity, some consensus"-they use both words-"you should not use your right to amend the federal constitution." Nobody has ever contested the right of the provincial governments under section 92(1) to change their constitutions. If they want, they can sit down and write there shall be a Queen, there shall be a form of cabinet government, there shall be a legislative assembly, there shall be courts, there shall be an administration and so on. They can do it. But according to this party over here, we cannot do it. We cannot write a constitution which says there will be a Queen, there will be a Governor General, there will be a cabinet government responsible to parliament, there will be two Houses and one will be constituted in this way and the other in that way, and there will be courts. They say we cannot write a constitution for us which is authorized under section 91(1), but they can do it for themselves.
This is indeed a queer view of the centralized powers under section 91(1). I have heard there is a kind of chicken that lays a lot of wonderful eggs. Maybe the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) can tell me more about it. There is only one problem. After it has laid the eggs, it turns around and eats them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After laying a very, very big egg, covering very many pages with a very learned argument about why we should not use section 91(1) and why we should not act unilaterally, the Leader of the Opposition, on the last page, comes forth as he did in his speech, and says he is going to show leadership if there is any confrontation, you can rely on him to stand up to them. There is a little weaseled phrase on the last page of this learned page which says "Clearly there are areas where the federal government can act alone, and if necessary we will do so."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, they sure did stand up to the provinces. We saw how they stood up to them in Kingston. Let us see how they stood up to them on some other occasions. Take the offshore mineral rights. We know this has been contested in this country for at least 12 years. There was a Supreme Court decision. Finally, after months and even years of negotiation between this government and the three maritime provinces and Newfoundland, which wanted to have 100 per cent of the
The Address-Mr. Trudeau
resources on the offshore, and the courts seem to have decided otherwise, at least on the west coast, we stood up for the federal government, as it is our duty to do, to stand up for federal rights under the constitution.
There are premiers who stand up for provincial rights. That is their duty. That is their job. That is what they are elected for. I think the Leader of the Opposition has chosen the wrong House in which to sit. He should be sitting in the provincial Houses standing up for the provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: After years of negotiation we put together an agreement with the three maritime premiers suggesting a division of the resources. It was not a judgment of jurisdiction, just a fair division of resources, actually a very generous one for the provinces. After it was put together, it was signed by the three maritime premiers and myself.
A new Conservative premier has now been elected in Nova Scotia. There is a federal by-election now, and the Leader of the Opposition went there and said, "If you want 100 per cent, we will tear up this agreement," which was signed formally in these very parliament buildings a couple of years ago, "and we will give you 100 per cent." That was one example of him standing up to the provinces. If he has to, he will stand up to them and give them 100 per cent.
Let us consider another example, lotteries. I know the history of this very well because it was back in 1967 that I introduced amendments to the Criminal Code to make lotteries legal in Canada. Incidentally, the province of Alberta was the province from which I received the greatest number of letters. Albertans were scandalized because I was introducing an "immoral" system. In Quebec there were other issues. In Manitoba the issue was gun legislation, but in Alberta the issue was lotteries. Some ten years later we tried to make a deal with the provinces. We wanted to share the lotteries, but the provinces wanted 100 per cent. Who does the Leader of the Opposition support? The provinces, of course. Why should the federal government have its lottery when the provinces want to have 100 per cent? Why should we have anything, even if it is only to help sports and amateur sports? Why should we have anything of this?
The Leader of the Opposition takes a very firm position. Using his own words, he will stand up for federal rights, but he says that the lotteries should be 100 per cent the provinces. Fortunately, the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) was able to come to an arrangement with the provinces. There will be a shared arrangement. I do not know if it is going to stick. You never know, because the new premier of Nova Scotia might meet with the Leader of the Opposition, and he might unstick it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Shall I mention the sales tax?


Some hon. Members:: Yes. More, more.
80065-4Vi

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Trudeau


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In very simple terms, the Leader of the Opposition accused us of infringing provincial rights, invading provincial jurisdiction and so forth. What happened? We said to the provinces that we would cut income taxes in our jurisdiction, federal income taxes, if the provinces would do something in their jurisdictions. Nobody was invading anybody's jurisdiction. We were saying, "We will do this, if you do that". Eight of the provinces said "Fine". Mr. Parizeau said: "I cannot give you an answer. I will tell you later, after your budget". So after the budget he said: "I do not want to do what you ask, but I want you to give the money as if I had done it". Who was invading whose jurisdiction? We were cutting our taxes, provided the provinces would do something. One province said it would not do anything, but it still wanted us to cut taxes in that province. We were still being told what to do with our federal income tax, but not in exchange for a deal or as a quid pro quo. Unilaterally we were being told how we should arrange our budget. A fight ensued, and we kept hearing from the Leader of the Opposition that not only was Mr. Levesque supporting Mr. Parizeau, but even Mr. Ryan was supporting Mr. Parizeau. So naturally the Leader of the Opposition supported Mr. Parizeau too. He takes not only the position of the provincial premier but also that of the leader of the opposition in that province.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Alberta wants international prices for its oil. Ontario wants lower prices. So does New Brunswick, and I suppose now so will Nova Scotia. They do not want to pay the international price for Alberta oil. They do not want this high price to be applied all across Canada. There is division. We have managed to settle these matters in the past several years. There have been many negotiations. When the Leader of the Opposition was on the back benches he naturally supported the premier of his province, but now that he is the leader of a party, he cannot support one premier against the other, so he does not support either. He just says: "You figure it out amongst yourselves; I will not take a position. Let the federal government do something and I will be with you, Brother Lougheed, and with you, Brother Davis".


Robert Knight Andras: That is going to be difficult.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be difficult because on January 1 he will have to make up his mind. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) has said that we will not increase prices on January 1 if we can avoid it. That would please Brother Davis, but it would not please Brother Lougheed. Can we ask the Leader of the Opposition to stand firm on this in the interests of the people of Canada? Who will he support? I know he will not support us. He will support one premier or both, and if he cannot support either, he will say something about referring the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Charles Joseph Clark: You have run as far as you can.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have exhausted my time.


An hon. Member:: You would make a good leader of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: More.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I remember a sixteenth century divine about whom it was said that when he spoke he exhausted time and encroached upon eternity. I will not do that. I think I will just wind up by saying that this is a time when the whole industrialized world is coming to grips with very difficult economic problems. Our own country is trying to solve these problems and, as I demonstrated, it is performing better than most, better than all, actually, if we consider the over-all total of performances.
At this difficult time we have a Leader of the Opposition and an official opposition unable or unwilling to make any of the hard choices. We have an official opposition which tries to evade its responsibility and blame the government for everything. The Leader of the Opposition talks about the Speech from the Throne and his anxiety about getting into government. The official opposition will have to learn how to accept some responsibilities. It will have to learn to do so in economic matters and in matters of national unity.
It will have to learn to accept its responsibilities in some of the areas which were referred to in the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, such as matters of national security. When a member of his party was asked by the deputy commissioner of the RCMP to hand over secret documents belonging to the RCMP, the publication of which would be a danger to the security system of this country and to the operation of the RCMP, the Leader of the Opposition turned a blind eye and said, "I do not want to get involved in this". He does not have the courage to accept his responsibility in important matters like that, but he will stand up and talk about his anxiety about coming into government. Let me just say that this government accepts its responsibilities. Sometimes that does mean confrontation. Sometimes it does mean having to say no to the provinces, to labour, to big business or even to the opposition, but we accept our responsibilities.
If the people of this country listen to the siren song of the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to say, "Change the government, you have nothing to lose," let me answer that the people of Canada have everything to lose if they put into power a party which has no confidence in this country, no confidence in its ability to overcome its difficulties and which does not believe that the federal government has the right to lead all the people of this nation, even through the difficult problems which are put to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 12, 1978



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be debated at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne)- Unemployment Insurance Act-Request for tabling of correspondence with provinces; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Fisheries-Proposed transfer of weather forecasting services.


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.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in my view we have heard the best possible demonstration we could have had in ten years of why the country is in so much difficulty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I say completely sincerely that if ever we had a display of misguided intelligence, that was it. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has made an interesting distinction which I will turn around on him in just a minute. Today, at the opening of his highly disparaging speech about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), he launched into a personal assault making reference to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was using notes. Of course, he himself spent a good part of his time using notes. It is all right when on one side of the House an arrogant, condescending and aggressive Prime Minister does one thing, but when someone on this side does it, somehow it is unacceptable.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


John Edward Broadbent: Come on yourself. Look at your side for a minute.
Then the Prime Minister went on to say that he had studied some psychology and had learned that a distinction existed between reason and imagination. He put his hands in his pockets and said, yes, that was a good distinction, and the Leader of the Opposition was very good on imagination but
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
was not so good on intelligence. That was really the gist of his argument.


An hon. Member:: That's the truth.


John Edward Broadbent: That is personal vindictiveness and a great way to "unite" this country! But that is what we got from the Prime Minister. He has taken the intelligence with which he was gifted and has governed this country for ten years, but had he used that intelligence, that is there and that is real, to mould support? Has he brought people together to try to build an exciting and decent nation? No. The only time the Prime Minister uses that intelligence is when he is in battle. We saw it in 1972, we saw it in 1974, and for the first time in four years we saw it here today. Suddenly he came alive. Why? Because he likes to fight. The Prime Minister likes to combine two contradictory attitudes: that of a philosopher and that of John Wayne. I say to him that this is a totally undesirable combination for a prime minister of a country.
Let me show what it was all about. He said that the Leader of the Opposition was not good with his facts. I will bring out a few for the Prime Minister to show how, through his distorted, twisted, misleading and false set of facts, quite a different picture will emerge from the one he tried to convey. Two can play that game. The Prime Minister has had responsibility for this nation for ten years, and that is the relevant question, as he knows. But of course he likes to win arguments. He does not like to convince, persuade, lead or give support because he is doing the good or decent thing, but he does like to be clever and win arguments.
That is just the opposite of serious statesmanship or serious philosophy. He trotted out that old canard about job creation and said that Canada leads in job creation. He compared us with other countries. But what he did not tell us was that, unlike many countries with which he was making the comparison, we have had thousands of immigrants every year. So it would seem that we would have to create a few more jobs than would other countries. Also, the other countries had lower birth rates-he did make an allusion to that-and therefore they did not have to create the same number of jobs.
The relevant economic indicator is not the number of jobs you create, for God's sake. If you have enough jobs for your people, you do not need to have a high rate of job creation- people are not insane. So the relevant indicator, which he did not talk about, is the level of unemployment. It is the level of unemployment that is the meaningful thing for comparative purposes. If you consider immigration, if you consider the birth rate and if you consider the fact that there are indeed men and women in this country who want jobs, the task of the government is to create a sufficient number of jobs so that they can work, instead of winning a meaningless statistical battle by saying that we have created more jobs than another country which does not have the same number of immigrants and the same birth rate.
When the Prime Minister came to office in 1968 there was a 3.4 per cent unemployment rate. In September of 1978 the rate was 7.7 per cent, an increase of 600,000 in real numbers

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
in that decade. He left the impression that now we are doing much better than other countries in terms of real performance, not in terms of the average in the ten-year period. We are talking now about a government which brought down the throne speech and which has to accept responsibility for what it has done for four years and what it plans to do for the next year before it calls an election.
How does our rate of unemployment compare with that in other industrial countries? According to the last yearly average in 1977, the rate of unemployment in Japan stood at 2.1 per cent, in Germany at 3.5 per cent, in France at 5.2 per cent, in the U.S. at 7 per cent, in Italy at 7.2 per cent, and in Canada at 8.1 per cent. We are the worst of the lot in the average for 1977. But the Prime Minister did not mention that.
With regard to inflation levels he thought we were doing wonderfully. He did not tell us the current level in Switzerland, Japan or Germany, which are all doing much better than this country, and I can list many others.
As to redistribution of income, my God, I thought for a minute I was listening to Trotsky. This man who came to office in 1968, this man who alleges now that he is really concerned about the Tory housing policy because he wants to do something for the low income groups, this man who, in his combative style, maintains he is so deeply concerned about inequality, does not face the fact that after having been in office for ten years there is more inequality today than we had in 1968.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


John Edward Broadbent: It is true; check your figures.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I listened for two hours-it is my turn now. If hon. members check the statistics in the past decade, they will find that the situation of the poor in this country has become marginally worse-not a great deal but marginally worse-not better. This man who talks about inequality has done nothing about it for ten years, and yet he berates the official opposition as if really he had been centrally concerned.
The Prime Minister talks about good housing, about housing starts, as if it were some miraculous, fantastic accomplishment. He said we have created more houses than countries like Norway, Belgium or Sweden. Again I repeat that they do not have immigrant societies, they do not have thousands of people coming in every year, and they do not need to renew their housing stock the way we need to.
If ever a man should turn his own distinction back upon himself, I say it is the Prime Minister. If he wants to talk about reason and intelligence as opposed to imagination, I say he has provided a lovely set of imaginative statistics that are designed to try to convince everyone. What did he say? He said at one point that "we are doing very well indeed". I say that if you select your data carefully, you can convince Liberal backbenchers who are looking for something to get them out of

their morass, but I tell you that he will not convince the ordinary person in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In the throne speech almost no attention was paid to what I think is the central issue, and that is the state of the Canadian economy. There are other matters too. It is correct, as the Prime Minister said and also as the Leader of the Opposition has said on other occasions, that you cannot separate national unity or the problem of our federal state from the state of the economy. But may I emphasize that the central concern is the economy. The central way, but not the exclusive way, of dealing with national unity also is economic.
What is the major economic dispute in this land right now? No one met that dispute head on. 1 should like to deal with it in terms of the Prime Minister. Although my differences with the hon. Leader of the Opposition on principle are significant and real, it is the Prime Minister and the government of the day who are responsible for getting us out of our difficulties. What is the economic reality? As everyone knows, there are more than one million unemployed. The private sector is operating at 85 per cent capacity. In real terms the business sector has not indicated that it wants to invest more next year than this year. As I have said on other occasions, businessmen are not foolish or stupid. If they are operating at 15 per cent unused capacity, they will not change that now. They will not overexpand another 15 per cent or so.
If this is the reality, with our level of unemployment and the private sector not expanding, what should we be doing? For a minute I thought the Prime Minister was going to be serious instead of being polemical. He spoke about the level of government stimulus. Also he made an entirely misleading and facetious comparison with Saskatchewan. He said that the government is providing more stimulus than Saskatchewan in order to create jobs. Of course, what he did not mention was that the unemployment rate in Saskatchewan is 3.6 per cent. In the whole period he has been in government he has not achieved that level nationally. Of course, the level of stimulation must be much greater at the federal level. In managing a mixed economy with intelligence, Allan Blakeney in Saskatchewan has achieved virtually full employment. The Prime Minister should talk to him, in addition to Helmut Schmidt, if he wants lessons in economics.
The central reality in the land is whether we should adopt restraint as our principal economic policy-cutbacks, rollbacks, restraint. It all began with Sterling Lyon. I am not questioning the motives; I am questioning the policy argued by the official opposition. Now the Prime Minister, not having implemented his own promises for four years, since August 1 has been implementing the policies of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Does that make economic sense? That is the question I want to raise and will attempt to answer.
We have a mixed economy. In my lifetime we have experienced, in Canada and throughout the world, the most
October 12, 1978

sustained period of economic growth in the history of man. From World War II to the present we have experienced the most sustained period of economic growth. Why is that? I ask the Prime Minister why that is so. The reason is that precisely during that period of time governments became involved in the economy. Because of the experience of the great depression, western economies all over the world, including the Government of Canada, have seen a central role to be played by governments in fiscal and monetary policies as well as seen the advantages of adopting an industrial strategy.
The argument made by the government in its Speech from the Throne and the argument made by the official opposition is that somehow we must cut back and restrain ourselves into prosperity. It is bad economics and worse social policy for this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It will not work. Under these circumstances we are saying that instead of cutbacks and layoffs, which would be the effect of a restraints program, of a further 100,000 Canadians by mindless and indiscriminate abolition of programs which are of benefit to Canadians, we need stimulation in the economy. We have said that taxes should be cut for ordinary people. There should be more cuts for lower income groups than high in order to provide stimulus. We have said that the federal sales tax should be cut by one-third to stimulate the manufacturing sector of the economy. Also we have said that there should be more public sector investment and that money should be put into needed energy projects, the housing sector for people who need homes, rapid transit facilities and grand national schemes. I will not go over the details of the package we proposed to the people of Canada any more precisely than I have already. This process would provide a real stimulus.
I say to the Prime Minister that the debt next year will go up approximately SI.5 billion. But if he looks at the level of private savings in this country, he will see that they are the highest since World War II. An elementary lesson in Keynesian economics would lead one to conclude that if we have a high level of saving in the private sector and by individuals, and the private business community is not expanding because of no demand, then the government should step in. If the Prime Minister looks at the record of Japan and the recent record of Germany over the last several years, their levels of debt for a number of years have exceeded ours because they stimulate at whatever level is needed in order to produce jobs and expand the economy.
Our proposal to create jobs for Canadians who want them, and to bring some real growth to the economy in the next decade, should start now with tax cuts for individuals, manufacturers and public sector investment. Yes, the debt will increase perhaps $1.5 billion next year; but according to our calculations, if the level of investment I have advocated outside the House is made, some 400,000 jobs would be created in the next two years, and in the next three years the national debt
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
would be reduced by some $6 billion to $7 billion. That is what serious economic policy should be all about at this time.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne must be seen and understood in the context of the economic problems Canadians are now facing. What are those problems? We have one million unemployed. We have an industrial sector that is operating at only 85 per cent capacity, which means businessmen have decided not to expand. Businessmen are not foolish and are not going to take up another 15 per cent of unused capacity when they have more capacity than they now need. Also, and this is important and crucial to an industrial country, we have already lost some 15,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector in the past year.
What response has the government made? The Prime Minister for four years has been ignoring his own commitments and promises to the people of Canada, yet since August 1 he has been attempting to implement those of the Leader of the Official Opposition. This approach to a complex economy can be summed up as a policy that amounts to nothing more than a slogan; it is cutbacks, rollbacks and restraint. According to the Government of Canada we can now in 1978 restrain ourselves into prosperity. That is ludicrous in principle and it is harmful in its effects.
We recall that at the outset of economic difficulties during the time of the great depression the prime minister of the day applied the same policy. It did not work for R. B. Bennett in the 1930s and it will not work for Pierre Elliott Trudeau and the people of Canada in the 1970s. We do not have to go back to the 1930s because, unfortunately, we have a good example already before us of what happens when you apply an across the board restraint and cutback policy.
Not long ago in the province of Manitoba a Conservative government was elected principally on that policy, and it applied it. According to the unemployment statistics which came out earlier this week, the province of Manitoba with that cutback philosophy, which has now been taken over by the Liberals and preached by the Leader of the Opposition, experienced in one year an increase of 35 per cent. The rate of increase in unemployment in the province of Manitoba over the past year was four times the rate of increase in the country as a whole. That is the kind of result you get when you adopt an economic policy that amounts simply to cutbacks.



October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Broadbent
At the national level, when we heard from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) some six weeks ago that they were going to apply a program that was described in broader detail in the throne speech last night, we calculated that the effect on the economy as a whole would be a net loss of some 100,000 jobs.
I questioned the Prime Minister about that the other day. I asked whether he would confirm that an assessment within the Department of Finance had yielded that expectation. As usual, he was evasive and did not answer. Today in the city of Ottawa a private economic consulting firm made a report which pointed out that with the policy announced by the Government of Canada we would lose not 100,000 jobs, as we calculated, but some 94,000 jobs. That means more men and women will be collecting unemployment insurance and welfare instead of contributing in a positive way to the economic development of this country.
The President of the Treasury Board said in the House today that the federal government was really talking about man-hours and not people. Let me point out to him, and he ought to know, that already in the city of Ottawa over 1,700 civil servants have received their quit slips. They have been informed they are losing their jobs. These are not abstract statistics and not mere man-hours, these are men and women: some 362 in Statistics Canada, 250 in Public Works, 650 in National Health and Welfare and 500 in the Public Service Commission. Some 1,762 have already received notice that they will be unemployed. That is the consequence of what I think can only be described as an irresponsible and mindless economic policy. Whether this kind of program is implemented by a man named Trudeau, as prime minister, or by a man who would like to have that job, Joe Clark, makes no difference to the NDP all across Canada, and we will have nothing to do with it.
What do we propose to put in its place? I submit that what we want to do instead is not designed to create Utopia overnight and will not remove all aspects of inflation or completely obliterate unemployment within a year or two. What we propose is a policy designed to come to grips with the real world rather than some pseudo-fantasy created by the government and the official opposition.
What does it consist of? It consists of the kind of package that has worked so well in West Germany as applied by Helmut Schmidt where unemployment and inflation are at approximately 3 per cent. It has worked very well in Japan where they have unemployment and inflation around the same level. Both of those countries approached the problems of their economies not by denigrating the public sector, but by seeing in a modern economy that it plays an integral and fundamental role in the development process.
So what do we say? If you have manufacturing which is operating at only 85 per cent capacity when you want men and women to be employed on those unused machines, we say reduce the federal manufacturers sales tax by one-third. We

have recommended that, and we calculate that if it is done it would inject approximately $1.5 billion of stimulus into the economy, producing some 75,000 jobs-jobs in the manufacturing sector that would benefit those in the electrical industry in Ontario, those who are producing wood products in British Columbia, those working in the shoe industry in the province of Quebec; in short, Canadians in every part of our land who are involved in manufacturing.
Secondly, we would recommend that men and women who are not employed but have sufficient income to be paying income tax be given an income tax reduction. But unlike the other parties, we say let us give a greater tax reduction to those with the lowest income; starting at the lowest level, a $400 tax cut and diminishing the higher up the income tax scale you go, finally fading out entirely at the very rich level. I include in this category members of parliament whose incomes do not warrant a tax cut. We recommend a one and a half billion dollar tax cut of that kind. The net effect we calculate would produce some 125,000 jobs.
The third element of our proposal at this time, which so clearly distinguishes us from the Conservative party and the government of the day, is that we recommend, at a time when the private sector is not investing-because businessmen are not foolish-that we inject public capital to stimulate the economy. We recommend public sector investment of $1.7 billion.
Where would this money go, Mr. Speaker? We say that we need rapid transit facilities in downtown Toronto, which the government promised some time ago. We would expand these public transit facilities thereby putting unemployed construction workers in Toronto to work. We recommend that the Hall royal commission report that the government has sat on for so long should be implemented. If it were implemented, we would not only be meeting the needs of farmers in the prairies who want improved grain handling facilities to get their wheat to export markets, but we would also be providing jobs in Nova Scotia where they make the rails and railroad cars. Instead of a 30 per cent unemployment level in Cape Breton, perhaps it would be cut in half.
With that kind of package-a personal income tax cut, a federal manufacturers sales tax cut and public sector investment-we would over a two-year period create some 400,000 jobs. This would begin to turn things around in this country in the way that the people of our land desperately desire and expect politicians who assume their responsibilities to act. These are the things which are needed right now in the short run.
Beyond the short run requirements that ought to be acted upon for the people of Canada, we must give now-and it ought to have been included in the throne speech-some serious commitment to a long-range industrial strategy. The issue is not the bogus one the two old line parties would like to con the people of Canada into believing, that it is either small government or big government. The issue is effective government. Are we going to at long last have effective government leadership in this country?
October 12, 1978

We say we need it. The NDP say we should be doing here what other industrial countries have done, what Japan did after World War II when they decided that they would become the leaders of the world in the electronics industry. They began to put their research and development money into that field, and there was co-ordinated government leadership with the private sector to make sure that money went into research and development. My party says let us start doing that long-range planning now in our country.
There are, for example, three important sectors; food, housing and transportation. Eighty per cent of Canadian expenditures are in these three sectors. Let us improve them. Let us take our food industry and make it one of the most productive and efficient industries in the world, not only to meet Canadian needs but to enable us to get into the export business. We could be developing our food processing industry abroad. There is the example in the Atlantic provinces of the fisheries industry in Newfoundland, one of the last great fisheries in the world. We should be expanding it with our 200-mile limit. We could do for fishermen what we did for our farmers many years ago.
We set up the Wheat Board for our farmers. It went into the world markets and sold wheat for Canadian farmers to Asia and Europe, and as a result our farmers are among the best paid in the world. If there was a little initiative coming from this government, we could do the same for fishermen on the east coast and on the west coast. We could be expanding sales. We have an 85-cent dollar. Let us use that to take the opportunity to get into new markets and lay the foundation for more jobs. That way the province of Newfoundland-and I do not exaggerate-within a matter of years could be self-sustaining in the fishing industry and men and women there would be collecting pay instead of handouts or unemployment insurance. That is what the people of Newfoundland and the rest of Canada as well want.
The same could be said for development in housing and transportation. But then there are certain more crucial, fundamental sectors. I say to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), who is here tonight and who should know from his own responsibilities within his department, that there are certain aspects of Canadian industry which are second to none in the world, and if we had the right kind of development at this time we could be world leaders in terms of sales, thereby providing thousands of Canadians with jobs. In this context I think particularly of our computer industry, the energy development field which includes hydro and nuclear facility developments abroad, and the plastics and food processing industries. However, we must begin now with concentration on and careful selection of certain sectors of this kind for development to provide continuing jobs in the future.
Above and beyond the selection of certain crucial areas for international development that could provide for continued and sustained jobs, there is a fundamental difference as well between members of my party and the other two parties on the question of resource development. We have said for years that
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
it is time we stopped exporting our raw materials and buying back finished products from other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We should be exporting steel, not iron ore; plastics, not unprocessed gas and oil; wood and paper products, not raw pulp. The underlying assumption is industrial strategy at the national level. In every province where resources are the key, we must have a resource policy whereby Canadian resources are developed by Canadians for the benefit of Canadians. That is what it should be all about.
This approach at this time, a short-run program designed to provide some 400,000 jobs and get people off welfare and handouts, combined with a long-range strategy, is what we ought to have had in the throne speech instead of the cutback, restraint mentality which is essentially negative and which will eventually lead to fewer, not more, jobs.
In conclusion, in suggesting this course of action for the people of Canada on behalf of my colleagues and this party, I do not say it is perfect; I do not say all our difficulties are going to go away but I do say that it recognizes reality. It recognizes that we have a mixed economy; it recognizes that we cannot go back to some primal existence that did not work in the 1920s and 1930s in terms of economics. If implemented, if acted upon by this government even before they face the electorate in the next election, what it would do for young Canadians, for old Canadians, for men and women who want to work is restore a sense of optimism and confidence about this country.
Canadians of my generation were lucky in the main. We grew up in prosperous times. For the most part we had things better than our parents, better than the young people coming on the labour market now. I, as leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, and all of my colleagues want desperately to create the possibilities for young Canadians that we had in our youth. That is why we are advocating the kind of policy that I have outlined tonight.
Because of these positive things that are not in the Speech from the Throne and which we think ought to be there, I should like to move an amendment to the motion proposed by the Leader of the Official Opposition. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and this House condemns the government for its lack of economic planning and an industrial strategy, as evidenced by its failure to make a commitment to stimulate economic growth by reducing the federal sales tax, by reducing personal income taxes on middle and lower income earners, and by embarking on a new program of public sector investment."


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The opening of the fourth session of the thirtieth legislature of Canada went rather smoothly compared to the big demonstrations of the past, and I am pleased about this. I think the

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
Canadian people in general prefer their elected representatives and their administrators to be less demonstrative and more efficient. Having said this, I want to congratulate Mr. Speaker for remaining in office, and I hope that under his guidance parliament will do an outstanding job and lead our country on the road to economic progress, harmony and social peace. I also want to congratulate the hon. member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel) who remains Deputy Speaker and the hon. members who will still act as deputy chairmen of the committees. I also wish to welcome the young women who will be pages in this chamber from now on. This is a good initiative, and I am pleased about it.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to note that the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) and leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada is absent for health reasons. All hon. members will certainly agree with me that the hon. member for Roberval who has been sitting in this House for 16 years is a glutton for work and that his contribution to the business of the House has always been marked by an objectivity and a sincerity worthy of a good Canadian.
You will certainly notice that I do not have the advantage of having behind me many hon. members to show on television how hardworking we are, as is often the case on the government side. However, I am not here to win applause, but I want to thank my hon. colleagues opposite and other hon. members who were kind enough to applaud me when I was invited to take the floor by the Chair. It is a mark of good fellowship. It also shows, I hope, that we are all working together in the best interests of the country. After all, Mr. Speaker, what is most important is to be here to fulfil my duties, to represent the people which sent me to parliament, to represent also the country as a whole, to speak on behalf of those who cannot come here to speak for themselves, that is the little people, the workers, the small businessmen, the small merchants, the farmers, the professionals, in other words, the entire population. So, let us forget about television for the moment and try to be efficient.
Mr. Speaker, I must heartily congratulate the sponsor and seconder of this motion who did their duty. I listened to their statements and I believe that the government should take heed of the suggestions put forward, especially with regard to the well-being of our families and senior citizens. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made similar remarks in his speech this afternoon. That means that we all wish for the well-being of our families, that we all want to ensure that our senior citizens have a well-deserved security and that it is up to parliament to guarantee them that security.
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne contains the same ideas so often expressed on such occasions. And it is a good thing, because so long as problems remain unsolved, they have to appear on the order of business of the Parliament of

Canada. To repeat the same things over and over again is not a bad thing; on the contrary, I think it is a good thing, since it is to show confidence in the principles that prompt individuals or political parties in the pursuit of their objectives. Does not God himself set the example by making the sun rise every morning? And when skies are grey, are we not sad because we cannot see it rise? So, why not imitate our Creator?
Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne stresses the problems caused by inflation, the resulting unemployment and Canadian unity which is going through a crisis which threatens the very existence of Canada. The majority party in the House, or at least its leaders, are aware of the seriousness of the situation, of the disorder in our economic system which brings about inflation and thus forces a great many workers into unemployment against their will.
Some will argue that some are wilfully unemployed and refuse to work. Let us say that these are exceptional cases. We must not generalize. Each week, people come and ask me to help them find a job. It is the same in our manpower centres, at any rate those in my area. Many workers go there and ask our employment officers to help them find work. In spite of their goodwill, those officers find it impossible to find a job for them.
Mr. Speaker, a wise judge has said at the hearing of an employment insurance case that you cannot expect anyone to look for something which does not exist. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that you cannot find a thing which is just not there and this is exactly what is happening now in our country as workers are looking for jobs which are not available. I have already said to the House that no good mother would send her jobless son, whom she is supporting, out to pick strawberries in October by threatening to starve him, if he does not. Everybody knows that strawberries don't grow in October. Even if the boy did try, surely he would not find any. These would be conditions impossible to meet.
A proverb says that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. By the same token, nobody will convince me that our whole work force has suddenly turned lazy. I heard that argument during the depression years, 1929-1939, and hon. members of my own age may recall such remarks about the unemployed. People who had jobs and financial security would somehow claim that if the unemployed and the poor were in that condition, it was all of their own doing.
Mr. Speaker, as it turned out, the opposite was true. As soon as the leaders of that time, who were puppets of big business and big financial interests, declared World War II, the unemployed who were supposed to be heartless loafers answering the call of the authorities, enlisted in the Canadian army or applied for jobs in ammunition plants, to supply the European war sites. Others answered the call as farm hands. As former chairman of an intensive production committee and as a good Canadian, I wished to take part in my country's war effort to save our freedoms, so I remember appealing to my fellow
October 12, 1978

countrymen for more production to feed our armed Forces, and ammunition plant workers. That call was met generously. Those so-called lazy people became model labourers, so much so that government officials boasted about our workmen's efficiency and outstanding performance both in factories and on the battlefields.
Mr. Speaker, the same causes will have the same effects. We are witnessing a flash-back to the dirty thirties and were it not for our Canadian social security programs, the current economic depression would have still more serious consequences than at that time, because prices are now higher and the cost of living has reached an all-time high. Some cabinet members are aware of that serious problem and have the courage to speak out. I am referring to the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), the hon. member for Saint-Michel, who is quoted as making a sensational statement in Langford Mills. Her comments were reported in Le Droit on May 29, 1978, and I quote:
Two million children live in families whose income is insufficient to meet their needs, stated Miss Monique Begin, Minister of National Health and Welfare, speaking over the weekend to the national council of the Young Men's Christian Association.
Miss Begin said that in the case of at least 600,000 workers' families, two-thirds of the income is spent on food, clothing and lodging-
-but what is left for the other things?
The share of income in the hands of our poor families has changed very little since the end of the Second World War, she said.
Yet, this afternoon, I heard statements that totally contradict the thoughts of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
This would lead us to believe that despite their good intentions, the most fortunate Canadians have found a way of pulling out of the recessions on the backs of the poor.
This afternoon, the right hon. Prime Minister said that his government would strive above all to have the neediest share in the great wealth of this country; I feel he is right and, on that score, I am of those who are ready to help him, because, indeed, where our poorest families are concerned, we often seek out in those families the persons who are the most devoted to society, who at times make a career of it in our society.
Miss Begin ended her speech on these words:
-our economic system must be changed to encourage and not discourage work. Our economic system serves millions of Canadians poorly.
Mr. Speaker, may I, in passing, congratulate the Minister of National Health and Welfare for introducing a measure to improve the lot of our neediest families through higher family allowances. Yet, I am one of those who are in favour of universal family allowances. I do not think that the wife of a doctor who earns $100,000 a year should be penalized by receiving lower allowances than the wife of a labourer, because in my opinion motherhood cannot be assessed in dollars. I feel
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
that we should have universal family allowances and those who earn higher incomes should automatically, as in the case of old age security, pay taxes and definitely reimburse the treasury.
Mr. Speaker, I must express my gratitude on behalf of the senior citizens who will receive an increased pension supplement of $20. I would also like to express the wish that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will introduce some amendment to the legislation providing the payment of a pension or a supplement to an individual who has not yet reached 65 years of age but whose spouse is 65 years old or over.
Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents are suffering as a result of that fact. Following the death of the older spouse, the survivor who has not yet reached 65 is no longer entitled to a pension. It is quite distressing. I think we should all agree in the House that when an individual has received that pension or a supplement, he should still get it even after the death of his spouse. I am convinced that Canada will not be on the verge of bankruptcy for that reason and the victims could thus avoid some very serious problems.
Mr. Speaker, all types of productive power can meet the needs of all human beings living on this planet. God would not be the Almighty Being of infinite wisdom in whom I believe with all my heart if He would allow more human beings to be born on this planet than there are goods to meet the material and intellectual needs of everyone. A good father would not do this, hence our Father in His infinite wisdom cannot let this happen. If there are thousands of people on our planet in dire poverty, it is not because of a shortage of goods, but rather because of the lack of adequate means of distribution and purchasing power.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that all will agree that during the last session both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) said that generally we must strive to raise the purchasing power of the entire population, of low wage earners, for the benefit of the whole country.
Mr. Speaker, in early September I was in Africa as a member of a delegation of the Canadian parliament. I attended all sittings of the commission I belonged to with other Canadian parliamentarians from whatever parliament they were members of. In the course of our proceedings I heard a member from Zaire deplore the fact that a lack of paper prevents his country from getting enough books printed to meet the needs of the population and this is why thousands of Zairians remain ignorant because they cannot learn how to read and write-two indispensable tools which enable each individual to get an education and learn what is going on around the world. Anyone can get an education with these two tools if he has the willpower and the desire to do his own investigations and to learn more. As a member of the Canadian parliamentary delegation I made myself a duty to intervene to demonstrate that men and not God are responsible for such a state of things. Zairians have no paper for printing books to

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
educate their people while in Canada, in my province, in my own riding of Bellechasse hundreds of wood producers have worked hard to cut wood and pile it on the public road for shipment to the paper mill and yet they are unable to sell it so it will be shipped to its destination. Paper mills are closing their doors in several communities of our country especially in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, that is an example of human foolishness. On the one hand workers have produced pulp for the production of newsprint or other products and they cannot sell it in order to get their reward for their toil. On the other hand there are nations which cannot get the necessary paper used to produce schoolbooks to ensure the education their citizens are entitled to get as human beings. This is only one example of a bed distribution of goods due to the stupidity of an economic system which is not motivated, or rather which is motivated solely by profit and not by distributive justice. On the American continent, our workers and our industries are faced with over-production, yet elsewhere on other continents, especially in Africa, people are doomed to starvation. Elowever, the situation is no longer what it used to be several centuries ago. The means of communications and transportation of products are very efficient and would be even more so if those who have the monopoly of finance allowed our factories and our plants to build ships, trucks, planes and produce them in sufficient number to ensure the distribution of the goods so produced thereby satisfying the essential needs of human beings throughout the world.
We have in Canada, and specifically in Quebec, shipyards which have been operating at a snail's pace for many months, and skilled workers who are laid off because of lack of contracts to build ships which could transport Canadian products throughout the world and improve our trade balance. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) has repeatedly stated in the House that important shipbuilding contracts had been authorized, so what are we waiting for to execute them, to give work to our employees, our workers, so as not to be caught by surprise by a world war which could happen any day, as was the case in 1939. If we let our shipyards-and what I am about to say is extremely serious-deteriorate because of lack of contracts, we will one day find ourselves in an embarrassing situation. I think that for the welfare of Canadian industry, the cabinet should do its utmost to maintain our shipyards in operation, because a shipyard must always be working to stay abreast and maintain its expertise, that is to stay up to date.
I hope the government will take the necessary steps to reassure the shipbuilding industry and realize that we should keep that industry afloat to keep our expertise in Canada. That is why I say our interests dictate that we build up a shipping industry, which will enable us to face any eventuality and meet our responsibilities as a member of NATO.

As far as economic incentives and the fight against inflation and unemployment are concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Speech from the Throne does not propose anything of any value unless I did not understand its full meaning. Are we to believe that the government no longer trusts its own programs, namely Canada Works, and could it be why the moneys previously earmarked for that program have been considerably reduced? I thought, Mr. Speaker, the aim of the program was to create jobs and make it possible for communities to carry out essential public projects.
Last Sunday, October 8, I attended the opening of a community centre at Saint-Nazaire, a town in my riding. The organizers of that project had applied for a grant under the Canada Works program, I had recommended the project to the minister and it had been accepted. On behalf of the people of Saint-Nazaire and my own, I thank the minister for the $48,000 grant which was provided for the completion of that project. To my great surprise, and I would like to call the attention of members of the cabinet to that fact, Mr. Speaker, although that centre cost $120,000, only $16,000 is still due, the difference between the $48,000 federal grant and $120,000 has been covered by the local residents who certainly deserve full credit. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard about voluntary work. In the case that I mentioned, I believe that there was voluntary action and that the people involved wanted to make a common effort to reach a certain objective.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the result of a good program when it is well applied, well administered and able to stimulate the economy. This is why I say that in view of the present economic difficulties, the government should increase the funds of the Canada Works program while being careful in selecting the projects submitted to prevent wasting public funds. It is always essential to have some control. But in the case that I have mentioned, I can assure you that I was happy to be able to help to inaugurate this community centre in a small town of 450 people. This is extraordinary. It is the proof that there are people who really want to survive and ensure the survival of their village.
1 also submit that it would be a good thing to review the implementation standards of this program so as to be able to help when need be in implementing a project which has gone through a first stage and which could survive if the public authorities made a small effort. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the employees of the Department of Employment cannot always understand the needs of the community and the objectives of a project, and on the basis of the standards which have been set, they are forced to apply the legislation and the regulations as they are told without taking into account the fact that life must go on and that, with a little help, a business can eventually provide work for the community and provide for essential needs which must be met at all levels.
October 12, 1978

I therefore wish, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the mayor of the municipality, Mr. Claude Lachance, a young man full of ambition and courage, along with all his colleagues and the residents who participated financially and through their voluntary services, again a good example for our youth. Mr. Speaker, you cannot put a price to such a thing as giving a good example to those who watch you, giving them the wish for a better life, giving them the courage to use their energy to participate with their follow citizens in the development of their environment. I believe that when such things occur, we must talk about them so that others may do the same.
Mir. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. I am convinced that if he asks for the unanimous consent of the House, he will be allowed to complete his remarks. Is there unanimous consent in the House to let the hon. member complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for your help in asking for consent on my behalf. 1 am thankful to you and also to all my colleagues for their generosity. Frankly, I would not want to abuse, I will try to be brief, but I still have a few ideas which I would like to express and which should help us all, I hope, to do something really worthwhile for our country.
In continuing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would not want to forget mentioning that in the interests of the Canadian people it is urgent that the government increase its help to small and medium businesses for they provide 60 per cent of all jobs in Canada. These businesses might go bankrupt by competition from large corporations and from multinational companies which unfortunately secure most of the government financial assistance. Mr. Speaker, it is an area on which I draw once again the attention of the government so proper care will be given to the distribution of government funds for industrial development so small and medium-sized businesses will have their share of the pie because those small and medium-sized businesses are operating mostly in rural areas and small villages while large corporations and large multinationals are working in large centres where they have all the economic advantages of transportation and communications they can hope for.
Mr. Speaker, small businesses are an important link in the Canadian economy. While serving the consumer they meet the needs of other small and large businesses. Although they cannot match the variety or volume of production of large businesses they still remain competitive from the point of view of prices, service, geographical location, presence in specific markets. According to the statistics, the number of small businesses in Canada varies between 800,000 and 900,000, about 90 per cent of all businesses. I, for one, attach a lot of
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
importance to these kinds of businesses which are sort of a rampart for the safeguard of private enterprise. That is why I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) that he give small businesses additional tax rebates to allow them to survive and run at full capacity.
As we were coming back from Africa, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I were exchanging points of view on what we had seen in those countries and what we had come to realize during the parliamentarians' conference. Then a colleague said that if we let farm producers produce what they can-and the same thing goes for the industrial sector-there would be no unsatisfied needs in the world and he said the problem was with means of distribution, not means of production. That colleague is a member of this parliament. I am sure he will support what I say when the time comes and take it upon himself to exert pressures so we can improve the system of distribution that could help solve a lot of problems.
Mr. Real Caouette, who was for many years the leader of my party and a member of this House-I refer to him with some emotion and everybody has recognized he was a great Canadian-explained often in this House the causes of that failure of our system in the distribution area in advocating measures like granting to the Bank of Canada more power to mint the nation's credit, the distribution of a national dividend to every Canadian, and a discount on Canadian products in order to increase the consumers' purchasing power and permit them to consume according to their needs to stimulate the economy of our country. I remember those words, and I am always faithful to that philosophy. That is why I recall his memory, and that is why I make a point of keeping in the same vein in order that we succeed in getting these changes we need.
As for what is contained in the Speech from the Throne about the Canadian constitution, Mr. Speaker, it is a general summary of what has often been stated by the Prime Minister. Again this afternoon we heard that policy, the statement of these principles, and I for one am glad to hear in the Speech from the Throne that another legislation will be introduced during this session as a replacement for Bill C-60 with some improvements I am anxious to know.
Mr. Speaker, I already have had the opportunity to express in the House my opinion on the serious matter during a debate on a motion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on July 6, 1977. At that time I was hoping that parliament would review the work of the Senate committee which was appointed in 1970 to undertake a comprehensive study of the whole issue and which presented its report on March 16, 1972. And I think that if the recommendations contained in that report had been followed since 1972 we would have made much progress and we would be close to reaching an agreement on a new constitution, a truly Canadian constitution made by Canadians for Canadians.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. A. Lambert
I hope that some day this will be achieved and that following the adoption of that new constitution by the provinces and the Canadian parliament it will be submitted to the approval of all Canadians by way of a referendum. Our country will be given a fifth constitution, but it will be the first time in our history that it will be subject to approval by the people and I think that after its adoption a copy of the constitution should be given to every Canadian who should be encouraged to consider it as a credo for Canadians and to live by it and I think it is only under this condition that we shall have harmony in our country.
I say that my party agreed with the constitution. During a national assembly every issue has been considered and we should clearly establish that we are in a Christian country. We should first establish our faith in God. We should establish the rights and obligations of the individual as a human being, the rights and responsibilities of the family, the basis of our society, the rights and responsibilities of provincial governments and the federal government. If all those responsibilities and rights were established clearly it would put an end to those useless discussions on the constitution and as Canadians of whatever ethnic origin we might work more and make every effort to build and develop our country further.
We are now divided. Each side tries to pull harder than the other and we do not progress too fast. Economic problems are increasing dissatisfaction is growing and this has given rise to a critical situation which is of great concern to me. As a Canadian citizen, Mr. Speaker, I would like all members of parliament as well as members of provincial legislatures and those who are interested in solving that problem, the leaders of intermediate bodies, to make their contribution and enable us to draw up a Canadian constitution of which every Canadian would be proud.
Mr. Speaker, if we want to live harmoniously in Canada, that is what we must do. Those are the views which I cherish very deeply and after travelling throughout the country and having taken the views of the residents of other provinces, when we speak as gentlemen and as Canadians we arrive at that conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that as long as the provinces will be forced to beg the federal treasury for revenues they will complain about the invasion of the federal government in areas which are under provincial jurisdiction, and that is the main cause of the division we are experiencing in this country. I would like to remind my colleagues of two very real experiences I lived, one in 1935 and the other in 1940, but I will talk about them on another occasion in order not to abuse the kindness of the House.
Mr. Speaker, as far as Canadian harmony is concerned, if we want to achieve our objectives, we will have to change- and I stress this-our system of financing the public sector, a burden which is becoming heavier every day, to wit the 78-79 budget whereby Canadians will have to pay $6.5 billion in

interests on the public debt, which is $1.65 million more than last year. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the national debt increases by $31 million each day, which is $11.5 billion over the current fiscal year. These are figures which Canadians must know and about which we should think very seriously. The government anticipates cuts in various areas but it fails to take the means to alleviate the burden of interests. Mr. Speaker, one of the way for the government to relieve the burden of debts and interests would be to amend the legislation on the Bank of Canada so that it be permitted to generate all the money supply the country needs. As it is, it generates only 8 per cent of it, 92 per cent being created by chartered banks. It should be the other way around.
Mr. Speaker, if the Bank of Canada is authorized to create 8 per cent of the money supply and if we use it with great confidence, why would it not be authorized to create 92 per cent of it? It is not normal that a public service as necessary as a monetary system be left into the hands of institutions whose first purpose is to make profits without considering the services and the primary function of a monetary system. Governments are at the mercy of those financial institutions, and I have here, Mr. Speaker, two copies of a magazine called Le Nouvel Informateur. I came across this publication by pure chance when 1 was on a plane coming back from Africa. This issue is very recent as it was published in September and it contains a description of the serious investigation made by a Frenchman, Philippe Simoneau, on the powers of bankers and how they use them. I invite my colleagues in the House to read it so that, when we consider the bill which was numbered 57 during the last session and which concerns the Bank Act revision, they will be able to contribute intelligently to the study of this bill and the amendments that will have to be made.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I would like to say that when we make such proposals there are always jokers to say that we want to implement a system of funny money in Canada. To these people I would like to ask if the tragic monetary system that we are now using is acceptable in view of the present results. Mr. Speaker, this does not shock me. The same things were said 38 years ago about the proposals of the Social Credit, and 1 would like to quote an editorial written by a man whom many people knew and who was the head of two important daily newspapers, Le Soleil of Quebec city and L'Action catholique, and who moreover is the father-in-law of Quebec Premier Rene Levesque. I am talking about Mr. Eugene L'Heureux. Here is what he said:
After ridiculing Social Credit like so many others, we are now able to look objectively at this monetary doctrine as we believe that it deserves to be studied in view of the present serious circumstances.
That was 40 years ago, but it is still true today, and I quote:
That is why we extend our heartfelt congratulations to those who take the trouble of investigating whether or not implementing certain Social Credit principles could help solve the ever-growing problems that classical economic schools of thought cannot resolve.
October 12, 1978

The situation has not changed today.
However, we think that one should think twice before totally rejecting this monetary doctrine without submitting it to a test as it is the only one so far that advocates a set of positive remedies to the problems brought about by the big financial interests that control the world.
It is quite possible that the solutions or part of the solutions suggested by the Socreds will prove inadequate. We hope that Social Credit opponents-who are just as convinced as we are that big money circles are responsible for the present crisis-will in their turn advocate systematic solutions and not only casual, inconsistent remedies devised only to poke fun at the Socreds.
Usually that is what they do, just for the fun of it. They cast aside our philosophy but they are not able to give us good reasons for it.
No one intelligent and honest really believes that the economic situation could go on worsening as has been the case for the last ten years without impunity and despite the bankers' optimistic hanky panky.
This afternoon the Prime Minister was quoting a banker, Mr. McLaughlin, who was just that type of optimist. Some hanky panky is pessimistic and indeed I read last year some books which were rather gloomy.
Let us hope that our fears will not be justified. But as much as the so-called utopian theories we fear the probable consequences of the lack of new ideas in the economic field and the passivity of our leaders.
As spectator interested in this human drama, neither for nor against social credit-
-he is objective, he does not suffer from tunnel vision.
-we admit that one can be against social credit-
So do I. Not just for the sake of it but as long as it is not a combat based on lies and derision. These accusations must be founded on something positive.
-on the condition that one comes up with something better to replace the social credit doctrine.
Clearly the world needs an economic revival.
It is the same thing today. I continue quoting:
-if social credit cannot provide the driving force let us propose a better medicine. We do not favour social credit all that much.
Neither do I and if some have better measures, let them bring them forward and I will support them.
It is time that the democratically elected people stop playing into the hands of high finance, directing all their efforts towards the consumption of means advocated by such and such group in order to insure their economic dictatorship.
And I will end now with these words:
This narrow negative work which could not serve better those who exploit the rest of the world probably holds in store nasty days for our society. We would like to stave off this tragic outcome.
And yet this was written 40 years ago!
We do not care whether social credit succeeds or not but the necessity, the urgency to do something to prevent monetary capital from prevailing over human capital cannot leave us indifferent.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with those words but I do not agree that government authorities should take more interest in and give more attention to the monetary capital which is soulless and lifeless, over the interest of human capital which repre-
The Address-Mr. Francis
sents life, which is the greatest wealth that God has given to mankind.
Mr. Speaker, once again I would like to thank my colleagues. I had a message to deliver and as spokesman for my party I had to deliver a more elaborate message, and I must thank my colleagues for understanding this important responsibility. I want to assure the House and all my colleagues of all my co-operation, because if there are more viable solutions to this debt problem, this situation where the dollar is overriding the importance of human capital, I am always ready to lend my support, even if that means working 24 hours a day.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate the members for York South (Mrs. Appolloni) and for Verdun (Mr. Savard) who delivered such good speeches yesterday afternoon in the House. I intend tonight to deal with some problems of government policy, especially as they concern the national capital region and the public service.

When I was a student at university, we talked about the hungry thirties, which were followed by the frightened forties and the fabulous fifties. But what happened to the economy of our country and the western world in the sixties and the early seventies surpassed everything for which we could have hoped. In this period things got out of line. As far as Canada is concerned, we are now suffering the consequences of the maladjustments which crept into our economy. Our wage rates became higher than those of our trading partners. Our productivity did not keep pace. We lived high on the hog and now Canada, along with other nations of the western world, has to make some very painful adjustments.
The economic medicine which is prescribed is not popular. It is not the kind of thing which enhances an elected government in a democratic society. As a member from the national capital region, I feel every day the consequences of the policy which was described in the Speech from the Throne- restraint-and I am sure members of every other party represented in this House do also.
This afternoon the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) very well pointed out that the room within the federal budget for reduction in government expenditures, a policy which seems to be generally accepted as the kind of medicine we must face now, can only be applied in very restricted areas of the federal budget. We cannot reduce the statutory commitment for old age security. We cannot reduce interest payments on federal debt. We cannot reduce the money that must be paid to the provinces to support the cost of hospital and health insurance and so on. However, in areas in which federal services are rendered, whether it is national defence, whether it is housing, whether it is the services of the Departments of National Health and Welfare or Public Works, the federal government can apply its economy measures.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Francis
Those of us who are representing areas very heavily populated by public servants have the responsibility of saying to the people we represent: "You must by the very facts of life reflect national decisions and the national will. As your representative, I will do my very best to see that the policies are applied as fairly as I know how, but I will not deceive you, nor will I say things which are in themselves all things to all people, avoiding the hard facts and the tough decisions that have to be made".
The government has proposed cuts that involve some 5,000 indicated positions in a federal service of 300,000. I say "indicated positions"; they are not all filled. It is hard to say, but perhaps 3,500 of those will involve positions that are actually filled and will probably be declared redundant in the process of the examination of which functions the government is no longer going to perform. I choose my words carefully here, Mr. Speaker. I say "of which functions the government is no longer going to perform".
I have received calls, as have other people, from long-term civil servants. As an example, I received a call from an employee of the department of health who has been working for many years on the hazards of asbestos dust to health and is being laid off. I have received calls from people who have served in the public works testing laboratory conducting experiments over a long period of time and are being laid off.
I look at my colleagues around me and know they can multiply the examples that can be cited. The policy of the government will be pursued through attrition as much as possible, and through transfers as much as possible, but there inevitably will be some positions declared redundant, in respect of which the incumbents will not be able to find employment in the public service itself.
The Public Service Commission has a priority program of reassigning, and every facility will be offered within the public service to see what kind of additional posts can be found. The problem here has been complicated by the government's policy of decentralization, a policy which was applauded by every other party in this House of Commons. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was elected officially by espousing decentralization. I remember the plea by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) of the NDP for more government services in his own backyard. Every party in this House has endorsed decentralization as an instrument of national unity. That has complicated the difficulty which public servants find now in searching for posts which are not filled and for which they would be qualified.
I note that the policy of decentralization by the Government of Canada has run into a snag which has very seriously delayed it. The province of Quebec has refused to guarantee the rights of the sons and daughters of public servants moved to that province to schooling in the language of their choice. The Government of Canada, through the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras), has said that public servants will not be moved if the government of that province is not

prepared to guarantee those rights. I note some members on the other side are laughing a bit about this. I personally find this a very serious and intense matter.
The first comment we have is this. The cuts in government expenditures which are part of the package of economic kmedicine will mean some layoffs, and this will hurt. We know that.
Another policy that is implicit in the medicine has regard to wage restraints in the public service. The Speech from the Throne says:
You will be asked to approve amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act to ensure that compensation in the federal public service remains in step with the private sector, and does not lead the way.
As the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon, this commitment came out of a federal-provincial conference of the heads of government in Canada, and at that conference, as the Leader of the Opposition so eloquently pointed out, the opposition parties were well represented by the heads of the provincial governments.
The commitment which was unanimously given to that conference and accepted was that there should be some kind of restraint in excessive wage demands in the public sector. As a result we had Bill C-28. In the form in which that bill was presented to this House 1 could not support it; nor could many of my colleagues on this side. A number of us worked during the summer, and we have made a number of suggestions. I cannot speak for others, but I will speak for myself. I believe the government will bring in a much better bill.
The bill as originally drafted would have given guidelines to arbitrators to bring down awards recognizing total compensation comparability. It did not talk about the option of conciliation, which is the second option available to staff associations in the public service. Adoption of Bill C-28 in the form in which it was presented to this House would, in my opinion, have forced every staff association to have chosen the strike route, and would have very seriously undermined arbitration, which most of us consider to be a more desirable way of settling disputes.
The bill had other defects. It did not recognize the inequality of pay for women which the private sector has very seriously embedded in it. The Human Rights Act would perhaps have overruled the original draft of those clauses in Bill C-28. Bill C-28 had a technical error in the assignment of duties to individuals as well as to positions.
When we talk about the private sector we must remember that there is not just a nice neat little package with the label on it "private sector". There are all kinds of employers in the private sector, good ones and bad ones. There are sweat shops and well paid positions. Which employers are you going to make the comparison with? And if the objective is comparison of the public service, it should be with more than the private sector. It should be a comparison with outside employment. For teachers that would mean the municipal school boards, and for our nurses it would mean municipal and provincially operated hospitals.
October 12, 1978

Those of us who have looked at the act feel that the legislation dealing with total compensation comparability has to be much more sophisticated. There are over 100 elements involved in pay. What is the monetary equivalent of the public servants' superannuation plan for the private sector in your comparison? Those of us who have looked at the act feel there has to be an agreement through the pay research bureau for a means of working out that kind of comparison in dollars and cents terms.
Therein lies the possibility of compromise and negotiation. If there is not agreement on the method of doing the calculations, there can be no agreement on anything else and the arbitrators will not get meaningful instructions. We say this kind of a package is acceptable in principle. We know there are some sections of the public service that are under-paid as well as some that are over-paid. In any organization with 300,000 men and women there are bound to be maladjustments, particularly if you are trying to make a rational standard of comparison in order to develop salary and wage scales that can be applied generally.
I feel confident that the new bill which is coming in will be a much more acceptable bill, a much more humane bill, and those of us who are supporting the government on this side are doing our very best to make it so.
I want to say something with regard to a problem in the national capital itself. The relocation of some offices across the river involved some difficulties which seems to have been worked out. Most of the public servants that I know are very pleased to have such excellent working conditions in the new structures. The difficulties of transportation, income tax deductions and parking have all been worked out. Parking problems are no worse there than in many other places. However, there are still problems that have resulted from this move concerning vacant office space in the national capital. This could have been avoided through better planning and anticipation. I am hoping that the municipalities will not suffer an abrupt loss in revenue they would have received otherwise by way of grants or in lieu of taxes, and that the government will see its way clear to some adjustments which the Minister of Finance in a conference meeting with the municipalities this spring so clearly promised.
On Monday there are going to be a few by-elections. There is going to be a by-election in the constituency of Ottawa Centre which is next to mine. At the reception last night a charming lady came up to me and said, "I hear there is going to be a by-election in your constituency." I assured her that I was still there and that that report was something like the report of Mark Twain's death, which was slightly exaggerated. However, the voters in the constituency of Ottawa Centre will have to make a choice on Monday.
Let us look at the position of the official opposition party in this House. Nobody could have put it more eloquently than the Prime Minister when he said: "The desire of the official opposition party is to do everything painlessly; 60,000 public
The Address-Mr. Francis
service jobs out of 300,000 are going to disappear and nobody is going to feel it." It reminds me of the old fable of the man with the sword who swung at somebody's head and the fellow said, "You missed", and he said, "No, just shake your head." The suggestion that this can be done by attrition is an insult of the intelligence of any student. The Government of Canada has indicated 5,000 positions will disappear. If it is difficult for hon. members on the other side to think that 5,000 positions will not be absorbed by attrition, how can they absorb 20,000 a year by attrition?
The Prime Minister pointed out that attrition occurs in the wrong places, that it does not come where you want it. The policy of the government was to determine that certain functions would no longer be performed which would then eliminate the jobs in those areas. The policy of the Tory party is to say through this magic word, attrition, so many people are going to retire and we are going to have a full freeze on hiring for three years. At the end of three years the public service will be just as efficient and all vacancies are going to be in the right places, the total payroll at the end of three years will be down by $1.2 billion, and public servants won't even feel it. I do not think that the public servants of this country are going to buy that for one minute.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I hear some members on the other side saying something about pensions in the government service. I know there has been a great deal said about the public service superannuation plan. I placed some questions on the order paper, and I received my answers just yesterday. In the public service superannuation account there is in excess of $9 billion as of March 31. The rate of interest is approximately 7.8 per cent and approaching 8 per cent. It is a weighted formula related to the interest rates on new borrowings.
The last time the Minister of Finance went to borrow money he paid 9.5 per cent for 20-year Government of Canada debentures. So the interest rate will still be rising. Over $700 million per year is coming in by way of interest payments, and the disbursements for basic pensions and escalation are scarcely more than half that, maybe $370 million. Out of this some people have made a disastrous scenario, but it has not been the professional people, the actuaries such as the Tomenson-Alex-ander firm which people were so worried about. They said that if we left the fund alone and did nothing it would exceed $40 billion by the turn of the century and if you did nothing with it eventually go over one trillion dollars.
The fund was set up with interest rate earnings of 4 per cent, and interest rates are now approaching twice that. The Conservative candidate in Ottawa Centre was "Mr. Conference Board" who led the attacks on the escalation of public service pensions, stating along with the national citizens coalition that they would wreck the country.
I understand that the Tory candidate said today in an open line program that he really approves of the escalation of pensions. Well, Mr. Speaker, he sure kept that a secret and managed to unveil it at the last minute, just before going to the

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Francis
polls on Monday in a civil service constituency. 1 raised the question with the voters, "Is this the man you want to represent you when it comes to negotiating on legislation affecting public service superannuation?" The Speech from the Throne said that it is coming, that we will have amendments to the Public Service Superannuation Act designed to ensure that public service pensions are in line with contributions.
I remember the statements of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that day in March when the President of the Treasury Board made his declaration on what government policy would be. He said at that time that there would be some changes, that the government was going to stop the nonsense of having everybody retire on December 31 to get their escalation, and that it was going slowly, in a year by year process, to raise the escalation from age 55 to 60, and every three years they would look at the fund to see how much money was in it. With a 9'A per cent interest rate in the last government bond issue, I am not worried about whether there will be enough money in the fund to pay for escalation.
I say to the people of Ottawa and to the public servants that the government put escalation according to cost of living on the books on a fully actuarially funded proposition, in a fund that is basically so over-funded that it is almost scandalous, rising at a rate of over one billion dollars a year. There is protection for the retired pubic servant to ensure that the cost of living will not slowly steal a little bit each year from the pension that he or she has to live on. I am proud to be a member of the party that legislated this.
I said that there was a choice the voters would have to make, and it is a very significant choice. I invite them to consider the issue of the cost of pensions. They say that there is a third choice, another candidate for the New Democratic Party in that riding. The program which that party is putting forward is one where they are also promising everything painlessly. They do not accept the analysis of our economy and/or the economic medicine that we prescribe.
The weakness of the New Democratic Party is its lack of discipline. I remember the last time we had a Post Office strike-Lord forbid that we have another like it. At that time the Liberal candidate for Ottawa Centre was the postmaster general. I remember the debate in which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) got up and said of the postal workers' demand for a 40 per cent wage increase that they should get it. There was not one word of criticism in that debate of anything that the union asked for. I can remember when Joe Davidson said that the public be damned if the union did not get what they wanted. I can remember Joe Davidson coming before the committee of the House of Commons which was looking at the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act and saying that our postal rate should be 25 cents a letter.
It was a joint committee which included the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I am sure that he can confirm that what I said happened. Nobody from his party said one word of criticism. Nobody. If we have a problem with comparability today in the public service, if we have some areas that

are out of line, if we have some very aggressive unions abusing the right to strike-and I say that if post office workers go on strike again they are abusing the right to strike, testing the public and elected representatives-then the members of that party have some responsibility for the encouragement they have given, their failure to condemn and their failure to be responsible in the position they took. Again I say to the people who are going to have to vote-


An hon. Member:: It is true the employer is pretty good there.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am not defending everything as being perfect on one side or the other. I am saying we have a tough proposition before us and the people are going to have to make a choice. If we are facing a policy of restraint, if we are facing a policy of some rates of pay being out of line, then we must ask why it happened and who the people are who encouraged it to happen.
The Public Service of Canada is crying for certain things to be done. The public service will serve the public. They know they must respond to a national will. They ask that they be recognized when they do a job well. They ask that they have the dignity they feel they should possess as human beings because they do a job with pride and with decency. They are embarrassed when there is waste; they are embarrassed when things are not right. They want the Public Service Staff Relations Act amended, and amended in a humane way. They are going to remember who it was put collective bargaining on the books in the first instance.
I submit that the amendments this House will finally carry will be more in the spirit of the original legislation than in the spirit of Bill C-28. Public servants are going to remember that the Public Service Employment Act also calls for substantial revision. They will await the report of the D'Avignon special committee of inquiry, on which there is not only Mr. D'Avignon as chairman but Mr. Davidge representing the employees and Mr. Bruce Brittain representing the employer. They are going to remember that this government enacted legislation according the full cost of living escalation to their pensions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: After 25 years of prodding!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says "after 25 years of prodding." I give him full marks for his consistent interest in this area, but he has never had responsibility for government or responsibility for applying tough economic medicine such as the government has to do now. The same is true not only in our country but in many other countries of the world. It is going to fall heavily on those of us who have the responsibility to be speaking for the national capital and the public service at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 12, 1978


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that generous applause, which I know is heartfelt and appropriate under all circumstances. I want to spend the few moments I have this evening addressing some remarks to the Speech from the Throne specifically and to look at some of the reasons we are back in parliament rather unexpectedly.
Before doing that, however, I want to extend to the mover, the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni), and to the seconder my sincere congratulations for the manner in which they carried out this very traditional and important function. The hon. member for York South spoke with great ability, perception and grace. She had a most difficult function, defending the indefensible, and I give her full marks for the way in which she presented her speech and attempted to carry out this almost impossible task.
Today is what is known colloquially as leaders' day. This afternoon and this evening I have been contemplating what the effect might be on someone who came into this chamber, as they might, to observe the speeches made this afternoon, particularly as far as the two main speakers were concerned. I think it is fair to say, and I believe most members would agree, that if any person who was disinterested in the affairs of this House had come into the chamber this afternoon, he would have been under the impression that the Prime Minister was the person sitting directly in front of me-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in actual fact-because he spent his whole time charting the course of action as he saw it that had to be taken regarding the important issues in the country at this time.
What did we have from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? We had a speech that could only be assessed as a scandalous personal attack on the very constructive suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition. It was the kind of attack that might be considered appropriate for an opposition leader, but the tone was set by the Prime Minister for the way in which this government is going to look at things in this session. The Prime Minister came forward carping and criticizing what I consider to be the very responsible and constructive suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition.
If this is the kind of atmosphere that the so-called leader of our country is going to create in this institution, what kind of progress will we make in the days and weeks ahead? I have to commend my leader for the way in which he conducted himself at a time when we have no business being in this parliament, a time when we should at last be going to the people for a new mandate, for a new government.
I want to point out to hon. members opposite that a provincial election is taking place in Saskatchewan right now. Maybe the Prime Minister should observe what is going on there. The premier, who was embattled and felt considerable pressure with respect to his office, started his campaign with a serious and uncalled for attack on the leader of the Conservative party in that province. I anticipate as a result of this uncalled for and unsubstantiated attack that in Saskatchewan after October 18 another will be added to the ever-growing list of
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Conservative governments. There will be seven after October 18.
I want to consider why we are here, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister spoke today of leadership and the kind of qualities he thought, in all modesty, that he could present to this country. He has given us examples of that kind of leadership over the last few months. We have no business being here now. There is nothing in the Speech from the Throne that warrants this government continuing in office. Can anyone in this House seriously suggest that there is anything of substance in the Speech from the Throne that will deal with the issues in the country at the present time? Are any new initiatives of any consequence being taken by this government with respect to the economy? Are there any suggestions with respect to the great so-called issue of national unity in our country?
It is simply a rehash, sir, of helter skelter announcements made by the Prime Minister over the course of the last few months without consultation with members of his cabinet. Unilaterally, as is his custom, he came forward with suggestions he thought would be politically appealing at this time. Quite frankly, in my estimation these suggestions were ones that he felt were necessary in order to save his political scalp.
I was elected in 1974, along with the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott). Those of us who were elected in 1974 may be people who are going to make history because of the fact that we may be in this parliament a sufficient number of years to qualify for a pension. The kind of leadership we have from this Prime Minister is the pre-empting of programs on national television. He has done this on two or three occasions. On each occasion the great announcement for the Canadian people who have been waiting for this television appearance is: "I am sorry, but I am the leader of the country and there will be no election".
I am reminded that over the course of the summer the Prime Minister went to Bonn for the summit meeting, along with other leaders of western countries. I could only come to the conclusion that while he was there he must have done some good. 1 think what he did for Canada was possibly sell his now patented speech to Mr. Callaghan, who gave a similar speech in England not too many weeks ago. The only accord that I have seen come out of the Bonn summit is to say that those who were involved in the deliberations possibly agreed that there would be no more elections.
Let us remember the Prime Minister has a basic contempt for this institution to the extent that he rarely, if ever, participates in the debates in this House. In fact during the time I have been here he has only been seen in debate on one occasion each year, and that is on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne debate. That is the way in which he regards the institution of parliament. That is the way this Prime Minister feels about obtaining advice from members of his own party, or indeed members of the opposition representing, as we do, every region and part of Canada.

October 12, 1978
The Address-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Undoubtedly members on his side of the House will be quick to point out that he comes in during the question period with his idea of answers to questions. But he is really setting a precedent as far as prime ministers are concerned, in terms of our parliamentary history, by the way in which he ignores and disregards this House. He does not participate in debates. He ignores members on his side, refusing as he does to take advice from them respecting the issues of the day.
It is no secret, and I know members on the other side will agree, that the Prime Minister is seeking less and less advice from caucus. Indeed, long ago he stopped taking advice from his cabinet. He has surrounded himself, and continues to do so, with a small clique of advisers in the Prime Minister's office. This is the ruling class in Canada today. This is the kind of participatory democracy we now have in Canada, participatory democracy, as we all recall, being promised by the Prime Minister at the time he started out in politics and at the time he started out as Prime Minister. Members on the government side know full well that if they want anything done, if they have anything to say or anything to ask for, they have to get permission and clearance and go through this clique of advisers to the Prime Minister.
I hope to demonstrate in the course of my remarks that the Prime Minister is withdrawing more and more from the traditional parliamentary system and proceeding into a system more akin to a presidential system, one where his word, and his word alone, his opinion and his opinion alone, are given consideration. The cabinet and his own parliamentary group are mere appendages to suit the convenience of the "philosopher king". 1 say "philosopher king" with the emphasis on the "king". The leadership given by this Prime Minister is the leadership of fear-fear of facing the electorate. That is the kind of leadership we have experienced. Notwithstanding his histrionics and rhetoric today and his attack on the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition, one thing that has marked his particular time in office is that which demonstrates he is very wary and reluctant to face the electorate.
We are here for the purpose ostensibly of dealing with some of the great problems that we have. We are now faced with a Prime Minister who is more concerned with his own survival than he is with the real needs of our country. I say that more out of a sense of chagrin than a sense of criticism. If this Prime Minister really had the interests of Canada in his heart he would go to the people.
What we need now is not short-term policies put forward, of whatever type, but a fresh government with a fresh mandate. Anyone who has any concept of planning the economy and as well national unity would understand that a fresh government of whatever stripe after an election would have at least four years within which to put in reasoned and planned policies and programs that would be instituted over a period of time. Difficult decisions could be made because there would be a new mandate for the new government.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to rise. Therefore may I call it ten o'clock and continue my remarks tomorrow?



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

Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) during question period today. I think it is important that all members of the public know where their political representatives stand on issues as important as unemployment insurance. I was somewhat reassured by the minister's reply. However, he did not address himself to that part of my question in which 1 asked for the tabling of any correspondence between the provincial premiers and himself. I want to have that information tabled, if it exists, in the interests of providing to Canadians the positions of the premiers.
It is well known that at the first ministers' conference last winter the premiers approached the conference with a very tough stand against increased government expenditure. It was a stand for cutting the fat and cutting back on employment by government, etc. I am not criticizing that stand at all, Mr. Speaker; there are obvious areas where cutbacks can and should be made. However, this is the time of elections in some parts of the country. The Tory premier of New Brunswick does not have much of a record of his own to run on, and to date he has been running on federal issues, issues which he does not seem to know much about. He forgets that over half of the money his government spends comes from the federal government. He did not talk about that during the campaign. He talked about false issues. From what was said by that government's representative at the conference with the Minister of Employment and Immigration yesterday, he does not know what the proposals with regard to unemployment insurance are all about.
The principle of unemployment insurance is extremely important. It is a principle to which this government is and must remain firmly committed. Other principles are involved which must not be violated. One of these is relatively new. In fact, it is only about 18 months since the principle of variation of benefits and, more particularly, qualifying periods in the Unemployment Insurance Act was brought in. Those regional variations must remain. In fact, there should be more of them. We must not carry on with this fetish that everything must be the same in all parts of the country, because the same conditions do not exist at any given time in all parts of the country. Therefore, we must protect and enhance the idea of regional variations. There are many changes that could be made in the Unemployment Insurance Act without reducing benefits to those who really need them.
October 12, 1978

There is something which must be said, and it cannot be emphasized too much. There are some abuses of the unemployment insurance scheme. However, all of those abuses are blamed on the employees. In many cases, the employer is as guilty as the employee. An employer too cowardly to write on a separation slip that an employee left without cause or was fired without cause is as guilty of ripping off the unemployment insurance scheme as the employee who takes the money.
I see no difference in the situation. However, it is always the employee who is villified by the critics of unemployment insurance.
One change that could be made in the program would be to write into the act very tough penalties for employers who falsify separation certificates. That would take away some of the stigma from those who, through no fault of their own, receive unemployment insurance benefits, benefits to which they have contributed.
This is not a welfare scheme as many people seem to think. No doubt there are those who try to use it as a welfare scheme, but it is not that. Those who draw unemployment insurance benefits have paid into the scheme for the benefits they are receiving. I do not pretend that they pay premiums equivalent to the benefits they receive. Many people pay premiums all their working lives and never receive any benefit except the termination benefit when they retire. It is important to remember that this is an insurance scheme.
It is essential that the information I asked for earlier today be made public so that people will know where their political representatives stand. Certain premiers could not then raise false issues, taking one stand at a conference at Ottawa and then taking the exactly opposite stand in their province because it is convenient to do so during an election campaign.


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in this afternoon's question period the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) asked whether, in view of yesterday's
Adjournment Debate
press reports, the minister could confirm that all provincial premiers are opposed to changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act. I take it that the hon. member was referring to provincial ministers with manpower responsibilities because these press reports related to a federal-provincial conference which took place yesterday in Ottawa dealing with proposed changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am not aware that the subject of changes to the unemployment insurance program has been raised at the prime ministerial level in any of the provinces. I happened to be at the federal-provincial conference which took place yesterday, so I can assure the hon. member that I am in a position to set the record straight.
It is fair to say that there was a frank and open discussion about the changes which are being proposed and, as the minister himself indicated in the House earlier today, there was support for the notion that the unemployment insurance program must be tightened up in view of its tremendous cost and its disincentive effect. There was dispute about how this ought to be done, but no proposals made by provincial ministers were offered which, in our view, would have had any different results. No matter what you do, when changes are made to restrict the unemployment insurance program, inevitably you are going to impact on people. I can confirm that the minister gave a clear undertaking that he was willing to consider a softening of the proposal having to do with repeaters in order to take account of the severity of unemployment in particular regions. The minister has not yet worked out the details of this, but he was very sympathetic to the views collectively expressed by the ministers present at the conference.
In so far as any correspondence is concerned, I do not know what the hon. member is referring to. If he can clarify that for me, I will undertake to discuss it with the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.10 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, October 13, 1978